Sitting of 22 July 2004

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

    Climate Change
    Mr. Graham Allen: If she will make a statement on progress in arresting climate change. [185741]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Deep cuts in global carbon dioxide emissions are needed to avoid dangerous climate change. Our energy White Paper shows the way and the degree of ambition that industrialised countries need to show. The Kyoto protocol will provide the incentive for others to start down the same path.
    Mr. Allen: I know that my right hon. Friend is far too busy to watch much television, but the other evening she might have caught Jeremy Clarkson's programme about air travel in which he mentioned that when air traffic movements were suspended for three days following the 9/11; disaster, the temperature in the atmosphere fell by 1°, and it went back up by 1° when air traffic resumed. Will she do everything she can to ensure that aircraft emissions become part of the trading arrangements that are being negotiated at European level, and thus tackle a difficult and long-term problem?
    Margaret Beckett: I sometimes watch Jeremy Clarkson's programmes, but I missed that one, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the information. I assure him that although aviation emissions are not currently included in any of the responsibilities that countries undertake, because there has been no opportunity to discuss how they could be allocated fairly, there is considerable discussion about how we in Europe might put aviation emissions into the emissions trading scheme, say, from 2008. Not only the UK but many European Union member states take a keen interest in such a proposal.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Secretary of State discuss with colleagues in the United States, India and China what they are doing to cut emissions that are greatly polluting the atmosphere?
    Margaret Beckett: I have had discussions with people in all those countries. The hon. Gentleman might know
    466
    that a great many interesting proposals have been made by some of the states of the United States that are major emitters. Several of America's states are among the world's top 10 emitters as individual states and they are considering trading schemes, which they wish to make compatible with the EU's. Like many people in other parts of the world, they are also looking at standards for vehicle emissions and so on.
    Similar discussions are taking place in India and China. The hon. Gentleman might know that China has been quite successful in ensuring that its emissions increase at a much slower rate than its economy grows. Although in the long term China wants its economic capacity to quadruple, its goal is to ensure that its emissions only double during the same period. Of course emissions growth remains a concern, but that is an indication of the extent to which China understands the issues and is beginning to take responsibility for what happens in its own country.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how to realise the huge potential of tidal power in an island nation such as ours? Especially, will they discuss the DTI providing some funding for an exciting pilot scheme that could take place in Swansea bay in the very near future?
    Margaret Beckett: Given the years of experience that we in this House share of proposals for Cardiff bay, I am a little nervous about suggestions for Swansea bay. However, I take my hon. Friend's point and assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I often discuss such issues. She shares my regret that the UK has not invested more in research into and exploitation of the potential of tidal power. The Government are looking closely at the matter.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has shown enthusiasm and commitment to a UK biofuels industry; sadly, however, the Treasury, the Department for Transport and the Department for Trade and Industry do not seem to share that enthusiasm and commitment. When will the Government get their act together, and when will we see the beginnings of a proper bioethanol and biodiesel industry in this country based on UK-produced crops?
    Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to my Treasury and DTI colleagues: they take precisely the interest in biofuels and their potential that he wants them to. There has been a certain amount of dispute between the Treasury and the industry over how great an incentive is needed to stimulate UK production but not suck in imports. However, there is no dispute about the fact that the industry and the Treasury both want a domestic industry to be stimulated and to flourish and neither wants to suck in imports. The only dispute is about how, technically, to achieve that.
    I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman noticed that, not so long ago, the Chancellor announced capital allocation programmes. Through fiscal and economic

    467
    incentives my right hon. Friend has done quite a lot to stimulate the right behaviour in respect of fuels generally, and he takes the issues seriously.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that she is to approach the European Commission for a hybrid solution to the implementation of the large combustion plants directive. On the question of carbon dioxide, will she say what she is doing, with the DTI, to press for more investment in clean coal technology? If we are to tackle CO2 emissions, especially in China and India, we need to be able to transfer new clean coal technology to those countries so that we can effect a reduction in CO2 emissions.
    Margaret Beckett: The Government's approach to the Commission about the potential for a hybrid approach to the large combustion plants directive has been a joint one. There have been joint discussions and joint decisions by the DTI and ourselves because we both share the view that there should be a degree of beneficial flexibility. Although I entirely understand and take the point that my hon. Friend makes about clean coal technology, and not least the potential for that technology in China and India, where there are large resources of coal and a considerable need for energy supply, that is more specifically a matter for the DTI. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services share my hon. Friend's interest and concern in and for this subject.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Will the Secretary of State confirm that when the last Conservative Government left office in 1997, carbon dioxide emissions in Britain were falling, and that after seven years of a Labour Government these emissions are rising? Against that background, how long will it be before the Government have to abandon their target of reducing emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010?
    Margaret Beckett: First, there is no question of the Government abandoning our domestic target. Secondly, we have already not just met but exceeded our Kyoto target. Unfortunately, we have seen some fluctuations in CO2 emissions, specifically over the past couple of years, as a result of continued economic growth as well as the implications of fluctuations in fuel prices. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he is right that there were some successes under the Conservative Government. Those successes resulted in their flattening the economy.
    Mr. Peter Pike: I want to press my right hon. Friend, who has obviously been committed 100 per cent. to these issues for many years, on the issues facing countries such as India, Pakistan and China, to which she referred. Obviously, we want to see their economies grow, but it is essential that they do so in a way that is environmentally friendly and does not cancel out what we and other developed countries are doing. Will my right hon. Friend say more about how she sees progress in that direction?
    Margaret Beckett: Anyone who studies this subject is extremely conscious of how much needs to be done at a global level to reduce emissions to mitigate the most potentially damaging effects of climate change. Equally, however, I think that everyone who is close to the subject is conscious that, quite rightly, the approach that the international community has adopted is, to use the jargon phrase, one of common but differentiated responsibility. In other words, the developed countries that are most responsible at present for increased emissions have the greatest capacity to tackle the increase in emissions and should be the first to demonstrate that emissions can be reduced. One of the things that we are engaged in with our European colleagues is a determination to ensure that developed countries show the way forward. For example, our economy has grown by about 36 or 37 per cent. while our emissions have fallen by about 15 per cent. We have shown that emissions can be cut without sacrificing growth in the economy. We and others need to demonstrate that so that we can show to some of the poorest countries in the world that they can have increased prosperity for their peoples without ruining the planet.
    Norman Baker: Has the Secretary of State seen the official statistics that were released today after being suppressed in May showing that there has been a 47 per cent. increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector since 1990, although there has been a 10 per cent. decrease overall? This week, her colleague, the Secretary of State for Transport, projected a further 10 per cent. increase in carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector by 2010. Is she content with that record, and is it not pointless her Department saying the right things and making the odd cut here and there if the Department for Transport is out of control? When will she put the brakes on that Department?
    Margaret Beckett: I have not seen that report nor, indeed, am I aware of any report being suppressed.
    The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): It is on the website.
    Margaret Beckett: If that is the case, it is not a very good way to suppress something.
    On the general point about the Department for Transport, the hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that it is now associated with the public spending targets that my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry share for the reduction in emissions.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: To get the historical facts right, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the late 1980s and '90s the all-party group on coalfield communities considered the question of emissions and called for clean fuel technology. A pilot project was set up at Grimethorpe, and not only did the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) fail to tell the House that the Tories closed the pits but he did not reveal that they closed that clean fuel technology plant. No wonder the miners were brassed off.
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I well recall that at the time many people were concerned that the then Government were prepared to abandon a technology that clearly had considerable potential for the future.

    Badgers
    Mr. Anthony Steen: If she will propose legislation to remove badgers' protected status. [185743]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): No.
    Mr. Steen: Does the Minister not accept that badgers are vermin and have no known predators? Disease is thus rampant and spreading throughout the south-west, inflicting enormous damage and losses on herds. Does he not agree that farmers are now less protected than badgers, and that the Government appear not to care less?
    Mr. Bradshaw: No, I do not accept that. The latest figures for Devon, the south-west and the country as a whole are slightly down on last year. The difficulty that the Government face—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands, as he is a reasonable man—is that there is an absence of scientific evidence that a particular badger culling policy would help to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. No Government would make a decision to go ahead on that basis, as was recently stated in a report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is chaired by his right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: As my hon. Friend will know, all badger carcases on British roads are removed as soon as possible and taken away for analysis. Does he have figures showing what percentage of those carcases in fact have TB? Is the incidence of the disease higher in certain areas of the country, and has progress been made on a vaccine so that we can at least vaccinate the animals rather than eradicate them?
    Mr. Bradshaw: We very much want to make progress on vaccination for badgers and, indeed, cattle. I have recently expressed a wish to progress scoping studies on both areas as quickly as possible, but I must tell my hon. Friend and the House that successful vaccination for both animals is probably some time away. We hope soon to have a more reliable live test for badgers, which might help if a badger culling policy were adopted at some stage. As for the road traffic accident survey, yes, there are variations across the country, as one would expect, with a higher level of TB in badgers in areas where there is also a greater prevalence of TB in cattle. I do not have the latest figures to hand, but I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the Library of the House so that hon. Members can see them.
    Bob Spink: Is the Minister aware that Castle Point has one of the largest urban badger populations in the country? Of course, they can cause
    470
    havoc, especially to domestic property, but nevertheless the current systems for managing badgers work well. The badger is one of the most wonderful British wild animals, and we must continue to protect it.
    Mr. Bradshaw: That was a statement, rather than a question, but I note the position taken by the hon. Gentleman. I know that he has had some interesting badger issues as a local constituency MP, which I think he will acknowledge have divided his constituents and divided residents of the streets where the badgers have been causing problems. There is no simple answer to the question.
    Mr. David Drew: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the only answer is to go back to the science. The recent report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee made some recommendations, which we hope the Government can respond to. We cannot ignore the fact that bovine TB is present not only in cattle and badgers, but in a number of other species, particularly the deer population, so we must take the right action, rather than precipitate action. Will my hon. Friend comment on the measures that the Government propose with regard to the problem with the deer population?
    Mr. Bradshaw: We have already undertaken some research into the deer population. The interaction between deer and cattle and between badgers and cattle is rather different and of a different degree. I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and other members of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Fylde for their excellent and balanced report, most—if not all—of whose recommendations the Government accept and intend to progress as rapidly as we can.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: While anyone brought up on "Wind in the Willows" or who has watched badgers at play knows that they are delightful animals, there is a pretty clear case that they are causing a great deal of trouble to our farmers. Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say about putting them on the pill?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Well, there is a certain amount of research from this country, and from other countries such as New Zealand that have had problems with possums, on the potential for oral contraception or sterilisation. I am afraid we have not yet reached the stage where a reliable or effective method has been found, but I am sure that many people, not least those who would like to get rid of grey squirrels, await such a contraceptive or sterilisation pill with great expectation.

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What assessment she has made of progress towards carbon dioxide emission reduction targets. [185745]
    Mr. David Amess: What progress has been made towards meeting the Kyoto carbon dioxide target. [185750]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The UK remains on course to achieve its Kyoto target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. Provisional estimates suggest that greenhouse gas emissions in 2003 were about 14 per cent. below the baseline. The Government have a separate goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. Emissions of carbon dioxide for 2003 are provisionally estimated to be about 7 per cent. lower than in 1990.
    Mr. Blizzard: Is it not the case, though, that based on the Government's own recently published energy and emissions projections, even if we meet the difficult 20 per cent. renewables target and implement all our energy efficiency policies, the 60 per cent. CO2 reduction target for 2050 will go off course in 2010 and will not be achieved? Should we not be looking at carbon capture and storage technology now, so that we can bridge that emissions gap and maintain security of supply? The only other option would be the nuclear option.
    Margaret Beckett: I do not entirely accept my hon. Friend's analysis because, although I take his point that the 60 per cent. target is a challenging one, there are a number of trajectories that one could follow to reach it. There has always been a discussion about whether we ought to try to pursue a straight line path, or whether there is merit in back-end loading as, for example, the newer technologies become available, recognising that we may be able to make greater moves at a later date than we can at present. However, my hon. Friend is right that there is considerable interest in carbon abatement technology. A great deal of thought and study is going into it and I anticipate that we shall hear more of it in the not too distant future.
    Mr. Amess: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, apart from helping to eliminate fuel poverty, has made a considerable contribution to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions? Given the fact that, according to DEFRA's figures, those emissions have been going up since 1997, does she believe that the targets will be reached by 2010?
    Margaret Beckett: In fact, the trend since 1997 has been downwards, although in the past couple of years there has been the fluctuation that I mentioned. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that attacking fuel poverty is the right course in itself. It also makes a considerable contribution to reducing emissions. I am sure that he knows, because he takes a great interest in such issues, that we are reviewing the effectiveness of the previous fuel poverty, or warm front, programmes and intend to produce proposals in a few months' time. I expect that he has also noticed that, thanks to the Chancellor's spending review, substantial extra resources have been allocated to tackling fuel poverty. We are hoping to publish an implementation plan for the new funding and the new proposals later in the year.
    Richard Ottaway: Does the Secretary of State recognise that Conservative Members were encouraged when, 18 months ago, her ministerial
    472
    colleague announced the energy efficiency target of a 5 million tonne reduction in carbon emissions? That figure was confirmed by the Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency, Lord Whitty. Industry was more than satisfied when the Chancellor, no less, endorsed the 5 million tonne target. The final seal of approval was put on it by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry only three months ago. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain why, after all this spin and hype, she has announced a target that is significantly lower? Does not that send completely the wrong signals to industry and to everyone who is trying to cope with the situation?
    Margaret Beckett: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman reaches that view, but I assure him that he is mistaken. The figure of 5 million tonnes was very much an illustrative figure in the energy White Paper. It was never intended to be a goal or a target, but an initial indication of what was then thought might be possible—[Interruption.] Yes, I am conscious of the document that the hon. Gentleman indicates. Since the energy White Paper was produced, a great deal more detailed analysis has been carried out. That led us to conclude that 5 million is not a realistic figure, but 4.2 million would be. However, that is certainly not the wrong signal to be sending to business. The hon. Gentleman must have noticed that through the energy efficiency plan, we plan to make more savings as a result of energy efficiency than under the previous proposals. On the basis of that further, more detailed analysis, we think that although we may not be able to make quite as much of a saving from the domestic sector, we can make more of a saving from the business sector.

    Illegal Dumping (Dee Estuary)
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on illegal dumping in the Dee estuary. [185746]
    The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Responsibility for controlling the deposit of materials within the Dee estuary is split between the Department in English territorial waters and the National Assembly in the waters adjacent to Wales.
    I am not aware of any illegal disposal of materials anywhere within the Dee estuary prior to devolution, nor of any subsequently within the English sector of the estuary. In 2001, there was a prosecution for the illegal dumping of dredgings in the Welsh sector.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, to the best of my knowledge, two companies were fined for illegally dumping tens of thousands of tonnes of sand in Mostyn deep? Is he equally aware that the effects on that vastly important and ecologically fragile site are incalculable? Does he make any connection between that and the current application to dredge, and what proposals does he have for preventing its happening in future?
    Mr. Morley: I assure my hon. Friend that we in this Department take our environmental duties very seriously and that we work in close conjunction with the Welsh Assembly. The prosecutions were brought by

    473
    DEFRA lawyers, and DEFRA technical staff have been giving advice on dredging in the Mostyn area and on the disposal of dredgings. As my hon. Friend says, it is a very sensitive environmental site, and it has to be protected with proper regulation. Of course, we will have no hesitation in taking appropriate action if people break the rules.
    Richard Ottaway: Does the Minister agree that illegal dumping in the Dee estuary would be reduced if the legal disposal of waste was encouraged and made easier for the public? That means more resources. Under the circumstances, is he aware that the Gershon review, which was adopted by the Treasury only last week, announced a £300 million cut in waste services. What impact will that have on dumping on the Dee estuary? Is not that simply code for sacking dustmen and closing tips? Where will a third of a billion pounds of cuts in waste services fall?
    Mr. Morley: That appears a bit bizarre given that the Conservative party made a big thing about rooting out waste and becoming more efficient in spending money. The Gershon inquiry is examining ways in which to achieve the same and even better service delivery by reducing cost. Gershon pointed out that there are considerable potential savings, for example, in procurement, in the regional approach to waste management. The Conservative party appears to want to waste money rather than use it efficiently to improve service delivery, which is our commitment.

    Fisheries
    Mr. Michael Weir: What recent discussions she has had with the Fisheries Ministers of (a) Norway, (b) Iceland and (c) the Faroes. [185747]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I discussed fisheries issues with Nordic ambassadors last month and I hope to visit Norway, Iceland and the Faroes soon. All three were represented at this week's annual conference of the International Whaling Commission at which, on behalf of the United Kingdom, I strongly criticised their support for the resumption of commercial whaling.
    Mr. Weir: Has the Under-Secretary discussed fishing issues in his meetings with those Ministers? The common fisheries policy meant a management regime that is unacceptable to most fishing communities, yet the Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese have all created more environmentally friendly and sustainable fishery management regimes, especially through the inclusion of fishermen, community leaders and other stakeholders. Does he believe that the European constitution's inclusion of article 12, which establishes exclusive EU competence, gives any scope for the development of such a scheme in Scotland, or is there to be even more centralisation and destruction of our industry?
    Mr. Bradshaw: It is wrong to suggest that the proposed constitution changes the competence on fisheries in the European Union. I am aware of the hon.
    474
    Gentleman's support for withdrawal from the EU. It did not do his party much good in the recent European elections in Scotland, where its vote dropped substantially. However, we are keen to learn from best practice in other countries, as the Prime Minister's strategy unit makes clear.
    I urge the hon. Gentleman to examine exactly what has happened in the Faroes and Iceland. The capacity of their fleets has reduced massively. If we adopted the same effort control as the Faroes, we would have to cut the amount of fish that we catch in the North sea by almost half. I do not believe that he would like that.
    Kali Mountford: When considering the preservation of fish stocks, will my hon. Friend take into account the effect on marine mammals? He has already mentioned whaling, and my constituents will be grateful for his comments. Is he also concerned about the welfare of dolphins? If we are not careful about our fishing methods, are not the lives of those lovely marine mammals at risk?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. She may have noticed that, this morning, we announced that we would seek the closure of the Bass pair trawl fishery off the south-west of England because of concerns about the stranding of dolphins and porpoises. We are asking for emergency action by the Commission under article 7. We have also made it clear that, if the action is unsuccessful, we are prepared to consider unilateral measures, which will help to prevent such carnage.
    Mr. Robert Key: Has the Minister discussed with the Ministers of Norway, Iceland and the Faroes their important freshwater fisheries and the shared problem of pollution of our rivers, especially through sewage overflow, endocrine disruptors and phosphorous?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss those matters, but I hope that I shall shortly. I am aware of the problem. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the recent Environment Agency report, which showed that the state of the rivers and most of the stocks in them in this country were better than they have ever been. However, we can always improve and we are especially worried about, for example, the amount of salmon in many rivers in my part of the world, where they were previously abundant.
    Andrew George: I welcome today's announcement of the Government's request for emergency measures to close the Bass pair trawl fishery, which, as the Under-Secretary said, is known to result in the deaths of many thousands of dolphins and porpoises. Will the Government make similarly robust and determined efforts, through Europe and with the co-operation of Norway, the Faroes and Iceland, on industrial fisheries and the introduction of a meaningful regional dimension to fisheries management?
    Mr. Bradshaw: We made some progress on industrial fisheries at the last December Council, in that we introduced a reduction in the total allowable catch and, for the first time, an effort control regime in those fisheries. On regional management, we are making good

    475
    progress on establishing the regional advisory councils. The United Kingdom will always look for ways in which we can make improvements to the common fisheries policy to set it on course for a profitable and sustainable future, in contrast to the cruel deception perpetrated by some parties who suggest that we could solve all our fisheries problems if we simply withdrew from the CFP, which would also mean withdrawing from the European Union.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I had hoped to get in on question 1 and ask my hon. Friend whether he had any information on the stocks of grayling. Unfortunately, I was unable to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Grayling's off!"] We are obviously one short here today.
    More seriously, does my hon. Friend have precise figures for the fish stocks in Norwegian and British national waters before the introduction of the common fisheries policy that could be compared with the level of stocks today?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I do not have those figures to hand, but I will ask my officials to dig them out and to write to my hon. Friend. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir): Iceland, Norway and the Faroes have undergone substantial reductions in the capacity of their fleets. They use different means of managing their fish stocks—indeed, the methods used by Iceland and the Faroes are quite different from each other—and those methods are not problem-free. We have a more complicated mixed fishery. We are much closer to the European mainland, and we have scores of different stocks that we have traditionally shared with other countries. So we face a more complex set of challenges.
    In response to the question on grayling that you very generously allowed, Mr. Speaker, I can report that the stocks of grayling in our rivers and streams are extremely healthy. I recommend that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) read the recent Environment Agency report on this subject, which shows that that is largely a result of measures that the Government have taken to clean up our rivers.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I accept what the Minister says about the welcome reduction in the total allowable catch for industrial fishing that was achieved last year. He will be aware, however, that fishermen, fishery scientists and fisheries managers in the Nordic Council countries are still scathing about the unsustainable level of industrial fishing that we maintain. When are the Government going to get real about the need to tackle the level of permitted industrial fishing under the common fisheries policy? Does the Minister share my disappointment that the Prime Minister's strategy unit report was absolutely silent on that issue?
    Mr. Bradshaw: No, I do not accept that at all. The Prime Minister's strategy unit report was the first comprehensive, strategic look at the future of our fishing industry in living memory. It pointed out that, if we get our capacity right, our fishermen and their communities can have a profitable and sustainable future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work with the Government and the fishing industry to ensure that the recommendations
    476
    are implemented. I agree with him on industrial fishing; that is a case that United Kingdom Governments of both political colours have been making for some time, and we are making those arguments more and more successfully. We must, however, have the science to back those arguments up and, this year, we are again investing more than £1 million in scientific collaboration with fishermen to get the evidence that we need to make the case that the hon. Gentleman advanced. I repeat that it is simplistic to think that we can adopt the systems that are used in countries such as Iceland, Norway and the Faroes, which have very different fisheries from ours.
    Paddy Tipping: What progress did my hon. Friend make at the International Whaling Commission on the demise of so-called scientific whaling and, more importantly, on developing a conservation agenda?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am pleased to report that the countries led by Britain, the so-called like-minded countries, were successful in regard to the main issues of concern, namely Japanese attempts to introduce secret voting in the IWC, to close one of the biggest whale sanctuaries in the southern oceans and to lift the moratorium on commercial whaling. However, the majority that we have had in the IWC over the years is slowly being eroded by an aggressive recruitment campaign by the Japanese of small, mainly poor and developing countries that appear to have no obvious interest in hunting whales, whose representatives suddenly turn up and read out speeches supporting the Japanese position and vote with the Japanese. This is a serious issue, and we and the countries that agree with us on whaling really have to get our act together if we are to prevent a reverse of the advances that have been made in conserving the whale in the past 20 years.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Is it not the case that one advantage enjoyed by fishermen in Norway, Iceland and the Faroes is that they are not covered by the working time directive? Does he accept that the nature of fishing makes it wholly inappropriate to impose limits on working times, and will he say whether the Government intend to make exceptions for fishing based on the compensatory rest proposals that have been submitted by the industry? If so, on what basis will those exceptions operate?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Discussions on the working time directive are going on at the moment. I will examine the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, and write to him.

    Orchards
    Mr. David Heath: What assessment she has made of the value of orchards in terms of (a) the environment and (b) biodiversity. [185748]
    The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Traditional orchards form an attractive and important habitat for a wide

    477
    range of species including wild flowers, lichens, insects and birds, and the Government fund their conservation through the countryside stewardship scheme.
    Mr. Heath: It is hard to imagine a more benign agricultural practice than orchards, particularly the cider orchards in my county. The Minister will be aware of the concerns of many fruit growers at the implications of the single farm payment scheme and the intention of many of them to grub up old and unproductive orchards before the end of the year. I know that the Department is working on that and that it is making progress. He could make a big difference to the future of traditional cider orchards, in particular, if he could clarify the position for dual-use orchards that are grazed by livestock. Is any thought being given to a density limit for application of the single farm payment scheme for traditional orchards?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right that we are discussing with the European Commission the definition of grazed or grazeable land in relation to orchards, which may have an implication. It is worth bearing it in mind that orchards were not included in the previous subsidy regime and the regime that has been proposed is the same for the whole of Europe. There is not an incentive to grub up orchards because, in the initial stages of the new payment, those who did so would be eligible for only £20 per hectare. In contrast, older orchards, which are important for biodiversity, can go into stewardship schemes, which involve payment of hundreds of pounds per hectare. On top of that, in the hon. Gentleman's area, some orchards have gone into the organic scheme. Bulmers has been active in promoting that and I saw some of the work that it was doing, for which it deserves great credit. He will also be aware of measures to support that side of industry, which have been welcomed in his part of the world.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend realise that not only has there been great discontent, even in Yorkshire, about the threat to orchards, the grubbing up of orchards and the impact on biodiversity, but that, if it has been covered extensively on "You and Yours", perhaps it must be true? Will he now scotch the rumours that have been going round and which have been carried on the BBC? Are orchards in this country under threat or not?
    Mr. Morley: This is a hypothetical threat, because it assumes that there are people in this country who would bulldoze ancient orchards simply to get access to funds under the revised common agricultural policy. I do not believe that many people will fall into that category. Some of the allegations have been exaggerated. At this moment, we do not have much evidence that that is happening. I repeat that a range of other support mechanisms are available, not least stewardship, under which considerable financial support can be provided in recognition of the range of environmental benefits that older orchards provide.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: What the Minister has not mentioned is that the stewardship
    478
    scheme is closed for this year. Will he confirm that all traditional orchards will be eligible to join whatever the new scheme is when it reopens next year?
    Mr. Morley: The rules will be more or less the same as those that apply now, in the sense that applications were made in relation to the old stewardship scheme, and we are now moving into the entry-level scheme. That scheme will have a higher tier, which depends on point-scoring, the range of options, eligibility criteria and what people can offer in terms of meeting the demands of the scheme. Many orchards will fall within that scheme and, when it opens, people will have that option. In addition, with the changes in the mid-term review—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had a considerable success in getting that agreement—increased resources will go into our agri-environment programmes, which will mean a wider range of options and more flexibility.

    Veterinary Laboratories Agency
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: How many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants announced in the spending review will take place in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency; and if she will make a statement. [185749]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): Work is in progress to identify the scale of reduction in staff numbers at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. It is too early to give specific figures.
    Mr. Cunningham: Which other parts of his Department is my right hon. Friend looking at to reduce the numbers of staff?
    Alun Michael: The efficiencies coming from each of the non-Rural Payments Agency executive agencies involve the VLA, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, the Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Central Science Laboratory. The figures are being worked out to deliver the efficiencies that DEFRA has to achieve.

    Carcase Disposal
    Mr. Paul Goodman: What recommendations her Department makes in relation to the disposal of carcases from farms. [185752]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Fallen stock must be disposed of in accordance with the EU animal by-products regulation. An industry-led fallen stock collection scheme, backed by Government funding, is expected to be introduced this autumn.
    Mr. Goodman: Given that carcases now cannot be buried on farms and that the new scheme has not come in yet, what would the Minister say to farmers in my

    479
    constituency who are quite reasonably concerned that they cannot find an outlet for disposal at reasonable cost?
    Mr. Bradshaw: If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me with details of where farmers are having that sort of difficulty, I will happily look into them. Farmers should be complying with the regulations, but the Government made it clear when we initially signalled our intention to set up the fallen stock scheme that, until the scheme was up and running, we would expect the local authorities, which are the enforcers in this matter, to act with a light touch.
    Mr. James Gray: Since we last met at oral questions, the Minister has answered a series of written questions on the statistics relating to disposal of carcases. He made it plain that DEFRA does not collect statistics on whether carcases are disposed of in hunt kennels, knackers' yards or elsewhere and does not know how carcases are disposed of. How does he account for his answer at a previous DEFRA oral question time, that
    "hunt kennels play a role, but it is small in terms of the amount of stock they collect."—[Official Report, 20 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1079.]
    As he does not collect the figures and does not know who disposes of carcases at the moment, how can he, or for that matter the chairman of the National Fallen Stock Company, know what effect the abolition of hunting would have on the disposal of dead stock?
    Mr. Bradshaw: We do not have the exact figures, but the "small" role to which I referred in my previous answer was based on estimates and the agreed view of the National Farmers Union, the renderers and the knackers. They have made it clear on many occasions that, while hunts play a role in some parts of the country, they collect a relatively small quantity of fallen stock and the renderers and knackers have ample capacity to fulfil the role 100 per cent. should the hunts not be interested in doing it any more.

    GM Crops
    Joan Ruddock: When the Government will consult on a regime of co-existence and liability for GM crops. [185753]
    The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I announced our consultation plans last Friday. We will first hold a number of workshops with stakeholders over the summer and early autumn. Then we will publish our specific proposals and options, on which everyone will be able to comment.
    Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is aware that our constituents do not wish to see the contamination of non-GM crops with GM crops, yet he told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that the UK was legally obliged to ensure that co-existence measures did not go beyond those necessary to meet the 0.9 per cent. labelling threshold. Is my hon. Friend
    480
    aware that Germany's co-existence plans go substantially beyond those thresholds? Is he really telling us that the UK cannot establish stronger co-existence measures designed to ensure that contamination is at a lower level than the EU labelling threshold or to avoid it?
    Mr. Morley: We have already said that in our consultation we will look into the option, for organic crops, of a threshold lower than 0.9 per cent., but I repeat that 0.9 per cent. is the legal threshold set by the EU and we are obliged to take that into account in our calculations. I am not aware that Germany is doing anything different. In fact, I understand that, unlike the UK, Germany is applying a 0.9 per cent. threshold to the organic sector, so we are going a bit beyond what the Germans propose.
    Gregory Barker: Will the Minister confirm that the new co-existence and liability regime will be in place and on the statute books before any further commercial planting of GM crops or any further trial planting?
    Mr. Morley: Trial plantings are a different proposition. We do not have any applications at present, but the idea of trials is to examine the real concerns that people have about environmental impact, and we make no apology for that. We have led the way in ascertaining the biodiversity impact of various GM crops, and no one else internationally has done that on the scale that we have.
    We are consulting on the timing of the regime. The original timetable was designed to bring the scheme in at the beginning of 2005, but we are unlikely to see commercial plantings in this country before 2007–08, so there will be no difficulty having the scheme in place, up and running and agreed before commercial planting takes place.
    Alan Simpson: The letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about consultation mentions co-existence, and I have no doubt that it will address issues relating to thresholds and separation distances. However, I am concerned that the letter makes no mention of liability. Given the biotechnology industry's central concern about not being held liable, can my hon. Friend the Minister give the House an assurance that liability will be at the centre of the discussions and that we will not end up with proposals that show that the greatest separation distance in our policy is that between contamination and those who should be held liable for it?
    Mr. Morley: We have made it clear that we are responding to the recommendations of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on both co-existence and liability. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined that in a statement that she made to the House. In parallel with the consultation on co-existence, we are also consulting on the basis of the liability scheme, how it should work and who should be responsible.

    Emissions Trading Scheme
    Andrew Mackinlay: If she will make a statement on the proposed allocation of carbon allowances under the EU emissions trading scheme. [185754]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The UK's national allocation plan was approved by the European Commission on 7 July. The number of allowances in the UK plan that was submitted to the Commission is based on the UK as a whole reducing emissions by 15.2 per cent. by 2010. The allocation for the second phase of the scheme will be based on the trading sectors' contribution to meeting the UK goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide from base year levels by 2010.
    Andrew Mackinlay: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that I wrote to her at the end of May, and I followed up with another letter, drawing attention—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) does not mind, I am talking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on a constituency matter. I would have thought that he would be interested in the fact that I wrote to her in May and have not had a reply. If the Opposition were any good, they would be pursuing that.
    My Tilbury power station is unfairly disadvantaged by the proposal and, overall, some of the proposals are anti-competitive and do not reflect the expertise, innovation and investment proposals of many good power stations. I am meeting people from Tilbury power station tomorrow, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will help me by agreeing that she or one of her junior Ministers will meet us to discuss the issue. We could then show that there is room for improvement and fairness in the second phase she mentioned, to the advantage of my Tilbury power station, the industry as a whole and the United Kingdom. My Tilbury power station is being required to make a cut of 44 per cent. in emissions, compared with a national average of 15 per cent. That is unfair.
    Margaret Beckett: I was sorry to learn that my hon. Friend had not received an answer to his letter. I was not aware of that until I saw the proposed answer to his question. I apologise, and I assure him that an answer is urgently in preparation as we speak. We will, of course, take very seriously the concerns that he expresses. He will know, too, that the Government have tried hard to strike a balance between what is necessary to make the emissions trading scheme work, which is in everybody's interest, what is necessary to meet the criteria for a satisfactory allocation plan that would stand a chance of being approved by the Commission and competitiveness issues. We believe that in almost all cases the concerns that have been expressed about competitiveness are not well founded. Many companies have assumed that others, elsewhere in Europe, would be treated differently. We have been urging the Commission to be both robust in its assessment of national allocation plan proposals and transparent in reaching its decisions. My hon. Friend may not be aware that several countries have already been asked to revise their initial proposals.

    Departmental Job Losses
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What net reductions in staff levels she expects in her Department and the agencies for which she is responsible as a consequence of the spending review; and what estimate she has made of the savings accruing therefrom. [185755]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): The number of posts across core DEFRA and its executive agencies will be reduced by about 2,400 by the end of 2007–08.
    Dr. Cable: Following the headline announcements about net job losses of 2,400 and 390 relocations, when does the Minister propose to set out precisely where those cuts will occur? In particular, how many of them will flow from the announcement made yesterday about the creation of the new integrated institution? Will that institution be located in London or elsewhere?
    Alun Michael: May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the reduction of staff numbers and the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday are both about increasing and improving delivery and achieving greater efficiency? They are not just about random numbers. The majority of job reductions will be achieved through the implementation of change programmes; for instance, the Rural Payments Agency change programme will lose about 1,600 posts and change programmes in finance, IT and human resources will contribute about 250 posts—some of that has already happened. We need to produce an efficiency delivery plan and when that is completed, the Office of Government Commerce will look at it and make a report to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. It will then be available on the website.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: As the Minister takes the axe to jobs in his Department, will he also look into the number of special advisers—who are termed civil servants—which has more than doubled since 1997? How many special advisers will face the axe?
    Alun Michael: That is a repetitive question. They are not the same at all. We are looking into the contribution made by civil servants and considering how to use core civil service staff appropriately; for instance, through improving quality by the more efficient delivery of IT. Rather than examining serious questions on the improvement of efficiency, the hon. Gentleman is just trying a cheap jab.

    Animal Transportation
    Mr. David Kidney: What plans she has to change the rules relating to the transportation of live animals. [185757]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Following the failure earlier this year to agree new EU rules on animal welfare during transport, the Government's priority is now to ensure that the current rules are enforced properly in all member states.
    Mr. Kidney: I continue to receive representations from constituents about maximum journey times and

    483
    travel conditions for live animals, as may other Members and Ministers. The draft Animal Welfare Bill contains a new rule-making power, so is it the Government's intention to make new rules to provide for the more humane transportation of live animals in Europe, and will they do that whether or not they have the support of other EU nations?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I share my hon. Friend's concern. We were deeply disappointed that, despite the best efforts of the Irish presidency and countries of a like mind to the United Kingdom, which wanted strict limits on journeys, we were unable to achieve a majority and that in fact the less welfare-minded countries were able to block any meaningful improvement on the status quo. However, we think that implementing the existing rules properly in a number of countries—not least the accession countries—will lead to a big improvement in animal welfare overall. My hon. Friend is right: the Animal Welfare Bill, which we published last week, introduces for the first time a duty of care, and will apply not only to pets but to all animals. That should help to improve animal welfare across the board.

    Farm Produce
    Mr. David Cameron: What discussions she has had with (a) the National Farmers Union and (b) other farming organisations about ensuring a strong domestic market for the produce of British farmers. [185759]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): All Ministers at DEFRA, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, regularly meet farming organisations, including the NFU. Our policies are designed to give farming a sustainable future, which will be helped by the hard-won reforms to the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Cameron: Does the Minister agree that the best friend of the British farmer is the well-informed British consumer insisting on quality British produce? Does he agree that it is difficult to insist on quality British produce without proper labelling? Will he explain the Government's position in principle on country of origin labelling and why they cannot do more in practice on supermarket pre-cooked meals, which often include produce from foreign countries where welfare standards are low and food is often pumped full of drugs?
    Alun Michael: A well-informed consumer is certainly a good friend to the farmer. Another good friend is the Government, who have assisted the farming industry with their marketing. Consumers have responded positively to the many brands that are now identified as local and regional in this country, which has enabled many farmers to be successful. Linking farmers with their markets and what consumers want creates a two-way process between the consumer and the farmer, which is the best way forward. That approach underpins our plans for a sustainable future for farming and food.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for the week after the summer recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY 7 SEPTEMBER—Second Reading of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 8 SEPTEMBER—Opposition day [16th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 9 SEPTEMBER—A debate on the European constitution on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 10 SEPTEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the first sitting week in October will be:
THURSDAY 14 OCTOBER—A debate on the UN international year to commemorate the struggle against slavery and its abolition.
As we rise for the summer recess, I thank on behalf of the House all the staff of the House for their hard work, courtesy and support for all of us. I also record my personal thanks to the parliamentary Clerks across Whitehall for their assistance and support. I wish you, Mr. Speaker, all hon. Members and, more importantly, the staff of the House a happy and, I hope, relaxing recess.
Mr. Heald: May I associate all on these Benches with those remarks about the staff, the Serjeant at Arms, you, Mr. Speaker, and the Clerks Department?
The Leader of the House has announced the business for September, but may I ask for an urgent oral statement later today from the Minister for the Cabinet Office about the jurisdiction of the ombudsman in the reopened inquiry into Equitable Life? The ombudsman has stated that the Government Actuary's Department is not within her jurisdiction, but that she would like to include it in her inquiry, and she has written to the Minister requesting that that happen. The matter is hugely important to our constituents, who have lost so much financially through the crisis, not to mention the misery, anxiety and distress that they are suffering. May we have an urgent oral statement and will the Leader of the House ensure that the necessary order to make that happen is laid today?
After yesterday's announcement of deep cuts to our armed forces, may we have an assurance that a full debate will take place in Government time when we come back after the recess?
Yesterday, the Leader of the House issued a written statement designed to stop the abuse by Ministers of the reply, "I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library", which is a way of burying bad news because the true reply never appears in Hansard. Will he consider making a short oral statement in September on
486
that and on delays in replies to parliamentary questions? His solution to the problem is that Ministers will simply abandon questions unanswered at the end of a Session.
Last year, there were 1,550 "will write" replies, and on the last day of the Session, the Home Office alone put out more than 150 "will write" replies. Is the Leader of the House seriously saying that 1,500 questions a year will now simply be abandoned by Ministers, so that instead of burying bad news, they never give it at all? Will he also explain why, according to the Library, there are still 427 of those replies where Ministers have never got around to writing and placing the letter in the Library?
Finally, as an end-of-term report—a sort of tidying-up exercise—can the Leader of the House tell us now, or will he make a statement, more than six months after these matters were first raised with him, what he is doing to review the Osmotherly rules, so that Select Committees can receive the documents and witnesses that they need so that we do not have to call in an outsider every time we want a serious inquiry? What is he doing to give legal effect to the Sessional Orders; what is he doing to have a vote on the Tuesday sitting hours; and what is he doing to change the Standing Orders to allow the European Scrutiny Committee to sit in public, as it has asked to do? In his youth, he used to take direct action. He would reclaim the streets from the National Front. He would tear up cricket pitches to stop the tours. May we have some of that sense of urgency now with those parliamentary questions?
Mr. Hain: That was a nice seasonal rant—was it not?—and very enjoyable it was too. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer then."] I am about to give the answers. On the Osmotherly rules, I will meet the Liaison Committee at its meeting, probably in October, at a date still to be fixed. The Liaison Committee has asked me to report back to it on that issue, and I am doing precisely that.
On the Sessional Orders, when we are ready to come forward, we will do so, as I have already promised. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman asks me about the sitting hours and whether the European Scrutiny Committee should sit in public. He asks me what is going on. He is a member of the Modernisation Committee, which I chair. In fact, he sits right next to me, and quite a congenial companion he is. Both subjects—sitting hours and providing the House with greater opportunities to scrutinise European matters—are before us now. In fact, we were discussing sitting hours yesterday, so I do not know what on earth he is on about. Perhaps I should not be surprised by the standard of those questions: the shadow Leader of the House is not even in the shadow Cabinet. [Interruption.] The previous shadow Leader of the House was in the shadow Cabinet, of course.
Mr. Eric Forth: Look what happened to me!
Mr. Hain: Yes, look what happened to the right hon. Gentleman. His successor has been demoted—[Interruption.] Since I have been provoked in such an outrageous fashion, let me say that it is interesting that the shadow Leader of the Lords is in the shadow Cabinet, whereas the shadow Leader of the House is not. It rather indicates the Conservatives' view of the House.

487
On Equitable Life, I understand the important issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. There is real concern among policyholders, and right hon. and hon. Members have properly raised this with me in the past. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—who, of course, is an Officer of the House—is entirely independent of the Government. The decision that she made and the reasons for it are matters for her, but we will co-operate fully with the commissioner's investigation. Only this week we received a request from the commissioner to extend her jurisdiction to cover the Government Actuary's Department. We are considering that request and will respond to the commissioner as soon as possible.
On defence, which the hon. Gentleman also raised with me, he referred to defence cuts.
Mr. Heald: Deep cuts.
Mr. Hain: Well, we know about deep cuts—the deep cuts mounted by the Conservative party when in government. The Conservatives cut planned defence spending by 15 per cent. when the shadow Secretary of State for Defence was Minister of State for the Armed Forces between 1994 and 1997. We have now had the largest sustained increase in defence spending for 20 years. In real terms, the increase will be 1.4 per cent. a year over the next three years—a further £3.7 billion of defence spending over the spending review period, which will continue to make our fighting forces the best in the world.
On the "I will write" issue, the shadow Leader of the House must do his job and try to oppose me. I understand all that—we all understand it—but he really should concentrate on the facts. What I did in this instance—with your encouragement, Mr. Speaker, because we share concern about the "I will write" situation—was to say that rather than a Minister replying, "I will write" and placing a letter in the House of Commons Library, which means that is not accessible for inspection by hon. Members with ease or members of the public, the replies will be put online and in Hansard so that everyone will be able to see them. That represents an advance for parliamentary scrutiny, so I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that it will bury bad news. The replies will go online immediately and will be printed in Hansard. The fact that letters that Ministers would previously have put in the Library will be available for inspection by everybody represents an advance in parliamentary accountability, which has been a feature of everything that I have done in the past year as Leader of the House.
Mr. David Heyes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great consternation in my constituency and, indeed, the whole of Greater Manchester about the announcement on Tuesday that cast a shadow over the expansion of light rail in our area? Expectations for Metrolink are at the heart of all our ambitions for economic regeneration in Tameside and Oldham, so its loss would be a tragedy. I am heartened that the Secretary of State for Transport confirmed that the door has not closed on Metrolink
488
and that his officials will work with the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority to find a way forward. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ensure that there will be an opportunity for the Secretary of State to come to the House after the recess to report on the progress that I hope will be made during the summer to get the Metrolink extension to Ashton-under-Lyne and Oldham back on track?
Mr. Hain: I understand the point that my hon. Friend raises. I know that there are real worries about the matter, because it affects the constituency of the Deputy Leader of the House and he has expressed the same concerns to me. The tram has been an important part of the transport network in the area and I know that a meeting is taking place with the transport authority. The Secretary of State for Transport will want to study closely the representation that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) makes to me.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I associate myself and my colleagues with the comments made about the staff of the House, although I would not like anybody to think that they are on holiday throughout the whole recess any more than most Members? A great many of the staff of the House work hard during the recess to ensure that we can work efficiently from the moment when we come back in September.
I am hardly reassured by what the Leader of the House said about Equitable Life, so I hope that he can be a bit more specific. The matter is important and urgent, and many of our constituents are anxious about what will happen next.
May we have an early statement—or, even better, a debate in Government time—when we come back in September on school funding? Hon. Members will recall that a year ago, many schools were placed in an extraordinary state of financial turmoil following the Government's re-ordering of local government and school budgets. The impact of those proposals was compounded by radical changes to pensions, national insurance contributions and the standards fund, so governing bodies and heads were put in a difficult position. The Secretary of State for Education then accused local authorities of pocketing£500 million for other purposes, and when that accusation wore thin, head teachers were accused of being financially incompetent.
As the Leader of the House will know, this week the Audit Commission published an important report on education funding, which made it absolutely clear that the fault lay almost entirely with the Government and especially with the Secretary of State. Will he arrange an early opportunity for the Secretary of State to come to the House and apologise for falsely accusing everybody else for what went wrong, and especially to apologise to governing bodies and heads?
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's point that many members of staff continue to work by maintaining the House and doing all sorts of preparatory work for our return after the recess. I understand the point that he makes about Equitable Life, which the shadow Leader of the House raised. The

489
Financial Secretary is seized of the issue, and the hon. Gentleman will remember that she made a statement to the House on the matter and faced detailed questions.
On the question of school funding, obviously mistakes were made—there is no question about that—as the Audit Commission points out, and responsibility for them has been allocated. We are now over that period. I would not have guessed from the hon. Gentleman's question that education spending at the end of the spending review will be £12 billion higher. That is an enormous increase over and above what has been provided for. We have a fantastic record in education, with more than 28,000 extra teachers recruited, 105,000 more school support staff, the best ever GCSE and A-level results, and average spending per pupil up by £800 in real terms compared with the Conservatives' miserable record when they were in power.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: May I further add to the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) for an urgent debate on the future of light rail in Government time when we return in September? The constituencies surrounding Greater Manchester, specifically Oldham and Rochdale, are concerned about the continuing extension of light rail. As has been said, it is at the heart of the economic regeneration. Although we welcome the Secretary of State's moves to help ensure that we get an affordable scheme, we need that to happen urgently. A debate in Government time will add to the sense of urgency and reassure the people we represent that it is not "never", but it just needs to be more affordable.
Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which she properly raises on behalf of her constituency. The Metrolink extension is important. I also remind her, however—no doubt she would be the first to say this, if she had the opportunity—that we have seen enormous investment and improvements in the dreadful legacy of public transport that we inherited. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in rail passenger journeys since May 1997 and more than 1,500 extra rail services are timetabled every week day. Some 19 new rail stations have been built, nine reopened and more than 2,000 improved, and 34,000 new buses have been introduced since we came to power. That is a pretty impressive record compared with the dreadful one we inherited.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Leader of the House aware of how desperately disappointed many people in Britain will be that, once again, there is no time for a debate on the abolition of fox hunting? Does not that mean that there is no prospect of getting legislation through by the next election? Is he aware that many of those who voted Labour years ago feel cheated because they were given the impression and the promise that time would be given at an early stage to make a decision on fox hunting? He should do something about that and give the House of Commons the opportunity to decide the issue.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is a welcome, if unusual, advocate for Labour voters. I made it clear last week, and have done so before, that we intend to resolve the matter. I said last week that I would not make an announcement on the subject today, and I have not.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House recall that when he made those statements about getting rid of fox hunting, he almost gave me a wink and a nod that it would be dealt with when we return in September. We know that it will not happen in the first week and he conveniently said nothing about the second week. Do I take it as read that we will deal with it in that second week?
Mr. Hain: That is foxy question. I am not sure that winks and nods are appropriate for the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box. I think they might be spotted by you, Mr. Speaker, and others. It is normal not to announce all the business now for when we return in more than six weeks' time.
Sir George Young: May I put to the Leader of the House an alternative topic for debate in the second week in September? He wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and me regretting that he could not find time before the summer recess for a debate on the Procedure Committee reports, including the one on Sessional Orders. He will know that the eyesore and disturbance in Parliament square continues. Can we have that debate on the Sessional Orders report when we return in September? It is urgent, in any event, because the date for the next Session is advancing quickly.
Mr. Hain: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman properly raises. We are all unhappy about the eyesore and you, Mr. Speaker, have persistently raised the matter with me. It is not easy to resolve. It may require a change of law, for example, and we are in the process of deciding how to move forward. We will bring the Sessional Orders report to the Floor of the House as soon as we can, but I cannot say whether it will be in the second week of September.
David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to give a splendid present to virtually everyone in the parliamentary Labour party—I imagine that 90 per cent. of us would regard it as such—by telling us that the Parliament Act will be used to make sure that the Hunting Bill becomes law? Is he aware that we will continue to raise the issue at every opportunity in the House of Commons, as I am doing now, in the parliamentary Labour party and outside until we get a firm pledge that the Government will ensure that a House of Lords veto on the matter is to be overcome, the wishes and decision of the elected Chamber will be honoured and respected, and hence the Bill will become law?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend mentions splendid presents. When I was a boy I always looked forward to Christmas, rather than the summer, for those, and I advise him to bear that in mind.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: There continues to be a serious issue in Northern Ireland of

491
racially motivated attacks on innocent people and families. The latest such deplorable attack took place last night on an Asian family in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and suggest that such deplorable attacks, and what can be done about them, may be a suitable subject for debate in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman understands that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee can meet in Northern Ireland only with the agreement of all parties. Obviously, this incident is very serious, and I know that the Secretary of State is well aware of it and will bear in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Joan Ruddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the presidential and parliamentary elections in Afghanistan have had to be postponed due to the terrible violence in that country and that the promises made by NATO to increase the troops in the country to ensure security for the elections have not been fulfilled? Now that the presidential election date has been set for 9 October, will he do everything in his power to ensure that NATO troops are in place well before that date, so that the courageous Afghans who have come forward to be registered for the elections—some have died in the process—are given the strongest impression that when we said that we would not walk away from that country, we really meant it?
Mr. Hain: The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we will not turn our backs on the long-suffering Afghanis, and my hon. Friend is right to re-emphasise that point on her own behalf. We continue to work very closely with President Karzai, the United Nations and other countries throughout the world to make sure that a decent future is built for the people of Afghanistan, notwithstanding the problems there.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Depressingly, but all too predictably, in her statement yesterday on the future of the rural economy the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave scant acknowledgement to the plight of many of the country's farmers. Does the Leader of the House share the concern of many members of the Women's Institute in East Devon about the continuing plight of Devon's dairy farmers? Can he guarantee us a debate on the future of the country's dairy farmers, in Government time, when Parliament returns in September?
Mr. Hain: I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's points, and the Secretary of State will obviously note very carefully the representations that he has made.
Alan Simpson: May I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the zeal that he brings to reforming the proceedings of the House and increasing our ability genuinely to scrutinise and hold the Executive to account? Does he accept, however, that one area in which we have been unsuccessful in making
492
progress is the US-UK mutual defence agreement, which can be renewed for a further 10 years under the Ponsonby rule without the House having any right to scrutinise it? In view of the fact that a legal opinion issued today says that renewal of the agreement would put Britain in breach of the non-proliferation treaty, will the Leader of the House, first, agree to look at that legal opinion and, secondly, arrange a full day's debate in the House on the renewal of the agreement?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has long experience of raising these matters, and he is acknowledged throughout the House as an expert on them, but I do not agree that we have no opportunity to scrutinise this matter. He has just asked me a question about it. He is able to ask questions of the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary, depending on which aspect he wishes to raise, to table early-day motions and to apply for debates, and he can continue to do so.
Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the Leader of the House explain why no decision has been announced while the House is sitting about the appointment of a British Commissioner to the European Commission? Can he reassure us that the Prime Minister is not having second thoughts about appointing the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who, as someone who has resigned twice from the Cabinet, strikes many Conservative Members as the ideal candidate for a post that is unaccountable and unelected and from which no one would dream of resigning for the sort of outrageous behaviour for which he has been responsible in the past, and to be a member of a body that, when it collectively resigns, immediately reappoints itself?
Mr. Hain: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House of the situation: European Commissioners have always been chosen by the Prime Minister of the day, and the appointments have not been subject to parliamentary debates, so the question whether that happens during the recess is not material. I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman of the timetable in Brussels. The President-elect of the Commission, former Prime Minister Barroso, is appearing before the European Parliament at the moment. His nomination as President should be approved by the European Parliament tomorrow; he will then take office on 1 November. In the meantime, the 24 member states will offer their nominations for their Commissioners over the coming weeks, and in August President-elect Barroso will agree the appointments with each of the member states. That list will then be agreed by qualified majority voting and submitted, before the end of August, to the European Parliament. The Parliament then prepares for hearings with Commissioners-Designate, which will take place from 4 to 14 October. From 25 to 28 October, the Parliament will vote to approve the new Commission as a body.
Mr. David Kidney: It is now more than three years since we last had a debate on road safety in Government time. Given that since then road deaths have stuck stubbornly at about 3,400 a year, given the public outcry about soft sentences for drivers who kill innocent passers-by, and given the lively debates here

493
about speed cameras and road traffic policing, is it not time in the autumn for another debate on road safety in Government time?
Mr. Hain: If my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will have an opportunity to take part in an Adjournment debate on road safety on the very day that we come back, when he can raise those important issues.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I ask the Leader of the House to consider making a statement when we return about the transferring of parliamentary questions? I point out to him a question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which I drew as No. 3 today. I was told by DEFRA that the issue did not relate to it, so its Ministers could not answer and it was transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry. However, on 10 March my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) asked a similar question and DEFRA gave an answer.
I am told that part of the reason for transfers is that Ministers are not allowed to answer questions on subjects that they feel may come within the remit of another Department. That does not seem to stop Ministers answering such questions on the radio; why cannot they answer them in the House?
Mr. Hain: As a Government, we have a proud record of answering questions. As a result of the modernisation of the House, the provision of extra Westminster Hall debates, the strengthening of Select Committees and the fact that the Prime Minister comes before the Liaison Committee, we have advanced parliamentary scrutiny and accountability in a number of areas. That has made it much easier to keep Ministers on their toes. On that issue, I am absolutely clear that the hon. Gentleman is simply missing the point. The other point that he made, about transferring questions, he raised as a point of order with you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and it is not a matter for me.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Sir Hayden Phillips delivered his report on reform of the honours system to the Prime Minister last Friday, and we have pretty radical proposals from the Public Administration Committee on how the honours system could be recast. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate in Government time on that important issue?
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge that my hon. Friend has consistently taken an interest in how the honours system is operated. The PAC's interesting report needs to be studied; the Government will do that, and we will consider Sir Hayden's recommendations alongside that.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, as promised, the Government will publish a draft Civil Service Bill in this Session? Will he explain the Government's apparent tardiness in doing so, given that two excellent drafts have already been published, one by the Public Administration Committee, and the other a private
494
Member's Bill promoted by the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)?
Mr. Hain: There is no issue—the question is simply one of publishing at the right time. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend was quite sympathetic in his responses to our hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) and for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons), but I put it to him that there is real anger in Greater Manchester about the apparent decision to drop the Metrolink scheme. The regional newspaper, the Manchester Evening News, described it as a betrayal. Will my right hon. Friend take that message back to the Secretary of State for Transport and make sure that he understands that Greater Manchester expects him to return with proposals agreed with the passenger transport authority and the contractors, and to ensure that our conurbation has the Metrolink that it badly needs for both public transport and environmental reasons?
Mr. Hain: I understand the point that my hon. Friend properly raises. Given that he has raised it, I am sure that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will take even more careful note of it than before. However, part of the anger to which my hon. Friend referred might have arisen from a misconception that the north-west of England is somehow cross-subsidising Crossrail in London. That is simply not the case. There is a long way to go before the funding mechanism for Crossrail is put in place, not least the negotiation of the passage of a private Bill through Parliament.
Mr. Michael Weir: No mention was made of the Royal Marines in yesterday's statement on defence, yet after I left the Chamber I received a letter from the Ministry of Defence informing me that RM Condor at Arbroath in my constituency is under review. Any threat to the base has a huge impact on the local economy. Does the Leader of the House think it appropriate that information is released in such a way? May we have a debate in Government time on the effect of base closures on local communities?
Mr. Hain: It is important that local MPs be properly notified. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence wants to do that, and that the process of consultation is continuing.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: May we have an early debate on the extraordinary decision by the Tory-Liberal coalition in Birmingham to pull the £2 billion highway private finance initiative scheme at the eleventh hour? Such a debate is needed for two reasons: first, we need to understand how any private company can be expected to commit the necessary resources and submit a bid by August for a project that might now not go ahead: secondly. I want to know whether the people of Birmingham will be liable to pay compensation to the

495
companies for the losses that they have incurred. Will my right hon. Friend advise me on how to bring some sanity to bear on this latest act of civic vandalism?
Mr. Hain: That does sound like a bit of a shambles from the Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration. I was interested to read in an editorial in The Birmingham Post of 16 July:
"The message from the council's new Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration, whether intentional or not, was one of dithering while the roads crumble."
That sounds spot-on to me.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: As the Leader of the House, most uncharacteristically, was over-prepared in his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), may I invite him to have a second go but to leave his notes behind? Does he agree that the appointment of a European Commissioner is very important to this country, that it is vital that the right person be appointed, and that it would be appropriate to have a statement on that appointment, especially if the appointment proves to be controversial, as the newspapers lead us to believe it will be?
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman courteously invites me to respond in greater detail than before. I am sorry, but I am unable to respond to that courteous invitation.
Julie Morgan: This morning, I received a telephone call from one of my constituents who works in Tesco house in Cardiff to say that this afternoon Tesco will publicly announce a further 160 job losses in its head office in Cardiff. That is in addition to the 230 jobs lost last year. The jobs are to be outsourced to Bangalore. I am sure that my right hon. Friend realises how great the disappointment is, especially after all the reassurances that Tesco gave. Many long-standing employees will lose their jobs. Will he arrange an urgent debate on the issue when we return?
Mr. Hain: I know that the management of Tesco will take careful note of my hon. Friend's comments, because there will be real concern in her constituency about the job losses. If anything can be done, I hope that her representations will help it to be done. Tesco is now the biggest private sector employer in the country and therefore very important, but I am sure that it will review the situation in Cardiff in the light of her comments.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House try a lot harder in respect of Equitable Life? He will know—or perhaps he does not—that on today's Order Paper, No. 32 in the list of these peculiar written ministerial statements that we now have is an announcement that the Minister for the Cabinet Office will say something about "Extending the Jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (The Ombudsman)." Is that a tease or a hint? Will he please be a lot more specific about what the
496
Government will do in response to the request by the ombudsman in respect of Equitable Life? It is not good enough to keep hundreds of thousands of people waiting and frustrated again and again on a matter that should be straightforward for the Government. If there is any transparency and decency in the Government, let us have an answer.
Mr. Hain: The first part of my answer is that I do not accept that to make a written ministerial statement is peculiar. On the contrary, it is perfectly proper to use such a statement as an alternative to the previous practice—with which, presumably, the right hon. Gentleman was happy—whereby the Government were required to plant questions in order to provide information to the House by answering them. Today's practice is far better: Ministers can make written ministerial statements in which they give the information that the House is entitled to have.
Dr. Brian Iddon: When we had a drugs tsar, he produced an annual report and we debated misuse of drugs on the Floor of the House. Since then, the National Treatment Agency has been set up and things have moved on in other ways, but as chairman of the all-party drugs misuse group, I ask my right hon. Friend to reinstate the annual debate on the subject.
Mr. Hain: I shall certainly give it consideration. Coming from the chairman of the all-party group, that question is important. However, my hon. Friend knows that drugs misuse is high on the Home Secretary's agenda and that he has plenty of opportunities to question my right hon. Friend on the direction of Government policy. In addition, he can apply for a debate himself if he feels that one is needed.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Leader of the House make time available to debate the merits of introducing a Health and Safety Executive business awards scheme in conjunction with the insurance industry? Small and medium-sized companies that have a claim-free record and those that have made significant improvements to health and safety at work could be recognised. Does he agree that such a scheme operating in all regions of the UK would publicise good practice in the workplace, focus attention on the need to continue to raise health and safety standards, and bring to the attention of business the benefits of having no claims when negotiating employer and public liability insurance?
Mr. Hain: That is an interesting idea on which Ministers will reflect. We want to give every encouragement to good practice in industry, and if an awards scheme is regarded as a sensible way to achieve that, no doubt the idea will be taken forward.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Yesterday, a consolidated document on parental separation was published. When will we have a chance to be consulted and have a debate on that document? The key question that some fathers whose marriages have broken up are asking is that care of the children should be arranged strictly 50:50. I have a constituent

497
who has that arrangement, under which the child benefit and child tax credit go to the mother only, and as a consequence the Child Support Agency payments have to be made from the father to the mother, despite there being a strict arrangement that it is 50:50, where there is no exact partner with care and no exact absent parent. This matter could be thrown into the debate.
Mr. Hain: It is quite proper that that should be thrown into the debate. We all have cases like that, which are highly complicated and very distressing, especially for the children involved. That is precisely why we brought forward the consultation and the written ministerial statement that accompanied it. My hon. Friend has the opportunity to respond to that, as do other Members, and their responses would be welcome.
Bob Spink: In an end-of-term spirit, may I congratulate the Leader of the House on his wit and great courtesy—[Interruption.] I am speaking genuinely and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Would he, even at this late stage, consider extending today's debate, the main debate, so that we have time, because there is great cross-party support on this, to debate and welcome the great dedication, professionalism and care of the hospice movement? We know that the Government are giving more money to the national health service, and we are very grateful for that, but equally we know that that money is not filtering through to the hospice movement, which is currently seriously underfunded. We need to find ways to get the new Government money that is going into the health service through to the excellent hospice movement.
Mr. Hain: I always welcome the hon. Gentleman's questions at business questions, and since he has praised me, I will welcome them even more in future. He has shown great dedication on the matter of the hospice movement. We all admire the attention that he has given it and how he has consistently ensured that it is an issue before the House and therefore before the Government, so that the hospice movement is taken forward and given extra support, and I applaud his efforts.
Mr. Clive Betts: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to today's written ministerial statement on the Government's response to the Office of Fair Trading report on estate agents? I ask him to arrange an early debate on the matter so that I can welcome the Government's intention to table an amendment to the Housing Bill, whereby all estate agents will have to join an independent redress scheme, and welcome also the consultation document to consider amending the Estate Agents Act 1979 later in the year, to give further protection to consumers. I regret that the comprehensive licensing of estate agencies is ruled out, but I understand that the door is still open possibly to require all estate agents to join a professional body from which they could be expelled for inappropriate practice. It is a step forward and I would like an early debate so that I can welcome the steps that the Government have taken.
Mr. Hain: I hope that the Government will listen closely to my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do so, because my hon. Friend has displayed a great deal of energy in order to take forward reform in this area, and many home buyers will welcome that and applaud his efforts.
Mr. Graham Brady: May I add to the calls for an early statement on the future of the Metrolink in Greater Manchester, a great initiative that was put in place under a Conservative Government? An early statement would be an opportunity for the present Government to explain why, in spite of their supposed commitment to public transport, they are apparently incapable of taking that forward.
Mr. Hain: I understand that the cost estimate for the Metrolink project has increased considerably, perhaps to nearly double that estimate. I am happy to praise the odd thing that the Conservatives did and this sounds like one of them, but it is hard to find other such examples that deserve praise. However, since we are in a generous seasonal spirit I will give the hon. Gentleman that point.
John Robertson: Those of us on the Government Benches appreciate that an increase in real terms to the defence budget is an increase. Unfortunately, to the general public the reduction in servicemen would appear to give a contrary view. Is my right hon. Friend aware that during consideration of the Armed Forces Pensions and Compensation Bill, great reservations were expressed by Members on both sides of the House, given that about 10 per cent. of servicemen and women who were leaving the services were ending up on the dole queue? Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on how he proposes to look after the 10 per cent. who are already on the dole queue, and the possible numbers who are going to make the percentage even greater?
Mr. Hain: Anyone faced with the prospect of going on the dole is in a situation that no Government would want to encourage or to support. What is planned in this instance is that by a combination of natural wastage and early retirement, and procedures like that, nobody will end up being made redundant and without a job. Of course, in today's economy, as a result of the Government's very successful economic policies, employment is rising year by year and month by month and those who are in the unfortunate situation of losing their jobs, wherever the sector might be, have plenty of alternative job opportunities as a result of our economic success and the stability that we have brought. I am sure that that will apply in the few cases that might arise.
Mr. David Heath: There is a great deal of concern in a number of constituencies, certainly in my own, about the instances of abuse of the planning system by Travellers on private land. The concern of hon. Members such as me who want adequate provision for Travellers is that this is poisoning the relationship between settled communities

499
and the Travellers' community. We are told that Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are bringing forward proposals to strengthen enforcement powers for local authorities; is there an opportunity for a statement on that matter during the two-week spill-over in September, and will we have the details of those proposals in the near future?
Mr. Hain: The Deputy Prime Minister is sitting almost next to me and has heard the hon. Gentleman's eloquent argument, and will want to take close account of it. The Minister responsible has been gripped on the issue, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate—he is nodding in acknowledgement—and I think we all applaud what the Minister is seeking to do. Any additional representations that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make will be listened to.
Mr. Nigel Evans: The Leader of the House has gone through the rather arcane and mysterious process by which our EU Commissioner will be named and selected. The Leader of the House believes in modernisation; is it not about time we chucked out the process to which I have referred and modernised the system so that the Prime Minister's nomination came before the House? Would it not have been far better—the Prime Minister has made his mind up, from what we can make out in the newspapers—if the name had been announced this week, and we then had a full debate? We could have voted on whether we thought that our one EU Commissioner ought to be the person selected by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Hain: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe everything that he reads in the newspapers? In which case—
Mr. Evans indicated assent.
Mr. Hain: He does! This is a novel form of behaviour for Conservative Members.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I press the Leader of the House following his answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) concerning the Northern Ireland Grand Committee? Would it be possible for the objections to meeting there to be published so that we might know why a party—we suspect that it might even be a sister party of the Government—keeps objecting? It seems a denigration
500
of democracy that the people of Northern Ireland cannot see their own Grand Committee meeting occasionally in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Hain: This is clearly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for the parties involved and ultimately for the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is able to make progress on this matter, but it is not something for me.
Mr. Peter Luff: May we have an urgent debate on antisocial behaviour? The Government have tried to be tough on antisocial behaviour, with varying degrees of success, but they have done nothing to be tough on the causes of antisocial behaviour. May I refer the Leader of the House to the marvellous superhero, Jo Frost, of "Supernanny", whose wonderful combination of old-fashioned discipline in a modern context every Wednesday on Channel 4 is doing more to be tough on the causes of antisocial behaviour in families up and down the land than the Government have done in seven years.
Mr. Hain: I realise that the hon. Gentleman wants to make his point powerfully, and he has just done so. I do not quarrel with him for that. But we have seen the longest and most sustained fall in crime for a century. Antisocial behaviour is one of the areas that the Government have prioritised for tackling, seeing 11,000 more police officers recruited, more community support officers and more community wardens. We have taken legislation through the House and the other place on antisocial behaviour when, often, we have not had the support of either Conservative Members or Liberal Democrat Members, who have appeared to turn a blind eye to antisocial behaviour, when we all know that it is one of the curses of modern life.
Mr. David Amess: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has made a decision of enormous ethical significance to sanction designer babies, which goes against the spirit of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and has pre-empted the outcome of studies by two Select Committees. Will the Leader of the House allow us to have a debate in Government time on the authority's future?
Mr. Hain: I shall obviously bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request, but he has many opportunities to raise those matters with the Secretary of State for Health, and, indeed, he can apply for an Adjournment debate himself.

Regional Assemblies
1.20 pm
The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Earlier this week, the House approved orders specifying 4 November as the date for the referendums in the three northern regions.
Hon. Members: It approved them yesterday!
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister was accurate.
Mr. Raynsford: We introduced the orders to fulfil expectations in the regions of referendums in the autumn. Only if the orders are in place before the summer can we have a 4 November date. Yesterday, the House also approved three orders that provide for those referendums to be conducted as all-postal ballots and make provision about expense limits and referendum costs. Approval was given against the background of the Government's commitment to the House that we would not proceed with the all-postal referendums as planned if the Electoral Commission's evaluation report on last June's all-postal pilots produced convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so. The commission's report was expected by 13 September. We gave our commitment because we take its views very seriously—[Interruption.] We do.
In the debates this week, concerns were raised about all-postal ballots, following some experiences of postal voting in the recent pilots. There are differences of views on all-postal ballots across the House, with particular reservations being strongly voiced in certain localities. This week, the Electoral Commission has also announced that it intends to publish its evaluation report of the June pilots and its recommendations on the future use of all-postal ballots before Parliament returns in September. The debates demonstrated solid support for all-postal voting and the clear expectation of an early referendum in the north-east. None of the concerns raised about all-postal ballots relates to that region. On the contrary, the experience there of all-postal ballots, both in June and in earlier local election pilots, has been consistently positive. The north-east has had longer and more extensive experience of all-postal ballots than any other region, and the availability of all postal voting has been consistently welcomed by the voters.
We have reflected on those developments, and on the range of opinions expressed during the debates on the orders. Except where there is a pressing expectation and overwhelming support for an early all-postal referendum, we have concluded that the right course is not to proceed with the orders setting up referendums on 4 November but to await the Electoral Commission's report before confirming the arrangements. We have therefore decided not to proceed with the orders for the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber. Our commitment to referendums in those regions remains unchanged, but the timetable for their referendums will be affected.
Once the House returns in September we will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on how we intend to proceed in those regions, having had the opportunity to consider carefully the commission's report. We are clear, however, that, as we are not
502
proceeding now with the orders, there cannot be referendums on 4 November in those regions. By contrast, all that we have heard from the north-east confirms that it is right to proceed with the orders providing for all-postal referendums in the north-east on 4 November. That is what the people there want and expect, and that is what we are facilitating.
To help people in the north-east make their decision, I am today publishing the draft Regional Assemblies Bill, including explanatory notes and regulatory impact assessment (Cm 6285) and an accompanying policy statement. Those documents set out the purposes, powers and responsibilities that we envisage for elected regional assemblies. The draft Bill and policy statement also cover the establishment, election, constitution and funding of elected assemblies. The Bill is drafted to give each general purposes of economic development, social development and the improvement and protection of the environment, as well as wide-ranging power to take action to further those purposes. There will also be detailed powers relating to specific functions.
Since the publication of the White Paper, we have strengthened the powers of elected regional assemblies in crucial areas such as fire and rescue, stakeholder engagement and planning, and that is reflected in the Bill. We have also developed proposals on learning and skills and transport. Progress on the former is reflected in the policy statement. Under the Bill, decisions currently made by different sets of unelected bureaucrats would be taken by one democratic body elected by the people of the region. Its publication fulfils our commitment to Parliament to publish a draft Bill ahead of any referendum for an elected regional assembly. It demonstrates our commitment to establish elected assemblies where people want them, whether in the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber or, in the course of time, any other region.
The Bill will be an important tool to help the electorate in the north-east make an informed decision on whether to vote for or against an elected assembly in the referendum on 4 November. We intend to introduce a final version of the Bill in Parliament once a region has voted to establish an assembly.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): You've got the junior doing it!
Hon. Members: You got your junior to do it!
Mr. Speaker: Order. We should have some calm in the Chamber.
Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that if he had made the statement my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) would have replied.
The statement just delivered by the Minister for Local and Regional Government is quite incredible, completely unbelievable and utterly cynical. Only yesterday, he urged the House to support the principle of three referendums, but he has the gall and temerity to return within 24 hours to say that he has changed his

503
mind. Only yesterday, he denied that he would do what I predicted. He said that
"we shall … be prepared not to proceed with an all-postal referendum. However, we must obviously wait to see the evidence."—[Official Report, 21 July 2004; Vol. 424, c. 379.]
The evidence will appear in the Electoral Commission report, which will not be published until 27 August, so why has he suddenly changed his mind and decided not to wait for it? Is he as astonished as we are about what he has been sent here to do? Can he assure us that when he addressed the House yesterday, he was speaking, to use a well worn phrase, "in good faith"?
Can anyone remember any Government treating the people of this country—in this case, the people of the north-west and of Yorkshire and the Humber—with such utter contempt and cynicism? It is awesomely ruthless politics suddenly to cut horrendous losses under the cover of a Cabinet reshuffle. This is what new Labour calls "a good day to bury bad news". Talking of reshuffles—
The Deputy Prime Minister: There is no reshuffle.
Mr. Jenkin: None? I wondered whether that was why the right hon. Gentleman did not make the statement himself. I thought today might be his last day on the Front Bench. Are not regional assemblies his life's work? Did he refuse to make the statement because he did not want to trash 20 or more years of commitment to his regional dreams?
This whole episode shows more clearly than ever that the Government have nothing but contempt for Parliament. Hon. Members may have differing opinions about the merits of elected regional assemblies, but we can all agree on one thing—this is no way to run our constitution, our democracy or our country. How much public money has been wasted in those two regions on consultation, the information campaign and the boundary committee review?How many hours of civil service time has been wasted and how much goodwill from the few members of the business community who supported the Government's proposals has been lost? Pity the poor "yes" campaigners, who were led a merry dance for a year or more only to be defeated before a single vote is cast in the referendums.
Will the right hon. Gentleman be straight with the House? When he uses the word "postpone", what he really means is cancel, scrap, finish with, delete, forget about, consign to the dustbin of failed ideas, because the truth is that nobody wants an extra layer of professional politicians leeching more tax out of the pockets of honest, hard-working people.
May I press the Minister on the reason he gives for scrapping only two out of three referendums? Does he not realise how utterly illogical he is being? If an all-postal referendum is unsafe in Yorkshire, how can it be safe in Northumberland? If it is a bad system for Bradford, how can the identical system be okay in Newcastle? If it is prone to corruption in Liverpool, why is it not prone to corruption in Durham or Middlesbrough? If the issue is all-postal voting, why does he not switch to a tried and tested system that we have had running in this country for a couple of hundred years? It is called the polling station and the ballot box.
504
The reasons the Minister has given for pulling the referendums are a fig leaf—chaff to disguise the real reason. The fact is that a majority of Labour MPs were in covert or open rebellion in the north-west and Yorkshire this week because they know what Ministers have been denying. They know their voters do not want an extra layer of placemen, politicians and bureaucrats. They do not want a costly and wasteful reorganisation of local government. They do not want powers stripped away from local councils, which represent real communities, and placed in the hands of a remote bureaucracy under politicians with virtually no power at all.
Where would just one elected regional assembly leave the British constitution? What started out as a so-called grand plan for comprehensive constitutional settlement in England is today left in tatters. First there were eight regions, then there were three, and now there is one.
As for the Bill, for the Government to announce the draft Bill today just adds to the atmosphere of cynicism. I am grateful to the Minister for sending me an advance copy of his statement, but unfortunately I got the revised copy only after he was on his feet, so I cannot comment on what he means by "the policy statement" that goes with the Bill. It obviously does not have legislative authority. The policy statement will not be included in the Bill.
If the information published today is so significant, why did the Minister deliberately withhold it from the House yesterday, when we had much better time and occasion to debate it? He is still holding the Bill in the Vote Office. He has still not released it for us to look at. If there are so-called new powers in the Bill, how can that be, when hardly more than a few weeks ago the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) told us in a letter that the White Paper set out all the powers proposed for the assemblies. The Deputy Prime Minister told a meeting in the north of England earlier this year that he was fighting "battles" with his Cabinet colleagues about the powers he wanted for the Bill. His absence from the Dispatch Box today is clear indication that he has lost all his battles.
Few in the Government are committed to the Deputy Prime Minister's pathetic pipe dream, because they can see that elected regional assemblies are unwanted and would become unpopular and expensive tax-raising talking shops that would not create one extra teacher in the classroom, one extra nurse or doctor for the NHS, or one extra policeman on our streets.
Mr. Raynsford: I listened to what the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said and recalled him saying exactly the same thing yesterday. It is nice to know that he is simply recycling old speeches. [HON. MEMBERS: Consistency."] Before we get down to the substance, let me comment on the process.
I phoned the hon. Gentleman this morning to explain that if the other place approved the order before I made the statement, I would announce the publication of the Bill. That is why the draft statement that he had made provision for us not yet being in that position, but I alerted him to the fact, and I apologise if he got the statement only at the last minute. I hope he will

505
understand that that was for technical reasons—the other place approved the order very recently.
The Opposition have consistently opposed any regional devolution and have fought throughout the past two years to prevent referendums from being held in any region. They nod to confirm that. It is pretty rich for an Opposition who have consistently opposed that now to oppose the Government, who have decided that it is right to postpone the referendums in two regions. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.
We as a Government made it clear that we listened to the debate and to the views expressed, and we have amended our proposals. It is pretty rich of the Opposition to criticise us for doing something that they have been urging us to do for a long time. The hon. Gentleman's claim that we are withdrawing from our commitment to regional government is entirely wrong. We remain utterly committed to extending the option of regional government. That is why we are publishing the Bill today. That is a clear statement of our commitment to give the people of the English regions the opportunity to decide whether they wish to exercise those powers in the region through an elected regional assembly.
The Bill shows our commitment. We are not cancelling the referendums in the Yorkshire and Humber and north-west regions. We are simply postponing them, for the very good reason that concerns have been voiced in all parts of the House about all-postal ballots in those two regions. No concerns have been voiced about all-postal ballots in the north-east. On the contrary, we heard last night impressive evidence from speaker after speaker from the north-east about the benefits of all-postal, the extensive experience they have had of all-postal and the effect that that has had on increasing turnout. Listening to the evidence and responding to the views expressed by the House, the Government have changed their position—I accept that entirely, but that is good for democracy. We have listened to the views of hon. Members and acted logically and sensibly on that.
The people will ultimately decide. The test for the Opposition is this: when the people of the north-east come to exercise their decision on 4 November in the referendum that has been provided for by the orders, will the Opposition accept their decision? Will the Opposition confirm that if the people of the north-east vote yes, they will support an elected regional assembly in the north-east of England?
Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for the statement, even though I fear this is a sad day for democracy. The real losers are the voters, not just because they have been denied a choice and denied a ballot, but because they have been denied the chance to take power from Whitehall—to elect a regional assembly instead of suffering regional quangos.
What is the Minister's message to the yes campaigners, who have worked so hard already to realise greater democracy in our regions? What hope for the future will he give to the people of the north-west and the Yorkshire region, who have argued for decades for devolution? Will he say how long the postponement will last? Will he give a date? Above all, will he tell the House that Ministers are learning some lessons?
We on the Liberal Benches told the Government that this could happen. From day one we told them it was a mistake to couple devolution with local government
506
reorganisation. From day one we told them that Ministers ought to be giving away more power to regions to win the public support that was needed. So does the Minister have any regrets about the way the Government have approached the matter? Is he proud of the way his Government have handled regional devolution?
Given the embarrassing U-turn by the Government, will the Minister tell the House more about why the Government were forced to come to this sorry decision today? Rather than hiding behind the Electoral Commission or a few Back Benchers, can the Minister confirm that the decision was taken at the insistence of No. 10 Downing street? Is it not true that it is the Prime Minister who has tried to stall regional devolution from the outset? It is welcome that the draft powers Bill has been published today, but when will the Government allow a debate on it?
This statement leaves the Deputy Prime Minister not only embarrassed, but severely wounded. By letting the Prime Minister get his way time and again, his own long-held ambitions have been thwarted. Today, the Chancellor has gained a new ally.
Mr. Raynsford: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, voters are not being denied the option of devolution. There will be a postponement—I entirely accept that—but I have made it clear that we are committed to giving the people of the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber that opportunity.
The hon. Gentleman asked when we will take the decision. As I made clear in the statement, we will look closely at the Electoral Commission's report, which we expect to be delivered in late August, and, with the Speaker's approval, we will make a statement to the House in September to set out the timetable. It is a postponement, not a cancellation.
The message to yes campaigners is that this issue is hugely important and must be handled in the most positive and constructive way. We have responded to voices on both sides of the House raising concern about all-postal ballots. In the light of those, we decided to wait until we can consider the Electoral Commission's report before reaching a final decision. However, we remain utterly committed to people having the option of regional devolution.
The hon. Gentleman asked about more powers. I hope that when he reads the Bill, he will realise that an extensive series of powers will be available to elected regional assemblies, and that progress has been made since the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman will make a judgment when he has had a chance to read the Bill.
On local government reorganisation, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We do not believe that it is right to have additional tiers of government. We believe that it is right to have unitary local government if there is regional government. In all regions, the experience of the process involving the boundary committee has shown how much more mature local government can be in considering reorganisation than it was during the period under the Conservative Government when the Banham review caused it considerable anxiety and discord.

507
The hon. Gentleman asked about the basis of the decision. I repeat that the change of timetable has been prompted by consideration of views expressed in this House. The decision was finally taken in Cabinet this morning.
Mr. David Curry: It is a pity that the Deputy Prime Minister, who this morning spent his time personally ringing round regional newspaper editors, was unable to make a statement to the House himself. He must feel powerfully let down by Labour MPs and by the Prime Minister. The sudden accession of virtue by which the Minister says that views expressed in this House led to the deferment defies all credibility given that the Government have consistently swept away all hon. Members' demands for them to wait until the Electoral Commission reports.
Will the Minister give the costs of the information campaign and meetings in the two regions where there has been a postponement, and confirm that they will be verified by the Audit Commission or the National Audit Office? Will he confirm that there will not be a referendum in either of those two regions this side of the general election? Will he further confirm that there will be no local government reorganisation in the absence of elected regional government?
Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is simply wrong to say that we have not previously shown any concern for views expressed in this House. As he knows very well from our discussion last night, we have listened to his views about the availability of dropping-off points for people in rural areas and have made changes to facilitate that. That is an indication of our genuine desire to listen to and respond to views expressed in the House, as we have in relation to this postponement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about costs. Against the total budget of £5 million, we have already spent £2.2 million. We intend to spend a further £0.5 million on the "Your Say" campaign in the north-east. Of the £2 million that had been allocated for "Your Say" in the north-west and in Yorkshire and Humber, £1.4 million will not be spent, while £600,00 will be transferred to enhanced fire safety publicity to make use of pre-booked television times. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is a sensible use of resources. We are responding in the most sensible way.
On the timetable, we have made it clear that we will report back to the House in September after we have seen the Electoral Commission's report, and then set out our proposals for the new timetable.
Joyce Quin: While I hope that devolution will come to the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber in due course, I believe that the north-east, with its distinct history and culture, and its determination to help to build its own future, will be able to lead the way and to be the pioneer for this new form of government in England. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the case for the north-east is made across government with purpose and enthusiasm?
Mr. Raynsford: I echo my right hon. Friend's remarks about the commitment of people in the north-east. I assure her that all those of us who believe, as many of us do passionately, in the case for regional devolution will be doing our utmost to ensure that people in the north-east have full information about the options. I am confident that they will vote yes for regional devolution, which has been a long-term aspiration of the region, and that in doing so they will point the way forward for other parts of the country.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: The Minister claimed that there was overwhelming support for a referendum in the north-east. He should pay some regard to opinion polls published in the region showing that the majority of people did not even know that the referendum was to be held.
If the Electoral Commission reported on 27 August that the whole postal ballot system is flawed, would the Minister postpone the referendum in the north-east?
Mr. Raynsford: I understand that the hon. Gentleman will feel like a threatened minority in the north-east, as he is the only Conservative MP in the region. That is an indication of the lack of support that his party, which is opposed to regional devolution, has there. I will say no more about his first point.
As for what would happen if the Electoral Commission reported at the end of the August that it was unsafe to proceed, we have already said that in that case we would not proceed with an all-postal referendum. However, there is absolutely no evidence of any serious concern in the north-east, which has had more experience of all-postal voting than any other region. A series of pilots have taken place in local authorities, and there were by-elections in 2000, 2002 and 2003. Last night, we heard about a local government by-election that had a 64 per cent. turnout. That all points to the confidence of the north-east region in all-postal voting. On that basis, we think that it is right to proceed, but of course we will look at the Electoral Commission's report when it comes out.
Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, on having the common sense to listen to the voices of Members of Parliament in the north-west and of the public in that region, who, by their eloquent silence, have indicated that they do not recognise that there is any such place as the north-west in terms of politics, economics or culture. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving those of us who believe that city regions are the way forward for devolution the space to develop our arguments, and assure him that that campaign starts now.
Mr. Raynsford: It may disappoint my hon. Friend to learn that we are postponing, not cancelling, a referendum in the north-west. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The argument for regional devolution in the north-west will be engaged at a slightly later date than was previously arranged. However, I understand his concerns. As he has not been an advocate of this policy, I am sure that he is pleased about our announcement to postpone.
Mr. Graham Brady: I welcome this climbdown from a costly, irrelevant and unwanted proposal for an extra tier of government in the north-west. However, I remain concerned that throughout the process the Government have assumed people's support despite having no evidence for it. If they intend to continue considering the possibility of holding referendums on regional government, can that decision be transferred to an independent body that can make rational decisions without party politics getting in the way and assess the very low level of interest in regional government? That would finally put paid to the whole idea.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman appears not to know that a detailed process, involving soundings, was undergone in all the English regions and it demonstrated greater interest in the northern regions than in others. In comparison with the response to normal consultation exercises, the number of respondents from all three northern regions was significant. However, we have always taken the view that, ultimately, it is up to the people to decide in a referendum. That is why we have provided for referendums. The people will decide on 4 November in the north-east and later in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humber and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respect their view when they make their decision in those referendums. That is the ultimate test.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I am deeply disappointed by my right hon. Friend's statement but will he give the House a guarantee that the people of the north-west will have the opportunity to vote in a referendum for a regional assembly? They will thus have the same opportunities as are being given to people in the north-east, about which I am pleased. Does he agree that the problems of the north-south divide and the unaccountability of regional quangos will continue unless resolute action is taken? When he says that he will listen to people's voices on the matter, will he guarantee listening to those who positively seek change to give a better deal to people who live in the north-west and not solely to negative voices inside and outside Parliament and those who simply want to maintain the status quo, with all its inequalities?
Mr. Raynsford: Of course, I was here last night when my hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the problems of the north-south divide and argued passionately for people in the north-west to have the opportunity to vote for regional devolution. I give her the assurance that she seeks. People in the north-west will have that option. It will not be exercised on 4 November, for the reasons that I have given, but we will report back to the House in September and make the timetable clear then. I assure my hon. Friend that we will listen to the views of all parties. Obviously, we shall listen to the views of those who seek change, as she does.
Mr. John Greenway: Has the Minister no comprehension of the damage that uncertainty about the matter does to local government in North Yorkshire? Even if we had a referendum on 4 November, civil servants have already left their posts for better pastures because the plans mean that they cannot envisage a future for their local council. If we are
510
considering only a postponement, not a cancellation, the uncertainty will continue. The Minister owes us an explanation of when he believes that the ballot will take place. If he is genuinely in favour of it, why cannot we have polling stations?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point about uncertainty in local government because of reorganisation. I am conscious of that and I want to ensure that we make a statement in the House in September to clarify the position so that the uncertainty does not continue any longer than absolutely necessary. I accept it has an effect on people who work in local authorities.
By contrast with the atmosphere in the 1990s when the Banham process engendered considerable delay, concern and apprehension in local government, the current process has generally been much more positive, although I appreciate that some people are apprehensive about the different options in Yorkshire and Humber. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend knows that Durham and other parts of the north-east have had all-postal ballots for the past three years. That has led to dramatic increases in turnout. The Electoral Commission's analysis of the pilots not only congratulated the relevant councils but pointed out that there was no increase in fraud.
I welcome today's announcement of a referendum on 4 November in the north-east. I look forward to people in the north-east having a say in their future on that day. The Conservative party never gave people such a say when it abolished, for example, Tyne and Wear county council.
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the considerable and positive experience of the north-east. Twenty-two all-postal voting pilots took place in the north-east before 2004—significantly more than in any other region even though it is the smallest region in the country. That shows the extent to which the north-east has gone further in piloting and testing all-postal voting. As he said, that arrangement has had a positive impact in increased turnout. Few, if any, recorded instances of fraud occurred in the north-east. All that points to the logic of proceeding in the north-east with an all-postal ballot on 4 November. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome of that and I have no doubt that he will be a powerful advocate for devolution in the region between now and the referendum.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: It is a disappointing day for those of us in the north-west who believe that devolution is an important way of regenerating the region. Will the Minister say a little more about the timetable? In responding to other hon. Members, he said that the money set aside for the devolution campaign in the north-west will be spent on something else. That strongly implies that the delay is not a matter of weeks or months but perhaps years. It is important for those of us in the north-west who support devolution and want the campaign to succeed to have a much clearer idea of the Government's commitment and time scale.
Mr. Raynsford: I hear the hon. Gentleman's comments, although I suspect that his colleague Lord

511
Greaves may not share his view of the north-west. As he will acknowledge, there is disagreement among all parties in the north-west region. One of the factors that we took into account was the different views about all-postal voting—Lord Greaves was diametrically opposed to it in all circumstances. We do not necessarily agree with him, but we have listened.
On the timetable, I have already made it clear that we will report back to the House in September. There was a programme, which included significant pre-booked advertising slots, for the summer. We have made arrangements to postpone all that could be postponed and to substitute fire safety advertisements for "Your Say" advertisements in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humber to make the best use of pre-booked and pre-paid advertising slots. However, there is no question of our not resuming the "Your Say" campaign in Yorkshire and Humber and the north-west once we have clarified the timetable for the referendum.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I welcome the statement but I am concerned about the fact that my right hon. Friend continues to talk about postponing the referendums instead of admitting the inevitable and saying that they will be dropped. Let me revert to the point that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made. There is huge uncertainty in local government, with people leaving their jobs and so on. Is not it important, when the Government revert to the timetable in September, to set out the next steps clearly and definitively.
Mr. Raynsford: I have already made it clear that that is exactly our intention.
Mr. Tim Collins: Does the Minister accept that there will be widespread delight in Cumbria generally and south lakeland in particular at any setback for the unpopular Labour and Liberal Democrat attempts to parachute unwanted extra bureaucracy into rural areas in the north-west? Will he also acknowledge at last that, behind all the flimflam, the only reason that he has come to the Chamber today to admit that the Government have wasted millions of pounds on a campaign that they have called off at the last minute is that he knows that they would have lost the referendums in the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber? If he believes that he has a chance of winning referendums in those areas, why will not he guarantee to hold them before the next election?
Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman has heard me say repeatedly, although there is a postponement, we remain determined to proceed with referendums in all the regions. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have visited Cumbria and our experience has been different from the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. We encountered many people who perceive genuine advantages in devolution and in local government reorganisation in Cumbria, where several people have understood the logic of the boundary committee proposals. The statement is a sensible response to doubts about all-postal voting, which were expressed especially vehemently in the two regions that we are
512
considering. That is the reason for the postponement but we remain committed to giving people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the rest of the north-west and Yorkshire and Humber the opportunity to benefit from regional devolution.
Tony Lloyd: It would, I am afraid, be hard to disguise my considerable disappointment at this announcement, but I have genuine sympathy for my right hon. Friend's predicament in coming to the House today. The arguments about taking the weight of this over-centralised country off the northern regions remain, as does the need to guarantee that the northern regions will never again be crushed by a south-east-dominated Tory Government, should there ever be another. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment that referendums will go ahead, allowing the people of the north-west and of Yorkshire and Humber to exercise their right to decide?
Mr. Raynsford: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He will know from what I have said today and on previous occasions that there is no question of any change in our commitment to giving people in the northern regions—and, indeed, in other regions in England in due course—the opportunity to benefit from devolution. The people of London had that opportunity and they have taken it, against the view of the Conservative party, which opposed it. The people of London voted for it and have benefited from it, and we believe that it is right that people in other English regions should have that opportunity.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: It will come as no surprise to my constituents in Eddisbury or to people in the rest of Cheshire that the breathtaking incompetence of the Government has led to this decision, and they will welcome the opportunity to retain the ability to belong to an area that they love. However, this decision does not remove the genuine blight on the excellent Cheshire county council. The word "excellent" was, of course, ascribed to the council by the Minister's own Department and by this Government. Given that this whole idea originated from this Government—but for whom we would not be wasting all this time discussing the issue—will the Minister now order a compensation scheme for all those private individuals and companies from whom money has been raised for the campaign to defeat this ridiculous proposal?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the illusion that we have abandoned the referendum. We have not; we are simply postponing it. People will be able to take a decision—yes or no—in due course.
Mr. Philip Hammond: When?
Mr. Raynsford: I have clarified the fact, in my original statement and in response to a number of questions, that we shall come back to the House in September, and that we shall then make a statement about the timetable.

513
On the question of local government reorganisation, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) will be aware that, in Cheshire, there has been a lot of intelligent interest in the benefits of the different options. Those include having either a single, unitary county or three unitary authorities, each representing areas currently covered by two separate districts. Those options obviously have partisan support on either side, but there has been an intelligent and sensible discussion on them. Most people feel that larger, more powerful unitary authorities can play an important role in improving the quality of local government.
Mr. Peter Pike: May I assure my right hon. Friend that many people will be glad to hear that this is a deferment and not a cancellation? Many people in the north-west believe that this is an important opportunity to seize control of certain pots of money and of quangos and other bodies that take important decisions in our region. I hope that, when he comes back to the House in September, my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us that we shall have the referendum in the north-west before I retire at the next general election.
Mr. Raynsford: I certainly intend to bring clarity when we make a further statement in September. I also want my hon. Friend, who has had a distinguished career in the north-west, to be able to campaign actively for a yes vote in a referendum before the next general election, but he will have to wait for our statement in September, when I shall give him absolute clarity about the timetable.
Ann Winterton: There will be joy in the county of Cheshire and the boroughs of Congleton and Macclesfield at this eleventh-hour conversion—this U-turn—on the part of the Government, which has been made for obvious political reasons. The Minister keeps insisting that this is merely a postponement. May I respectfully suggest that he should pull the rug from under this stupid proposal and, after a decent interval, come to the House and announce that the idea of regionalisation in the north-west is dead and buried?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Lady clearly wishes there to be rejoicing in the north-west. I am surprised that she is not hoping that that will be about her reselection as the Conservative candidate for her constituency. As I have said, we will report back to the House in September, and we will set out the timetable, but I want to make it clear that we believe that there is an overwhelming case for giving people in all the regions of England the opportunity to have democratic control—if they want it—over functions that are currently discharged by bureaucrats who are not democratically accountable, many of whose institutions were set up by the Conservatives. I am surprised that the hon. Lady advocates the defence of the quango state; I do not think that many other people in her constituency will share her views.
Mr. Clive Betts: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about Yorkshire and Humber. I accept that it was not an easy announcement to make but, in the circumstances, it was the right one. Sadly, at this stage there is no great
514
enthusiasm in my constituency for a directly elected regional assembly. If my right hon. Friend is putting the issue on the back burner, will he leave it on a low light for the time being? We do not want the prospect of a referendum hanging over us for up to 12 months. If the delay is to be for at least a year, we can look at the proposals for a regional assembly and, I hope, build up more support for them.
Mr. Raynsford: In September, we will set out our proposals for the timetable. It would be premature for me to indicate what our thinking on that is at this stage.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Did the Minister know yesterday afternoon that this issue was going to be discussed in Cabinet today and that he was likely to have to make this U-turn? None of this makes any sense. Has some polling been done in the north-west and Yorkshire, where the Government know that there is little likelihood of their winning a referendum? They think that they have a chance in the north-east, so perhaps they are going to try one of those bouncing exercises, like the one that they tried in Wales, where the referendum was held a week later than the one in Scotland. The fact is that the people of Ribble Valley do not want this assembly, and the people of the north-west do not want it. It is about time the Government junked this dreadful idea completely.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has consistently backed the losing side in referendums—his party was wrong about Scotland, Wales and London—and I would not take his judgment as the right basis on which to move forward. It is sad and surprising that he takes that view, rather than recognising that it is appropriate for Governments to listen to the views expressed in the House and, in certain circumstances, to change their view. We have done that, and I would have thought that most sensible Members would regard it as a sign of intelligent government, in contrast to the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman has put on it.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance Act 2004

Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004

Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2004

Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004

Patents Act 2004

Health Protection Agency Act 2004

Traffic Management Act 2004

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004

Energy Act 2004

Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004

2.8 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, in business questions, I asked for an oral statement about the ombudsman's request to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) to extend her jurisdiction to include the role of the Government Actuary's Department in relation to Equitable Life. A written ministerial statement has now appeared in the Library, which says that the Cabinet Office Minister will extend the jurisdiction to include the Government Actuary's Department. However, it does not say when the necessary order will be laid. This is a matter of great urgency that affects hundreds of thousands of the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Have you had any indication that the Minister will be giving further information to the House today about when that order is to be laid, so that there will be no further delay in this regard?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no information about the matter that the hon. Gentleman has just raised, but he has raised it in the House today and put it clearly on the record. No doubt the people responsible for these matters will respond to it.

Summer Adjournment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
2.10 pm
Tom Cox: I wish to refer to the issues covered in early-day motion 1466, on the fire service national procurement strategy, which has been signed by 63 Members from all political parties in the House and which, in my view, cannot be regarded as a political issue. It is causing deep concern among highly respected companies that manufacture safety equipment for fire services in this country and for export. More than 200 UK companies are involved in the industry, which employs many thousands of people.
Deep concern centres—
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member for Tooting (Tom Cox), but I have not noticed the clock moving. Normally, when there is a 10-minute rule, the clock shows the time running down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I thank the hon. Gentleman most sincerely for drawing that matter to the attention of the Chair and the House—clearly, the end of term is creeping in. That matter will be corrected—immediately.[Laughter.]
Tom Cox: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There is deep concern about the block on major procurement that the Government have imposed. This has gone on for more than nine months, and despite repeated requests to meet Ministers to discuss Government policy on the purchase of equipment, regrettably, no such meeting has taken place. As a result of this lack of consultation and involvement, business has been lost in this country and abroad, and deep concern has been expressed about the future of the industry.
I understand that there could be a new national procurement strategy, under which, I suspect, there could be advantages. However, no Minister from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has met representatives of the Federation of British Fire Organisations to discuss the issue. That has not been for the want of trying to arrange such a meeting. In April, the all-party fire safety group, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), and of which I and many other Members are members, organised a seminar in the House to discuss the concerns that exist. Sadly, no Minister attended the seminar, and neither did any senior civil servant attend who could have informed the Minister of the deep concerns that existed then and that still exist. We have a right to ask why that has been allowed to happen. The Government set up two forums last year to consult those who work in fire safety. Neither of the groups was asked to consider the issue of procurement strategy, and nor has anyone involved in the manufacturing of safety equipment been involved, or had their view sought.
I have referred not only to the home market but to the export market, which is suffering because of this uncertainty. We all know, however, that there has been

517
a joint CBI-TUC productivity group, which has clearly said that the export capabilities of companies should be taken into account when placing tenders for public spending work. We welcome that. We cannot, however, allow this lack of real involvement and consultation by the Government to continue, for the reasons that I have given. There is a very real need for consultation to take place as soon as possible.
Some very well known people in the fire safety industry are highly respected and trusted to listen to concerns and clearly to express them at the highest level—to Ministers. I refer to two people in particular: Mrs. Pamela Castle, and chief fire officer Alan Doig. They are knowledgeable and command great confidence within the industry. They could start to rebuild the trust and confidence of all who are involved in the industry.
I accept that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who will reply to the debate, cannot fully answer the points that I have made, but I am sure that he fully understands the importance and the urgency of this matter. Therefore, I request that tomorrow he clearly informs the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of my remarks and requests that an urgent meeting be arranged. The fire safety industry would welcome that and, as I have clearly stated, both Mrs. Pamela Castle and chief fire officer lan Doig should be fully involved in discussions. I ask my hon. Friend to assure me when he winds up that my views will be conveyed to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister tomorrow.
2.17 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: Earlier this year, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I failed to catch your eye to speak in an Opposition day debate on post office closures. If I had done so, I would have drawn attention to the failure of the Post Office to appreciate the impact on frail, elderly constituents of the removal of their local post office, which for them has always been a vital lifeline, especially where there are no banks or cash points nearby. I would have described the consultation period as inadequate, the consultation process as shambolic and my intervention on behalf of my constituents as treated with disdain.
I applaud the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services for telling the House that in hindsight the Post Office did not handle the closures with sufficient sensitivity. Unfortunately, the changes that he announced in the consultation procedure will not reopen post offices in my constituency, which have, in my view, been wrongly closed.
Today, I fear that British Telecom might be emulating the Post Office with its plans to remove public pay phones throughout the country. In April, BT wrote to tell me that it proposed to remove 162 telephone boxes out of a total of 949 in my county of Dorset, including 21 in my constituency of Bournemouth, East. I assume that many Members have received similar letters relating to their areas. The proposal to remove two specific boxes in my constituency alarms me particularly, as they serve two distinct communities: Holdenhurst village and Wick village, both of which are conservation areas and located beside the River Stour, one upstream, beside which fishing and walking are popular, and the other where boating is an all-yearround activity.
518
In response to my question in the House about what consultation BT is obliged to undertake before it removes public telephone boxes, the Minister referred me to the industry regulator, Ofcom. Its chief executive wrote to inform me that the local planning authority must be notified, and that notices must be prominently displayed in the boxes concerned, telling users that they have 42 days to make representations to the authority. I wrote to Bournemouth borough council, the planning authority, with my objections, and it appears that mine has been the only letter received. That is not altogether surprising, as when I asked residents in Holdenhurst village whether they knew that their only telephone box was under threat, they said that they did not and would certainly have objected if they had known.
I am informed that a number of senior members of Bournemouth council were consulted by officers in response to BT's notification, and that disappointment and concern at the impact that the loss of 42 payphones would have both from a social and safety point of view was expressed to BT. However, there has been no report to elected members and no debate in the council on the proposed removals. Indeed, I doubt very much whether most of our local councillors know that telephone boxes are to be removed from the wards that they represent. I am not encouraged by the reported comments of the cabinet member responsible for community relations, Councillor Andrew Garratt:
"we have not been asked to consult or inform local people … and have no obligation to do so."
Nor am I encouraged by the reported comments of the leader of neighbouring Poole council, Councillor Brian Leverett:
"we are not involved in any consultation … however we, as a local authority, would like to be consulted."
I appreciate that the mobile phone revolution has led to far fewer people using public payphones and that BT cannot indefinitely maintain those that are becoming increasingly unprofitable. Nevertheless, there remain some people, including me, who do not have mobile telephones and rely on finding a public telephone—often, regrettably, in an emergency. BT is a universal public service provider designated as such by Ofcom just one year ago. From the two examples of the proposed removals that I have given—Holdenhurst village and Wick village in my constituency, and there may be many more of equal gravity—it seems to me that BT is abandoning its social responsibilities as a provider. It is also clear to me that the local authority has not given proper consideration to such proposals, which should be required by Ofcom, and may even be expected by Ofcom.
I do not know whether Ofcom monitors the consultation that BT undertakes and I am waiting for a reply to find out. In my view, consultation with senior councillors by officers is not enough. Every councillor should have been informed and given the opportunity to respond on behalf of the local residents whom they are elected to represent. It seems to me that that has not happened, so the consultation that BT is obliged to undertake is not being fulfilled in Bournemouth. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) fully supports my concerns.
I look forward to the response of the deputy Leader of the House and any assurance that he can give that BT will not be allowed to remove any public telephone

519
boxes that serve distinct local communities or areas that attract visitors until such proposals have been given proper consideration by the entire local authority.
In conclusion, I believe that all of us here have been badly let down by the Post Office, a public service provider, closing branches without consultation. I do not want the same experience with BT's removal of vital public telephone boxes. The Government should not ignore what is happening, because it is with them that the buck should stop.
2.23 pm
Mr. Liam Byrne: It gives me great pleasure to rise to make my maiden speech and to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). I welcomed his comments about the challenges of the mobile phone industry—a subject about which I have learned much in the past week. I am especially grateful to be given this opportunity to speak only 48 hours after being presented to the House. I hope that hon. Members will not see this as unseemly haste, but my constituents, like most people in Birmingham, like to get down to business, and they will appreciate that I have been given the opportunity to do the same.
I am grateful to have some conventions to honour this afternoon. They are conventions with a good cause. I can think of no better place to start my contribution to the House than with a celebration of the achievements of my predecessor and a celebration of my constituency.
Hodge Hill has been served well by Terry Davis, the now right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and Roy Jenkins over the past 50 years. They are all people who have served not only their constituency but their country with distinction. But it was the achievements of Terry Davis over the past 25 years that we celebrated at the Birmingham Council house this weekend past. To those who knew Terry and worked with him it came as no surprise to learn that the representatives of 45 countries had asked him to become their leader of the Council of Europe for the next five years. It is truly the crown of a career, as Lord Tweedsmuir once put it.
We were not surprised, because those of us who know Terry know him for his compassion, his principle and his iron-cast determination to get things done. Once upon a time, Terry Davis was the man who was known as one of the very few people in Birmingham who could get the window of a council house fixed. Over the past two and a half decades, Terry Davis went on to serve 17,000 families in Birmingham, Hodge Hill and before it Stechford—two for every day that he served in office. I am very proud to say that he is now not just helping the families of a constituency but helping the families of an entire continent. I know that he will serve them with the credo that he expressed in 1979 in a letter that he wrote to constituents in Stechford. He said:
"We cannot judge people by the colour of their skin. Race hatred does nothing to keep prices down, increase wages, provide more jobs or improve our living conditions. It sets worker against worker and it sets neighbour against neighbour."
520
They are words that have inspired many on this side of the House and words that inspired me during my campaign to win the confidence of the people of Hodge Hill over the past three or four weeks.
Just as Terry Davis epitomised what is great about British political life, so the constituency epitomises so much about what is great in Britain. That is exactly why it is the sort of place that any party with aspirations to govern must win. Over the past three weeks, many hon. Friends were able to join me walking, and sometimes running, up and down the streets and roads of the constituency. Many were able to join me in the west of Hodge Hill on the busy Alum Rock road and Washwood Heath road bustling with vibrancy, commerce and trade. Many people joined me on the streets of Saltley. Many people joined me outside Ward End park. Many people joined me at the great LDV plant—a symbol of Birmingham's enduring excellence and of our enterprise in manufacturing.
Many hon. Friends were able to join me on the walk eastwards towards Hodge Hill and Stechford—towards the Fox and Goose, where many people were able to join me for lunch in the Beaufort Diner. A few others were able to join me for a drink in the Beaufort Sports and Social Club. I was proud to tell them about the historic tradition of the northern border of Hodge Hill, along which once stood the factories that produced the Spitfires and Hurricanes that defended these islands in one of its most dangerous hours, and which today power our exports with companies such as Jaguar.
Many hon. Friends joined me in Shard End and Tile Cross south of the River Cole and in Kitts Green, visiting great hubs of community life such as Shard End community centre and the Royal British Legion, where we were able for a while at least to put politics aside and talk among friends.
More important than the places that we visited together were the people whom we met together—great community servants such as Marj Bridle, Margaret Greenaway, Ian Ward and Margaret Byrne in Hodge Hill; Mike Nangle, the first Irish-born Lord Mayor of Birmingham city; Anita Ward and John Clancy in Hodge Hill; Ansa Ali Khan and Mohammed Idress in Washwood Heath. Together we met spiritual leaders such as Tasawar ul-Haq, Susdar Hussain and Qari Mohammed Shoid. Together we met great public servants—people who were serving the people of Hodge Hill day in and day out. They included men such as Lee Richards, the force behind the Sure Start project which is making a difference to so many young families in Hodge Hill; and women such as Anne Cole, the power behind Saltley school, our first specialist school focused on science. These are the people I now wish to work with, with a new resolve and a new partnership to fight crime and antisocial behaviour and to bring a new prosperity and pride to Birmingham, Hodge Hill. That is why I have welcomed so much the statements made by my right hon. Friends to this House over the past few days and weeks, especially the statement made on Monday by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The plans that he announced will make a real difference to the lives of people in Birmingham, Hodge Hill. The new resources—£50 million announced for police community safety wardens—will make crime fighting that much easier on the streets of Hodge Hill. New strategies to support witnesses will mean that we will

521
convict those whom we catch. New plans to put the sense back into sentencing will mean that those who do wrong will be punished.
There are of course great challenges in Hodge Hill. There are great concerns about teenage gangs who make life a misery for others. Too few people in Hodge Hill have the qualifications that they deserve. Half are without qualifications—one of the highest proportions in the country. Fewer than one in 10 have the chance to go on to higher education, one of the lowest proportions in the country. Some 42 per cent. of our children are entitled to free school meals.
However, the image that one takes away from the by-election campaign in Hodge Hill is not one of challenge; it is one of promise. Like many places in Britain, Hodge Hill faces a future that is brighter than it has ever been, because the people there have never been better educated, better resourced, better equipped or better connected with the best ideas in the world wherever they might be. But that promise will not be unlocked if left only to the tender mercies of the marketplace. To unlock the promise in Birmingham, Hodge Hill will take a Government determined to work hard with the resources that we have agreed to share, and it will take people, public servants and politicians who are determined to pull together to make a difference in the best traditions of the city of Birmingham.
People have asked me about my priorities in Hodge Hill. My priorities are simple—to crack down on crime and to bring new jobs. In other words, I want to help to deliver in Hodge Hill a prosperous place, with streets that we are proud of and neighbourhoods that live in peace, not in fear. I will also redouble my determination to fight the prejudice that prevents so many people in my constituency from contributing to the progress of this country.
As I begin work, it is with two images in mind. The first is of a young mother and her child, whom I met on the second day of the campaign in a Sure Start facility. The mother was enjoying the new services and resources that have made a difference to her life and that of her child. The second image is of another mother, at a Shard End residents' meeting, who talked about the fear in which she lived and her sense that when she called for help, nobody came. So as I start work it is with the knowledge that we have made great strides in the past seven years, but that a great deal of work lies ahead. I am delighted to conclude my first contribution to the work of this House with that third image—of progress made, but great work ahead.
2.32 pm
Alistair Burt: It is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). He paid warm tribute to his predecessors in the seat, and Conservative Members are especially grateful that he remarked on the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), the former Member of Parliament for Stechford. The hon. Gentleman also paid warm tribute to Terry Davis, which is also echoed on these Benches. We wish Terry well with his new duties: he was a well liked and assiduous Member of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman gave a measured and thoughtful speech. I am delighted to be associated so closely with a by-election victor—it does not happen to me very often.
522
If he would see me privately afterwards to pass on some tips, I should be very grateful. The hon. Gentleman spoke warmly of those with whom he had so recently been on the streets and whom he will endeavour to serve. The images he painted of his constituency and the evident sincerity with which he spoke of his forthcoming work on his constituents' behalf will serve him well. He comes here with the reputation of being fearsomely bright and hard-working. He will, of course, live that down sooner or later and be accepted among his colleagues as a valued Member. [Laughter.] His contribution showed plainly that he was a worthy victor in the by-election and the whole House will look forward to many contributions in the same vein from him.
The quiet people of North-East Bedfordshire are well into their summer. The carnivals of Sandy and Biggleswade are now over and the villages have had their local fetes and church fairs. Summer is in full swing, but there are stirrings beneath the surface of community tranquillity. Constituents have asked me to raise a number of issues in the House before the summer Adjournment.
First, I wish to convey my constituents' continuing mystification at the absence of the report on the fire and disturbances at Yarl's Wood in February 2002, some two and a half years ago. The House will recall the loss of half the centre, £100 million cost to the taxpayer and, more importantly, the threat to the lives of those detained and working there, not to mention those of the brave public service workers who went to help. I have repeatedly requested the publication of that report and the need for it was thrown into sharper focus this week by the disturbances at Harmondsworth. The report on Yarl's Wood might well contain information about the way in which detainees are held and brought to centres, and about picking up trouble spots at an early stage and noticing increases in tension. All that might have been helpful in the Harmondsworth situation. If it really was a priority for the Home Office, we would have had the report by now. I should be grateful if the Minister would convey my remarks to the Home Secretary and, at the same time, ask whether a pilot programme for tagging asylum seekers and detainees will be introduced at the end of the summer. If so, what effect will it have on Yarl's Wood in my constituency?
Apart from that specific matter, what has grated most on the minds of my constituents—and what they have asked me to raise—is their frustration at being thwarted by various barriers that are put in their way when they try to achieve something, either in their voluntary efforts or their business life. I do not usually bang on about the burden of red tape and regulation because that can get a bit routine, but I have had cases brought to me in the past few months that exemplify the frustrations of people in so many different walks of life. I offer them to the Minister and to the House as an expression of concern and with the sense that we must be able to do something to make life easier for people who are simply trying to get on.
Two schools have approached me in connection with the New Opportunities Fund for PE and Sport, because they have sought to finance new sports halls. Sharnbrook upper school is a successful school that covers a rural area in the north of my constituency. It is the former school of Paula Radcliffe, so it knows a bit

523
about sports. It made an application to NOF for PE and Sport, which was set up in November 2001 under the national lottery, with a budget of £581 million. By mid-2002, Sharnbrook had completed the county assessment process and begun to work on its application to NOF. By March 2003, the school had made its first submission.
It is now July 2004. No money has appeared. The head, Peter Barnard, has spent nearly £30,000, used reams of paper, answered requests and resubmitted information. He has seen his original budget for the application wiped out by the time it has taken, and still no money has appeared. He wrote to Sport England on 23 June:
"NOF has promised £225,000. However their massive and quite unbelievable bureaucracy has been a source of constant delay, severely endangering the school's cash-flow. None of the promised money has reached us from this source…I estimate that the NOF bid process has cost the school £30,000 in administration and the NOF contribution, although welcome, falls very short of what is required. Their failure to deliver promised funding on time means that I have a cash flow problem and have had to cut back funds within the school."
The head of Lincroft middle school originally raised the issue with me and I tabled some written questions on his behalf. As I have said, the NOF for PE and Sport was launched in November 2001 with a budget of £581 million. By April this year, its actual expenditure was £10 million. No wonder local schools are frustrated by a process with such an outcome.
I have two further examples. On Saturday morning I visited the multiple sclerosis centre in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), which also serves my constituents. I spoke to Val Woods, who has run the centre successfully for 20 years—until the National Care Standards Commission decided that it needed to be licensed and registered. She has spent the past two years going through that process. Several issues have emerged. The centre used to treat children in its hydrobaric therapy facility. New rules require that even those volunteers who operate the machinery and have no contact with children must go through two-day child protection training courses. They are not willing to do that, because they see no point in it. A paediatric nurse must be on hand, which is an extra cost that the centre never had to meet before.
When Val Woods was talking to a commissioner one day, she was asked, "What is your complaints procedure like?" She described it. The commissioner then asked, "What is your procedure when the loo rolls run out?" She said, "I'm sorry …"The questioner repeated, "What is your procedure when the loo rolls run out? You must have a procedure for that." She burst out laughing. She could not understand why, after 20 years of successfully running the centre, her standards and her licence depended on whether she had a written protocol for dealing with the absence of loo rolls. That is the sort of thing that frustrates people. That centre can continue to look after children because it has resources, but smaller centres throughout the country cannot carry on.
Mo Catlin runs a successful and popular garden centre in Milton Ernest in my constituency. She set up the business herself, it is not an empire, and she runs it very well. However, she has recently been plagued by a
524
series of requests for information from the Office for National Statistics. For example, under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, Mo has been asked to supply her stock levels month by month, but a stock-take, done properly, takes two days. She must comply or she is subject to a criminal liability.
Mo has been asked to take part in a monthly wage and salary survey. Why is that information not taken from her annual accounts? There is an annual business inquiry, which asks for the value of certain elements of her stock, including gloves—curiously, not gardening gloves. She has also been asked to take part in a new earnings inquiry relating to a named individual, picked by the Government. She is being asked confidential questions about that person, but has anyone spoken to him? Why must she do all those things? In addition, there is VAT, health and safety, auditing and everything else.
I produced those examples not because this is a familiar subject of rant for me, as I said earlier, but genuinely because constituents have expressed those frustrations to me. They ask, "Can you not make life easier?" They are trying to run schools or businesses. They are volunteers, trying to help people with multiple sclerosis. Barriers are being put in their way. Somewhere, somehow, somebody must make life easier for those people. It is our responsibility to try to do that.
2.42 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: As we go into recess, I draw the House's attention to the fact that people in my constituency are being consulted on the possible closure of the accident and emergency unit and the consultant-led maternity unit at St. Helier hospital—all in the name of bringing people more local services. However, the real driver for that possible change is the power of the royal colleges to determine training places and curriculums and the working hours of junior doctors. I am concerned that health inequality and health needs are not paramount in considering the location of those units.
There is no hospital in my constituency; half my constituents use St. Helier, the other half use St. George's hospital, yet no one from my constituency serves on the board of either hospital, or on the boards of the primary trust and the strategic health authority. Where is the input from my constituents? Apart from getting involved in whatever consultation process the health service decides to undertake, how can they voice their concerns about the possible closure of those facilities?
I am concerned that the consultation process will involve only the motivated and will not reach the people who may need the services most. Will the Government take on board the need for health inequality and health need to be paramount in any consultation on changes in the provision of health facilities?
In my patch, we have the lowest level of general health: 25 per cent. more people do not enjoy good health and the highest number of people report longterm limiting illness. We have the highest number of children aged nought to nine; the highest population in the age bands 20–34 and 35–39, and thus the highest demand for a maternity unit; the largest number of teenage births and the largest number of mums who

525
smoke. We have the largest number of black and ethnic minorities and of people with the least access to primary care services. We have the poorest socio-economic profile; the residents of St. Helier ward are half as likely to be in the professional classes as those in Epsom.
People in the area surrounding St. Helier hospital are 50 per cent. more likely to be on benefits and almost twice as likely to have no car. More than 2,200 people living in each postcode area surrounding the hospital attended the accident and emergency department. In some of those areas, the number was more than 5,000. The number of people attending A and E from each postcode area around Epsom hospital is never more than 2,200 people, even though the geographical area is greater than that covered by St. Helier.
We are concerned that those facts are not given the priority they need. We are also concerned that the possible closure of the A and E unit at St. Helier will be disastrous for St. George's in Tooting. Anyone with an interest in health care provision in south London and who read the star ratings published recently will see that St. George's is a two-star trust, prevented from gaining three stars because it could not meet its A and E waiting time targets. If the people in the five council wards currently served by St. Helier A and E could no longer use that facility the pressure on St. George's would be so great that it, too, would have to close through force of numbers.
My plea is that we should consider where health needs are. There is a feeling outside this place that when changes to health services are being considered more gets more; that, in general, those who live in areas where there are more articulate and wealthier people get the health services. In the consultation process in my constituency, I hope that the needs of people who need their hospital are considered first.
2.46 pm
Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) will understand if I do not follow her on the local issues that she raised. However, I want to pick up a point that she made about star ratings and hospitals.
The House should address three issues before we rise for the summer recess, all of which have an impact on my constituency; they concern the Learning and Skills Council, the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence, following the Secretary of State's announcement yesterday.
I start with the Department of Health. Yesterday, as the hon. Lady said, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection published its NHS performance ratings for 2003–04, allocating three, two, one or no stars to all the trusts. I have no difficulty in principle with monitoring the performance of trusts, but is the methodology robust enough to withstand the weight that is now imputed to it?
One of the acute trusts in my constituency is Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust, which last year had a three-star rating but, yesterday, had dropped to one star—after the Department had encouraged it to apply for foundation status. My subjective judgment is that the hospital is probably better today than it was a year ago—not least because it
526
has a new diagnostic treatment centre. However, during the reference period, while the hospital was being assessed, it underachieved on total times in A and E—like the hospital referred to by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden—and so it was knocked back. I hope the Minister will confirm that the star rating regime is itself under review, as I am not sure how many stars I would give it at the moment.
On a related point, I should not be doing justice to my constituents if I did not mention the continuing difficulty of trying to find an NHS dentist in North-West Hampshire. Yesterday my constituent, Mr C, a 76-year old pensioner in Tadley, sent me a copy of a letter he had sent to the Secretary of State, which ended, fraternally:
"And I have voted Labour for years".
However, to judge by the rest of the letter, he may not be doing so again. Along with many other constituents who had access to an NHS dentist for all the years when we were told that the service was underfunded by the Conservatives, he has been told that his dentist is leaving the NHS. There are real unresolved problems about access to NHS dentists in Hampshire, and despite all the protestations, the position is worse than when the Government took office seven years ago.
My constituent, Mr. T, needs some complicated civil engineering work done on his gums, which involves negotiations with the NHS. I shall quote from the postscript of his letter to me:
"Got a call this morning, 19th, from the Royal Berks confirming that it is at least a four month wait for the initial chat with the consultant then at least a five month wait before the start of any treatment. What a state this bloody country is in!"
That was a less than fraternal ending to the letter, but a reminder to Ministers in the Department of Health that they should be cautious in their boasts about the achievements of the NHS in Hampshire, because real difficulties confront trusts: they are running at a deficit and are having to reconfigure services; and the funding formula does not really do justice to the pressures on the service.
Turning briefly to the Learning and Skills Council, Andover, with a population of about 40,000, is the main town in my constituency. It has no cinemas, but it has one theatre located in Cricklade college, which comes under the umbrella of the Learning and Skills Council. For the last 28 years, that 270-seat theatre has been the primary venue for all dramatic, operatic and artistic societies in the area—the Andover Music Club, the Andover Operatic Society and a host of other organisations hold their functions there. I have a soft spot for the place, because the final selection for the Conservative candidate in 1995 took place there, when I spent an anxious half an hour in a dressing room with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
It is just as well that my party is not choosing another candidate, because a press release from Cricklade college asserts that the Learning and Skills Council will no longer allow Cricklade college theatre to be used as a community theatre. When the current refurbishment work is completed, it cannot reopen as a community theatre and can be used only by students. All the organisations that have booked events for later in the year are desperately trying to find other venues, none of which is as suitable as Cricklade theatre. That is patently absurd.

527
We need a breathing space to sort out the bureaucratic muddle. I am sure that the Government's policy is that schools and colleges should be outward looking and encourage the community to come in and that they should not be introverted, limited institutions. I hope that the Minister will draw my remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and invite him to open a dialogue with the Learning and Skills Council to see whether they can find a way to allow Cricklade college theatre to continue to be used for the purposes for which it has always been used—I know that Test Valley borough council would participate enthusiastically in such a dialogue.
Finally, I turn to the Ministry of Defence. The Minister will understand that hon. Members up and down the country are anxious on behalf of their constituents about the impact of yesterday's statement. Today is not the time to debate whether that statement got the balance right between this country's obligations and the resources available to meet them. I want to touch on one aspect of the statement only, again with a local focus.
The Defence Logistics Organisations is one of the largest parts of the MOD, and it employs some 28,000 staff and has a budget of £8 billion. It has successfully supported a range of military challenges over recent years, and many of its staff work in the DLO in Andover. Those staff are, of course, concerned about the proposals to cut nearly 3,000 DLO posts and to move some of the jobs from Andover to Abbey Wood in Bristol. We know from the White Paper that
"unfortunately some will need to be made redundant".
It might well be the right strategic decision to refocus resources towards the front line—I have been offered a meeting with the chief of defence logistics, which I shall attend—but the staff do not want uncertainty. Will the Minister pass on to the Secretary of State for Defence my heartfelt plea that the uncertainty should be ended as soon as possible and that those who must go should be given all help in finding a new career?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that we can return to the broader issues raised by the White Paper when we return in September, with a full-day debate in Government time?
2.53 pm
Mark Tami: May I say what a pleasure it is to speak in the same debate as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), who made an excellent maiden speech today? I had the pleasure of spending some time in Hodge Hill, and, if nothing else, the knowledge that I gained qualifies me to become a taxi driver in Shard End.
Further proposals to combat antisocial behaviour in our society were announced this week, and those changes are welcome. This week, we digested the proposals, asked a few questions and moved on to other things, but people who live with antisocial behaviour day in, day out have no such luxury. Their lives and the lives of their family and friends are blighted by the actions of a few uncaring individuals or gangs, who see it as their role in life to wreak havoc and make the lives of law-abiding citizens a misery.
528
Antisocial behaviour is a term that we use to cover a whole range of crimes, from drug-related activities to graffiti, drinking on the streets, vandalism, noise and verbal and physical abuse—the list is endless. Some people call it low-level crime, and it may be considered as such on a national basis, but people who experience it certainly do not think so. Furthermore, antisocial behaviour is not a one-off crime; it is an ongoing crime—a series of events and actions. Even when the individuals concerned are not being antisocial, the people who live around them always fear that those individuals' criminal activity will reoccur at any time.
The proposals announced this week are another step on the road to fighting antisocial behaviour, but we as legislators can only provide the rules and the finance to enable the police, local authorities and community based groups to tackle the problem—in the past, some have been more willing than others to pick up the tools to do the job. The use of antisocial behaviour orders has varied dramatically across the country, but I contend that where they have been used, they have had a great impact. No one argues that ASBOs are a magic solution, but they are a way in which to influence and change the behaviour of some of the worst offenders.
ASBOs have been used on a large scale in Greater Manchester to combat some of the worst antisocial behaviour. To date, nearly 400 ASBOs have been issued in Greater Manchester, which is considerably more than anywhere else in the country. Issuing ASBOs is one thing, but are they having the desired effect? Well, if Greater Manchester is anything to go by, the signals are quite positive—it is claimed that 65 per cent. Of ASBOs are not breached, which is a considerable achievement. However, ASBOs must be part of an overall programme to change people's behaviour and, importantly, keep that behaviour changed and keep people on the straight and narrow.
In my experience, and I am sure many hon. Members' experience, fighting antisocial behaviour is a priority for many in our communities. My county council, Flintshire, received more than 1,200 complaints relating to antisocial behaviour last year, and this year's figure could be 1,500. Flintshire county council issued more than 25 per cent. of all acceptable behaviour contracts in Wales in 2003, which is far more than any other local authority. Flintshire set up its antisocial behaviour unit four years ago primarily to enforce tenancy agreements, and individual housing officers, who deal with the lower level instances of antisocial behaviour, support it.
Neighbourhood watch, the police and the local authority have formed the joint action group partnership, members of which meet each month to examine complaints and take specific action, whether it is on vandalism affecting a school or neighbours from hell.
In September—this is long overdue—neighbourhood wardens will be introduced for the first time, and they will come under the banner of the antisocial behaviour unit. Those are all positive ways in which Flintshire is tackling antisocial behaviour, but one can only do so much with the resources at one's disposal, and local authorities need more resources if they are to carry out that vital work.
Victims of antisocial behaviour often feel that no one cares or that those who do care cannot do much. Filling

529
out nuisance sheets and reporting every incident to the police is clearly important, but people only feel that there is a purpose in doing so if something comes of it in the end. How many times have hon. Members heard people tell us that they have done all that has been asked of them, but the council or the police seem powerless to act?
When one rents a property, whether private or social housing, one agrees to abide by a tenancy agreement. If one breaches that agreement by acts of antisocial behaviour, one should lose the right to remain in that property—it is as simple as that. None of us wants to see people turfed out of their homes, but as citizens we have responsibilities as well as rights, and it is clear that a number of individuals in our society are not prepared to act in a responsible manner. Many people will no doubt argue that removing people from housing is not the answer, because all we are doing is moving the problem from one area to another. Indeed, I am sure that all councils are faced with the dilemma of what to do with the most difficult tenants in our society.
I agree that we must do everything we can to change people's behaviour, but a hardcore few will not change, and we must examine alternative strategies to deal with them. Why should the people who live in a perfectly happy street or community have their lives turned upside down by antisocial individuals being moved into their area? I would not like it, and no one should have to put up with it. However, on quite a few occasions, I have been able to predict the outcome of certain individuals being moved into certain areas. Everyone deserves a second chance, but some of those people had had a second, a third, a fourth and many more chances, but they still continue to behave in a way that destroys the communities around them. For that minority, we need a new approach. We cannot continue to place them into the community, knowing that they will carry on with their behaviour as before.
For people who fail to change their behaviour, we need to consider more secure sites and units where behaviour can be monitored more effectively and, I hope, changed in the longer term. The Dundee project, although expensive, has delivered some positive results. Although to some that may sound draconian, in the very few extreme cases, it may be the only answer. For the majority, however, with the right resources for policing and support services, I am sure that we can make progress. It is no coincidence that communities with the lowest aspirations suffer the greatest level of antisocial behaviour.
In Wales, with the support of the Welsh Assembly, the "communities first" programme is making a difference in helping to regenerate deprived areas. In Higher Shotton, Lesley Hughes, the "communities first" coordinator, is helping to build spirit in the community and to assist people to gain the skills and support that they need to build their lives. However, we need to tackle another problem: the availability of affordable, social housing. In Flintshire, 8,000 people are currently on the waiting list for accommodation. At every surgery that I hold, I see people who are desperate to get a place of their own.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement in the spending review that the Treasury has set a target of an additional 10,000 affordable homes, with an extra £430 million channelled
530
into low-cost homes, but we need to do more not only in building new social housing, but in investing in the housing stock that councils currently own. To achieve that, we need to give more financial freedom to councils to enable them to invest the money that is so desperately needed.
This year, Flintshire expects to pay more than £1 million in dealing with our homeless problem. In Britain, more than 100,000 families are registered as homeless. In many areas, including my own, registering as homeless is seen as one of the only ways to get a property, at least in the short term. The problem of homelessness will continue to grow, despite the increasing wealth of our economy and society, unless we are prepared to address the need for more affordable housing.
It is no good builders just wanting to build yet another development of five-bedroomed luxury homes with double garages if the majority cannot even think about paying the prices that are being asked for those properties. We need a balance and at the moment—particularly in areas of high economic growth, such as my constituency—that balance is not there. We need to build communities where people want to live and, importantly, can afford to live. Above all, we need to ensure that, wherever we live, we are free from the fear of the tiny minority who fail to take a responsible attitude to life.
3.2 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I hope that I shall see the clock stop—yes, it has—because this is a Front-Bench speech, so that enables me pay a rather more lengthy and generous tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). I say that most sincerely: I know what it is like to make a maiden speech in the House. He did so with sincerity, eloquence and obvious, very considerable knowledge of his city and constituency. We all respect that. Indeed, I think that he will find not just from this debate, which is a bit unusual—I shall come to that in a moment—that all hon. Members respect others of all parties who genuinely seek to be good representatives in the House. That is what Parliament is all about. We welcome him very sincerely. We look forward to hearing a great many contributions from him in the future.
I, too, walked up and down Washwood Heath road. I did not have the pleasure of the hon. Gentleman's hospitality at the various hostelries to which he referred, but I was struck by the welcome that was paid to all of us by his fellow citizens. I very much welcome the fact that he referred not just to his immediate predecessor, who was held in high regard in the House, but to predecessors from other parties—indeed, to my very close friend, Roy Jenkins, who served his city well when he was a Member for that constituency.
I said just now that I would refer to the way in which the debate is unusual, as the hon. Gentleman will discover. On these occasions, we get an extremely interesting mix of non-party, in the main, contributions about constituency problems from hon. Members on both sides of the House, yet what is so interesting is that there is always a replication, a resonance, an echo from those on other sides of the House. That was true not

531
only of some of the issues that he raises, but of the issues raised by other hon. Members. Surely, that is something very special about such debates—it should happen more often—but it is also intrinsic to the nature of Parliament that, on occasion, we can see in other hon. Members' experiences of their own special circumstances things that are of importance to us as well, and I want to refer briefly to some of those.
I refer, first, to the contribution made by the hon. Member for Tooting (Tom Cox), who is a regular on these occasions, although he does not always speak about the expertise in all parts of the House on fire safety equipment. The lack of attention that, all too often, successive Governments pay to that all-party expertise is very unfortunate. I hope that his words have been listened to with care.
I very much share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), not just about post offices—that is serious enough—but, as he rightly said, about the attitude of British Telecom, which is doing precisely the same thing in my constituency as in his and, I suspect, other constituencies. The expectation that everyone should have a mobile phone—that, too, had a resonance in Birmingham—is simply wrong. There is an age group of people, very often those who most need to get to a pay phone for emergency purposes, who are unlikely to have mobile phones. The criteria that are being used by British Telecom are not practical.
In my constituency, and I am sure in those of every other hon. Member, there are circumstances in which pay phones will continue to be important. The lack of consultation—here we go again—is symptomatic of an attitude of a privatised public utility. Let us be duly warned: the Post Office could so easily go the same way. Indeed, some would say that it is already going that way. Those two situations are very similar. It is true, I fear, that BT does not consult local authorities in the way that it should as a public service. I endorse very much what the hon. Gentleman said.
I turn to the contribution made by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). Obviously, I do not know the circumstances of the Yarl's Wood centre, but we remember the incident. It was many months ago, and I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman and local people have not yet been given an opportunity to hear precisely what lessons have been learned. I want particularly to take up his more general point about excessively complex and onerous red tape. Yes, all hon. Members are concerned about red tape. The problem is that, as we all know, it is a balancing act, is it not? For everyone who wants to control something that they do not like very much or thinks is a loophole in the tax system, there is someone else who feels that it is onerous and unnecessary. That balancing act should be a preoccupation not just of the Government, but of the House.
A number of hon. Members give special attention to deregulation, but it goes much wider than that. The work that the Modernisation Committee is currently undertaking on ensuring that our scrutiny mechanisms for European regulations and directives is extremely important in that regard, not least because of gold-plating, of which we are all aware. So often, the
532
proposals that end up in law in this country do not derive from anything that has been said or done in Brussels, let alone in the European Parliament; they derive from Whitehall.
A former Minister told a Select Committee in the other place not that long ago—I felt that this was just so apposite—that, when he came to office, he insisted on a very simple chart whenever anything came before him that was said to derive from Brussels. He wanted to know what the original proposal was; he wanted to know what his own Department had added to it; he wanted to know why; and he wanted to know whether he could still change it. He told that Committee—I was appearing with him on that occasion—that, within two days of his leaving office, the Department scrapped that simple, little way in which a Minister could know what was going on. That does not speak very well of the way in which we deal with over-regulation and onerous red tape.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) also, inevitably, echoed concerns that we all share about the national health service in our own areas and the extent to which it seems to be immune to local consultation and input from people who actually know the practical results of what is likely to happen if changes are made. I sometimes go to local meetings to find out the views of the people in Cornwall who are interested in such matters, and ask whether any of them know who represents them on the area's strategic health authority. No people put up their hands, so I say, "You're absolutely right—nobody does. They are appointees; they are not elected." We Members of Parliament have to take a fallback position, but there is often no opportunity to make such a contribution. I know from experience that the accident and emergency department at St. Helier hospital is a classic example of something on which consultation would benefit all concerned.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) echoed many of our concerns. I was especially struck by his point about NHS dentistry, although it must be said that as a Secretary of State in the previous Government, he was partly responsible for what happened to NHS dentistry. The tearing up of the contract with dentists dealt the most devastating possible blow to the service. It is an extraordinary anomaly that we and our constituents pay national insurance contributions and think that we will get normal medical services from our local primary care trusts when we need them, yet the situation for dentistry is a complete postcode lottery. It is extremely difficult to access NHS dentistry in many parts of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman made a valid point about the use of publicly funded buildings under the auspices of learning and skills councils. We, as taxpayers, have invested in those buildings, so local communities should use them to the maximum extent.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about an issue with which many of us are grappling: the detailed local impact of yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State for Defence. I acknowledge, as I am sure that we all do, that it is inevitably impossible to go through all details at the Dispatch Box. Indeed, if I had thought that the Secretary of State had not been interested in exchanging information about the details and intended to cut through the consultation programme by saying

533
immediately, "This is what's going to happen", the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and I would be complaining about the situation to the same extent as he understandably is about lack of decisions and, thus, uncertainty. I would love to know precisely what is intended for RAF St. Mawgan, but I would much rather get the right answer a bit further down the track than to receive a snap answer now without proper consultation with all concerned. There is a genuine dilemma.
I acknowledge precisely what the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said because many of us are in a similar position regarding antisocial behaviour and the prevention of types of crime that are not of minuscule importance to those most affected by them. I pay tribute to this country's victim support organisations, but more regard must be paid to the victims of crime.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman giving his support to the continuation of the neighbourhood watch network because that is an important part of the equation. He will know that the Home Secretary appears—I use the word "appears" because perceptions are important—to want to try to take away the voluntary nature of the network and impose something very different. That is unfortunate because the volunteers in our communities who make a major contribution should not be treated in such a way. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the matter both in the Chamber and directly with the Home Office, so I hope that there will be time to think again.
Before I conclude my speech, I wish to make a point of my own. [Interruption.] I shall be brief, and if I had the opportunity to respond to everyone at the end of the debate, I would be even briefer. Before the House adjourns, will the Deputy Leader of the House secure a firm statement of the Government's response to the independent inquiry headed by Lord Lloyd on the illnesses suffered by British troops following their service in the 1991 Gulf war? Many hon. Members' constituents are veterans who still suffer chronic illness following their service in that operation.
Some hon. Members will recall that during Prime Minister's questions last Wednesday, I asked the Prime Minister:
"Will he now insist that appropriate Ministers give evidence to the independent inquiry under Lord Lloyd, so that the appearance of secrecy surrounding this issue is dispelled once and for all?"
The Prime Minister said:
"I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what Ministers have already said on the subject. Of course, it is a serious issue, and we investigate it continually. I will discuss with my colleagues the issue of giving evidence. It is important that we make progress on the basis of the actual evidence."—[Official Report, 14 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 1405.]
All of us who are concerned on behalf of veterans would welcome it if we could have an explicit statement before the end of the debate on whether the Prime Minister has had that conversation and, if so, on its outcome. I gave evidence to the inquiry yesterday, and by that stage Lord Lloyd had not received any specific response following my exchanges with the Prime Minister.
At the Adjournment debate before the Whitsun recess, I congratulated the Deputy Leader of the House on the way in which he had secured responses from appropriate Ministers, but sadly the specific questions
534
that I raised on that occasion have not produced such responses—I am sure that that is a momentary lapse in his normal efficiency. He might recall that I said then that the voters had buried the two-party system in 1997 and danced on its grave in 2001. Recently, of course, the electorate have continued that dance. This place, however, sadly still seems to reflect the two-party system of the past century.
I apologise that I will not have the opportunity to respond to all hon. Members who contribute to the debate at its end, but I am sure that they will be with me in at least this: wishing not only the staff and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but all of us, a relaxing recess, and a reinvigorating re-encounter with our electorate.
3.16 pm
John Cryer: Like most hon. Members this afternoon, I shall raise a few constituency issues. I talked about school closures on the Floor of the House some time ago. The Conservative-run authority of my borough of Havering has recently had a fairly shambolic run during which it has put various primary schools under the threat of closure. First, it threatened the R. J. Mitchell primary school. It then threatened Ayloff primary school and Suttons primary school, while the closure threat to R. J. Mitchell was withdrawn. It then withdrew the closure threat to Ayloff primary school and put R. J. Mitchell back under threat once again. It has now withdrawn any closure threat in my constituency or elsewhere in the borough, yet it has managed to create concern and worry—verging on panic—among staff, governors, teachers and everyone connected to the schools, especially parents and children.
At the end of that process, what has changed? Absolutely nothing. There was no change whatsoever, so there was no need for the authority to introduce the panic measure. All the schools remain open, but although the closure threats have been withdrawn, those three schools and others in the borough are left with the worry that the Tory council might come back with further threats of closure. I do not think that that will happen—partly because the authority will not be allowed to get away with it—but we should introduce a measure into education legislation that would allow the Department for Education and Skills at least to call for inquiries into local education authorities that behave as irresponsibly as Havering. I blame not the officers but the political leadership, which handled the situation ineptly and started a process that created, at best, worry among almost all people connected with the schools.
The second issue that I wish to raise arises from my regular discussions with local groups that represent disabled people, especially the Havering association for people with disabilities and Havcare, which is a borough-wide group. Two key questions arise from those discussions, the first of which relates to the introduction of the Mental Capacity Bill, which was the draft Mental Incapacity Bill—the title has changed during its consideration in Parliament. The Bill has been widely welcomed by almost all relevant organisations. One of the key aspects of the Bill is that it will allow people who do not have the capacity to advocate their own cause or case to appoint advocates on their behalf. The Government have not yet answered a question that has been put to me, although I am sure that they will:

535
how will advocacy be accessed by those people who need it? For instance, will any costs be incurred, especially by close relatives? A Mencap press release of 28 June states:
"Millions of people with dementia, autism, a learning disability and mental health problems will be better off under the new Mental Capacity Bill, but the Bill will be 'toothless' unless it ensures the availability of advocates, a coalition of 39 charities has warned."
That coalition is the Making Decisions Alliance, which represents 39 charities and voluntary groups.
My second question relates to the requirement for a proportion of carers in homes to have a qualification at, or equivalent to, national vocational qualification level 2. That is probably a desirable change, recently introduced by the Government, but are grants available to achieve that? As far as I know, they are not, but they probably should be. In this context, I am talking about small care homes, some of which face genuine difficulties and have done so for the past few years, although those have been exaggerated by press reports to some extent. If a grant is available to those people who have to attain NVQ level 2, it will help smaller care homes to deal with their problems.
The third issue that concerns me is the use of fireworks and recent legislation on fireworks. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) for piloting the Fireworks Bill through Parliament. It is much needed. I get reams of complaints every year because of the antisocial use of fireworks. The Bill answered many of the pleas that I get in my mailbag, and I am sure that other hon. Members receive the same pleas.
I refer the Deputy Leader of the House to early-day motion 1513 in my name. Although many of the Bill's provisions are welcome, it appears that the original proposal to license all premises that sell fireworks at any time of year is being watered down. That is a central plank of the legislation. I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South and he agrees, and it was his Bill, after all.
If, as seems likely, the Government are going to abandon that licensing system, it could neuter the Bill. Many of its other elements are commendable and badly needed, but if we abandon that licensing system, we are abandoning a main plank of the Bill. The provision is necessary during October, November and December, when fireworks become a particular nuisance—although these days they are a nuisance almost the whole year around. I have a pile of letters in my office from various constituents, including one from the Rev. Bob Love, the vicar of St. John's in my constituency, whom I know well because I have surgeries at his church. He highlights the importance of licensing premises.
My final concern relates to antisocial behaviour and drunkenness. Although my borough recently had a substantial increase in the number of police officers and police community support officers—the PCSOs were introduced in the past few months—the big problem is that daft decisions by the local council in the past have meant that Romford has a nightclub capacity of between 12,000 and 14,000. That is the biggest nightclub capacity in the whole of the south-east outside London's
536
west end. It is an enormous capacity and draws in people from all over east London, Essex and further afield across the south-east. It has obvious law and order implications that were not thought through when planning permission was sought and granted for various nightclubs, which were then issued with licences.
What tends to happen is that on Friday and Saturday nights police strength is drawn from other parts of the borough. The increase in police strength means that the problem is not as bad as it used to be and has been mitigated to some extent. However, we still need to draw some police officers from other parts of the borough. The Government could help by introducing a regulation to control the practice of happy hours, which sometimes go on for two or three hours, in nightclubs. Drinks are very cheap and, as a result, there is widespread, and sometimes serious, intoxication.
I go out on patrol with the police on a fairly regular basis and see the result of those happy hours around Romford, especially late at night. Happy hours reflect the irresponsible behaviour of certain breweries and nightclub owners. If we cannot regulate happy hours, I have another solution. It is a bit of an old Labour solution. If it were up to me, I would nationalise the breweries. Bringing the breweries into public ownership worked in the first world war, why can it not work now? We sorted them out then and we can sort them out again. We could regulate, control and ensure that the problem does not arise in the future. Of course, it would have the added advantage that we would not have to tax the breweries because all the money would come to us anyway.
Mr. Heald: It would also give us an opportunity to test out the theory, which we have always had, that the Government could not organise a in a brewery.
John Cryer: I will ignore that.
Nationalising the breweries would be advantageous. All the money would come into the Treasury. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could use it to invest in schools, hospitals, police and so on, and antisocial behaviour would be controlled as a result.
3.26 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: It is a great pleasure to endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said in tribute to the maiden speech of the newly elected hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). I am sure that he has a promising career in the House.
It was good that the hon. Gentleman spoke so warmly of his predecessors, most notably the late Roy Jenkins, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and, of course, Terry Davis, who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), has given most distinguished service to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. This country and its delegation can be proud that he is now its Secretary-General.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill wound up his speech with reminiscences about happy walks to the Fox and Goose—no doubt many of us empathised with him at that point—and talked about

537
the industrial performance in Birmingham, the great city's commitment to manufacturing, and what it did in world war two by providing Spitfires and Hurricanes for the front line of the Royal Air Force. His remarks and those of the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday lead me to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in referring to the mini White Paper on defence, inappropriately named "Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities". That is a misnomer if ever there was one. I do not believe that it would be doing justice to our servicemen and women for the House to wait several months before delivering a considered verdict on it. It was based on false assumptions.
The Secretary of State said yesterday:
"We measured numbers of people and platforms in the cold war because we were preparing for an essentially attritional campaign, holding back Soviet forces."—[Official Report, 21 July 2004; Vol. 424, c. 343.]
We were doing nothing of the kind. Throughout the cold war we maintained forces vastly inferior in number to those of the Warsaw pact countries. We had enough troops in place to hold the line for 48 hours or, at the very most, 72 hours, at which point we were bound to give way or to invoke nuclear retaliation. The fear of nuclear retaliation provided the deterrent that kept the peace. It is false logic to suggest that we do not need adequate numbers now on the basis of the argument that during the cold war we needed large numbers of forces. We need, of course, a balance between numbers of well-equipped forces, capabilities, mobility, flexibility and firepower, which in part the Secretary of State is delivering, but which is not fully achieved because of the dictates of Her Majesty's Treasury.
The forces' morale will be gravely affected by the cuts that the Defence Secretary has introduced, and they are cuts. No one can suggest that reductions in the Royal Air Force of 7,500, the Army of 1,500 and the Navy of a similar number do not constitute cuts—they most certainly do. To withdraw the whole of the RAF's Jaguar force, its offensive support aircraft, currently based at Coltishall, before the tranche 2 Typhoon is even ordered, let alone available, is highly irresponsible because the capability that they provide ensures that our forces on the ground can do their job effectively, with the minimum of loss. It is, however, in line with what the Government have done before: the withdrawal of the Sea Harriers from service with the Fleet Air Arm, some eight years, at best, before the new F-35 JSF aircraft come into service.
The Government are happy to allow our armed forces to be vulnerable; indeed, they accentuate that vulnerability, as they are doing by reducing the Nimrod force from 12 to eight maritime patrol aeroplanes, just when the Dutch are completely abandoning their maritime patrol aircraft. For us to reduce this capability is most irresponsible.
It is irresponsible also to conjecture about reductions in the helicopter force. We need the mobility that the helicopter force provides now more than ever in this age of uncertain threats and global terrorism. Likewise, it is most unwise for the Government not to have placed an order for the new tanker aircraft, the A330–200, which
538
the RAF is banking on. It is also irresponsible to eliminate the air defence capability of the RAF Regiment at a time when protecting from attack the few aircraft that we do possess is crucial. I also find absolutely extraordinary the idea that, when terrorism is all too rife, one can put all one's transport and tanker assets on one base, by closing RAF Lyneham and putting everything at RAF Brize Norton.
The Government are letting the country down and they are letting the armed forces down. What a way to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar next year—by cutting the fleet by about a quarter and happily allowing the French to have a much larger navy than us. The United Kingdom should have the biggest navy in Europe; we should be proud of the fact, because it is concomitant with our interests as a global trading nation.
It is also unwise to leave totally sacrosanct a quarter of the British Army in Germany. No one wants to see a reduction of the infantry battalions—they are overstretched already, and they are rotated on to operational tours all too frequently—but that the Army should maintain about a quarter of its strength, static, in Germany, expending vast sums to the benefit of the German economy when it is the British economy that we should be sustaining, I find decidedly odd, especially when, in the second Gulf war, it did not appear that the Germans were even on our side. They seemed to be militating against our efforts rather than supporting us as good NATO allies should.
Our Government are embarked on a European security and defence policy, and we all wish that well because it is in the interests of our continent and our nation that it should succeed. The European Union is to take over NATO's peacekeeping role in Bosnia at the end of this year. However, I wonder whether, in the event of a major commitment such as Iraq and a serious crisis, not just peacekeeping, in the Balkans or Northern Ireland, with the reductions that the Defence Secretary has outlined we will be able to meet both, or other multiple, obligations. I doubt it very much.
I return to the theme of irresponsibility, which is at the heart of the defence White Paper that the Government have put before us. We can play a role, not only here, but collectively with parliamentarians of like mind on the continent. I am pleased that the French are maintaining increased defence spending and I admire the way in which they are cocking a snook at the stability pact, which many of us thought was ridiculous and voted against at the time that the Maastricht treaty was going through the House.
The European security and defence policy needs to be scrutinised. Collectively, we must ensure that we in Europe make the best use of our common resources for defence, and to do that national parliamentarians need to engage together. I suggest that we do so through the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union, whose 50 years of existence we shall celebrate in October. The assembly has done its job magnificently because national parliamentarians provide the Defence Ministers and the defence budgets which make the European security and defence policy possible. However, the latest defence review ensures that making the European security and defence policy possible for the United Kingdom will he much harder. For this reason, I believe the White Paper to be irresponsible.
3.36 pm
Mr. Mike Hall: I join others in congratulating our new hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). He spoke extremely warmly about his predecessor, our right hon. Friend Terry Davis, who has left Parliament to become Secretary General of the Council of Europe. I served with Terry Davis for five years on the Public Accounts Committee; even though we were Opposition Members then, Terry was a master of holding the Government's senior accounting officers to account for the projects that the Committee examined. We shall miss Terry, but he has been replaced by an hon. Friend who, judging by his maiden speech, will make an excellent contribution to Parliament.
My hon. Friend told us about his constituency, but most of us know it from the time that we spent there during the run-up to the by-election. I spent a couple of afternoons delivering leaflets on his behalf, and I am delighted that my efforts contributed to his success. He also spoke eloquently about the history of his fascinating constituency and the illustrious people who have preceded him as MP for that part of Birmingham. He has a tough act to follow, but the challenges that he has set for himself in representing the people of Hodge Hill are entirely right and I am sure that he will meet them extremely well. I look forward to many more speeches from my new hon. Friend.
I have four local issues to raise, but may I first ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to find out, perhaps through the Modernisation Committee, whether it is necessary for the Liberal Democrat spokesman to join in debates such as this one by commenting on all the speeches made before his? I am only glad that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke before I did.
As I said, the issues I wish to speak about are local, but they have a bearing on national Government policy. The first is a recent decision by one of my local authorities, Vale Royal borough council, which is Tory and Liberal Democrat- controlled, to introduce changes to its refuse collection service under the guise of meeting Government recycling targets. The local authority rightly conducted a vigorous consultation exercise asking people whether they would be willing to participate in a system that recycled more rubbish from the domestic waste stream via kerbside collections. Of course, the response was an overwhelming "Yes". However, the local authority did not clearly spell out—it was mentioned only in the small print—that the ordinary domestic refuse collection service would be reduced from a weekly collection to a fortnightly one.
There is uproar in my constituency about the decision. Concerns have been voiced about health and safety. We are beginning to experience problems associated with the summer months, such as the smell from bins, and there have been reports of infestations of maggots and flies in bins. My constituents have raised their concerns with the local authority, but it says that it will not respond to letters of complaint or register phone calls as complaints because my constituents are raising nothing new. That is the wrong way for the local authority to approach the problem: instead, it should try to explain to the people living in Weaver Vale and the Vale Royal borough council area why the new system
540
will be put in place. However, its explanations so far have been confusing and, in some ways, downright dishonest.
First, the local authority said that the Government are demanding that by 2007 the authority must meet stringent recycling targets. That is true. Secondly, it says that if the local authority does not meet the targets it will face a fine of £120,000 a day or £44 million a year. That is abject nonsense: no fines are imposed under the scheme. The Government have said that if recycling does not remove the amount of material going to landfill, the price of landfill may increase, and if a local authority overtips its quota, it may have to pay more money. By no stretch of the imagination will that result in a fine of £120,000 a day.
When those explanations were challenged, the local authority said, "We have to do this; otherwise we will have to go back to a weekly recycling collection, which will cost us an extra £1 million." Therein lies the answer to the problem: the authority has cut the domestic refuse collection to save money. It now says that if it returns to a weekly service, people will not recycle. What nonsense! The local authority should say that it will look again at the issue.
When a bin is put out, the authority will not collect any surplus rubbish that is placed in black bin bags, which is termed "side rubbish". Section 48 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires a local authority to collect domestic waste without charge. Will the Minister explore with his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there is an obligation on a local authority to collect side rubbish—domestic rubbish placed at the side of a wheelie bin. When it is left, it attracts vermin and it is spread across the neighbourhood. That leads to a greater incidence of fly-tipping, and we have an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I shall move on to another issue that I have raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Transport. For the past two years, in the Northwich part of my constituency we have held an event called the Thundersprint, which is a motor cycle extravaganza. Motor cyclists from throughout the country arrive at a car park in Northwich to demonstrate their motor cycles, which can be vintage all the way through to formula one. There is a great carnival. This year the two-day event attracted about 70,000 visitors and brought a huge sum of money into the local economy. It is a fantastic event. No incidents were reported to the police and there were no health and safety issues.
The event has to take place on a car park because even if we closed a section of the highway to demonstrate the motor cycles, they would not be allowed on it because they do not comply with current road traffic Acts. I have been pressing the Department of Transport to see whether a way can be found round that problem, so that next year's event can take place on the public highway, which would be closed to other traffic. So far, that has proved difficult.
We cannot use the car park at Northwich for the next five years because the Government, following my insistence, have provided £28 million to stabilise the town centre because of problems that we have with salt mines. I hope that the Minister, on my behalf, will press the Department of Transport with a view to resolving the problem.

541
I wish to take up an issue that I have raised already in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall—I raised it directly with the Minister of State for Transport. It concerns a section of railway line that is commonly known as the Halton curve, which, though not disused, is used only once or twice a year. The reason for that is that to close a railway line it is necessary to go through a rigorous public inquiry procedure. It may even be necessary for legislation to be discussed on the Floor of the House. Over the past few years, the line has had one or two services a year. They run on a Saturday morning and no passengers are picked up. The service goes along the line so that it stays open. It is known as the parliamentary train. This year, the Strategic Rail Authority decided, in its wisdom, to do a head count on this strange service to see whether it is being used. Strangely enough, it found that the answer is no.
The SRA has written to me to say that it is thinking of closing the Halton curve. If it does so, it will be a passive closure. I have yet to find out what that means, but I have asked. This is nonsensical. If the line were resignalled and some investment were made in it, trains could travel in both directions and it would be the final piece in the north-west railway jigsaw. It would link north Wales to Liverpool without people having to use the west coast main line, and would allow north Walian traffic to go through Liverpool and on to the north-west and the Lake district. It would connect with the Allerton interchange on the Merseyside light railway, thus completing the circular network, and it would link that network to Liverpool John Lennon airport. Stakeholders across the north-west are all in favour of the development, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to tell our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that we ought to look at ways of keeping the line open instead of closing it and ending the potential for future developments.
I shall conclude with something that I raised in last year's summer Adjournment debate—the merger of Halton and Warrington hospitals. When my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and I agreed to that merger, we did so on the grounds that there would be no reduction in services at our hospital. The clinical director of North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust took unilateral action more than 12 months ago and, without consulting clinicians or senior management at either hospital, decided to close the intensive care unit. It remains closed following that decision by Dr. Mwanji. Mr. McMillan of Whiston hospital produced an independent report, and the Bishop Auckland report says that the beds should remain open. The Commission for Health Improvement said that there was no threat to health services. The only person standing in the way of the unit reopening is Dr. Mwanji, the clinical director. Even the chairman of the British Medical Association said that those beds should be reinstated, so I advise my hon. Friend the Minister that the clinical director of Warrington hospital should be sacked.
3.46 pm
Mr. Alan Reid: I congratulate the new hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his impressive maiden speech. Having been elected for the first time at the last election, my own maiden speech is fresh in my mind, and I remember what
542
a nerve-racking occasion it was. I admire the hon. Gentleman's stamina. After fighting a stressful by-election he looks very fresh indeed. I once fought a by-election with considerably less success, but I recall what a stressful and tiring experience it was.
I wish to raise some matters affecting my constituency, which is a remote rural area comprising a large part of mainland Scotland and 26 inhabited islands. It is a beautiful place in which to live and work, but its remoteness and the cost of travelling to and from the islands present challenges to people who run businesses there. The cost of parcel deliveries is a frequent source of complaint among my constituents. If they place an order through a mail order company, they almost invariably have to pay a surcharge. Parcelforce has drawn a line across Scotland from Arrochar on Loch Long to a point on the North sea coast near Banff, and the cost of sending a parcel anywhere north of that line far exceeds the cost of sending one elsewhere in the country. It is a large surcharge: it costs almost double to send some parcel weights across the highland line. That imposes an extra burden on businesses in the highlands and islands, particularly those that rely on mail order deliveries.
The Government should extend Royal Mail's universal service obligation, whereby it must deliver letters to all parts of the country at the same price, to Parcelforce. When I raise the matter with Ministers, the standard reply is that Royal Mail delivers parcels at a uniform price to any part of the country. However, as with letters, parcels sent via the standard Royal Mail service are not signed for on delivery. Mail order companies want a signature on delivery, which involves an extra cost. The Royal Mail parcel delivery has a weight limit; it is therefore of limited value to them and, in addition, there is no guaranteed delivery time. However, Parcelforce parcels are signed for on delivery and the service offers a guaranteed delivery time. Businesses want to use Parcelforce, but highlands businesses are deterred from doing so by the extra costs. That is discrimination against a small part of the country and it should end.
Dairy farming is an important industry in the Kintyre peninsula. Ever since I was elected, farmers have been telling me that the farm-gate price for milk is nowhere near enough to cover their costs. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recently investigated milk pricing in the United Kingdom and found that farmers' comments are correct. The report states in paragraph 24:
"Average farmgate prices are … not high enough to cover the farmers' costs"
and goes on to say in paragraph 26:
"UK farmgate prices are not only inadequate to recompense farmers for the cost of milk production, they are also consistently below the EU average."
The Select Committee investigation also reported, at paragraph 42, that the
"dairy market is not operating as it should"
and at paragraph 55 that
"processors' costs appear improbably high".
Clearly, more investigation by the Government is needed into milk pricing. A regulator should be appointed to oversee the dairy industry; only that will enable us to find out why the market is not working as

543
it should. The market should operate with greater transparency and we need an investigation into the Select Committee's belief that
"processors' costs appear improbably high".
We also need to look at UK competition law. Its practical effect appears to be to prevent milk producers from forming large-scale co-operatives. That is not the case in other EU countries, where large-scale dairy co-operatives have been formed. It means that in the UK the small farmer is fighting an unequal struggle against the big supermarkets and the big dairy companies. A regulator would be a good step forward.
I turn to vehicle taxation. The price of petrol on the islands is often about 15p more than the price at a city petrol station. On one occasion, having started the day in Glasgow and gone to Mull, I found that the cost was a staggering 20p more at a remote filling station on Mull, compared with Glasgow. The extra price has a devastating impact on the economies of island communities. It is also rather galling that in areas where there is no public transport alternative, the price of fuel is highest. The logic for high fuel prices is to encourage people to use public transport, but the illogicality of the present system is that the price of fuel is highest where there is no public transport alternative.
One short-term fix that I would support is a reduction in the duty on fuel sold at island filling stations. That would create a level playing field for island businesses. In the longer term we need to move from fuel duty towards a system of road pricing. That would be more sophisticated and would enable higher charges to be levied on roads where there was a public transport alternative, compared with remote rural roads where there is no such alternative.
Fuel duty is rather a crude way of taxing the motorist. In the past it had the beneficial effect of encouraging vehicle manufacturers greatly to improve the efficiency of their vehicles. That has certainly been effective, but I suspect that we are now at the point where further technological advances are unlikely to make much impact on fuel efficiency. The time is right to move to the more sophisticated system of road pricing.
Finally, I turn to a matter that various hon. Members have raised this afternoon—yesterday's defence statement. My constituency's local regiment is a well-known one, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. It is a famous regiment with more than 200 years of service to the British Army. The clear intention of the Government's defence review is to merge the regiment with other highland regiments.
Yesterday's statement from the Secretary of State for Defence announced the loss of a Scottish infantry battalion. However, the Government's plans to reduce infantry numbers are short-sighted. The Army is already overstretched. The Government's plans appear to assume no new commitments for the Army. I should have thought that one of the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan was that while all the high tech might be very good at winning the war, the difficult task of winning the peace requires highly skilled and committed soldiers on the ground. That is a part of the battle that
544
the British Army has proved to be very good at. It has carried out the task of winning the peace far better than the American army. It is important that we keep our infantry strength at its current level, because as well as fighting wars and peacekeeping in many parts of the world, the Army has to deal with unexpected matters at home such as foot and mouth and firefighters' strikes.
Recruits want to join local regiments with a long and proud tradition. Merging the Argylls into a new regiment called, say, the North Scotland regiment, is bound to have a negative impact on recruitment compared with keeping the famous, long-standing name of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. I remind the Government that 30 years ago a previous Government tried to abolish the Argylls. A massive campaign to save the regiment succeeded, and the Government gave way. I advise this Government not take on the Argylls, because I suspect that, like their predecessors, they will buckle under the weight of the subsequent campaign.
3.55 pm
Ann Taylor: I start, as have several colleagues, by congratulating my hon. Friend the new Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his speech and on the way in which he presented it. He paid tribute to his predecessor, Terry Davis. I echo his tribute and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who, like me, worked closely with Terry over many years. We were all struck by the calm assurance and wit of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. When he said that his predecessors had served Hodge Hill well, I think that all hon. Members immediately thought that he would follow in that tradition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill talked about education, and said that people in his part of Birmingham had never had such good educational opportunities as they do at the present time. I hope that my hon. Friend continues his interest in education, because the changes that the Government have made in that respect have been among their greatest achievements and will produce long-lasting and significant consequences in terms of opportunities for all our young people in the future.
I am particularly proud of what has happened in education, from the Sure Start places, which are a breakthrough development helping youngsters and their parents, to the changes at primary level, including the significant impact of reduced class sizes. In Dewsbury, we have also seen significant improvements at secondary level. Many schools have achieved specialist status, there has been a new level of co-operation between some schools, and, although there have been a few hitches, school buildings have been significantly improved through public-private partnerships.
We have experienced many improvements in education locally, but despite all the good work that has been done and all the investment that the Government have put in, two problems have recently arisen. I am glad that today sees the publication of the report by the Select Committee on Education and Skills entitled "Secondary Education: Schools Admissions", because I want to say a few words about admissions in Dewsbury

545
and the problems that have been created by the Lib Dem council's decision to review its admissions policy. Although I accept that that is not an easy matter and there are no easy solutions, one school in Dewsbury has received 50 appeals, 22 of which are from parents trying to get a child into the school to join their brothers and sisters. The constituent who first brought that to my attention, Tracie Kilburn, already has a daughter and son at the school, and her youngest child wanted to go to there too, but that is no longer possible because of the change in approach by the Lib Dem council. The Select Committee report suggests one or two ways forward, including that the House should be more prescriptive about admissions policies. It is not easy to get them right but I do not believe that the council should have changed the siblings rule and left so many young people and their parents in a difficult position.
My second reason for speaking about education is a problem that has got worse through the success in recent years of education in Dewsbury. We have a tradition of under-achievement; we have no tradition of staying on at school and going into post-16 and higher education. Nowadays, there is a significant increase in youngsters who do well at GCSE and throughout their school careers. The problem is critical after GCSE because we have so little traditional post-16 academic provision. Dewsbury college is very good for much non-traditional, non-AS and A-level work, but the majority of youngsters in Dewsbury have to leave the town for their post-16 academic education.
We have a Catholic high school, which has a limited number of places and gets good results. We also have Mirfield Free Grammar school, which, I am glad to say, is a comprehensive school down the road that takes some youngsters. However, the academically gifted of Dewsbury mostly have to go to Huddersfield and sometimes Leeds and Wakefield for post-16 AS and A-level education. They have to travel a long way—some take three buses—and that requires great commitment. We therefore need local, quality AS and A-level provision. All the heads of the high schools in Dewsbury agree about that. They tell me that many youngsters are put off staying in education because they cannot face the extra hassle travelling such a long way. They are achieving more and they want to achieve more, but such provision on our doorstep would enhance the staying-on rate and provide much greater opportunities.
Ministers are sympathetic to the cause. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) talked to heads and was impressed by their proposals. We have more post-14 co-operation between those schools and they all say the same thing: we need quality provision. The sixth form colleges in Huddersfield are of high quality and would be interested in providing satellites in Dewsbury, but unfortunately the Liberal Democrat council will not support that approach and is currently blocking such progress. It is inhibiting the opportunities of young people in Dewsbury. Given all the successes that we are enjoying in education, we must improve young people's aspirations and make it easier for them to stay in education and not block their hopes, as the Liberal Democrat council is doing.
4.3 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). I have fought several by-elections and the major difference between us is that he won his. Another difference is that he gave an excellent maiden speech and mine was rubbish. It was on Maastricht—need I say more, apart from "Sorry"?
I should like the Minister to take up several matters before we adjourn and I am sure that, characteristically, he will agree to them all. One is on regional government. We know that the Government are minded to change their view. Harold Wilson said that a week was a long time in politics but we now know that a night is a long time in politics. I do not especially want the referendums but if we have to hold one in the north-west, why cannot we go ahead on 4 November and have the ballot boxes? They are tried and tested. We have them for general elections, so let us have a referendum on 4 November and conduct it in the traditional manner.
Telephone boxes were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). BT has announced that it wants to close 25 in my constituency, all of which are in rural areas. Hon. Members who know my constituency will know that some of the villages involved—Pendleton, Dunsop Bridge, Bashall Eaves, Chatburn, Rimington, Twiston, Bolton by Bowland, Slaidburn and Mitton, for example—are very small indeed. They are in rural areas and they rely on their telephone boxes. BT tells us that "It's good to talk". Well, some of us need telephone boxes to be able to talk, and they are essential in an emergency. There is a universal obligation involved here, and BT should be forced to ensure that all those telephone boxes remain open.
Conversations about speed cameras always get people going, whether they crop up in a pub or over tea somewhere. People get very frustrated by the way in which speed cameras have been abused. That is certainly the case in Lancashire, where the number of speed cameras rose last year from 206 to 297. The number of fatalities also increased during that period, so something is going wrong there. In the village of Grimsargh, I witnessed one of the mobile speed camera units with all four wheels on the pavement. That was completely wrong, and I have asked the police to look into the matter, because I think that the vehicle was illegally parked. The police should have booked themselves. I hope that they will look again at the case of anyone who was booked on that day by that vehicle, and rescind all the fines that were imposed. The people who use those cameras need proper training to ensure that they do not break the law while trying to enforce it. If those vehicles are parked at accident blackspots, as they should be, there should be proper signage so that motorists will realise that it is a blackspot and check their speed accordingly. We do not want accidents, do we?
Another issue that crops up is that of wind farms. We are very lucky in my constituency in that we do not have any, but my goodness me, they are everywhere else. The Government have certain targets and are looking to wind farms to help them to meet them. I would ask them please to look again at other sustainable forms of energy and, indeed, at nuclear power, if that is going to be necessary. I know that the Government have also considered siting wind farms offshore, and permission

547
has just been given to site one outside Swansea, near Porthcawl. That will scar a tourist area, and a number of people are already complaining about it. I have not spoken to one local resident who likes the fact that the wind turbines will be visible from the shore in an area in which tourism is vital. If we spent only a fraction of the money that we spend on subsidising these wind turbines on energy conservation, we would conserve more energy than they can produce.
I have often mentioned post office closures in the House, and I did so again at Prime Minister's questions just over a week ago. I wish that the Government would look again at their policy on this. The post office network is vital, particularly in rural areas but also in urban areas. A couple of post offices have just closed in Clitheroe, resulting in difficult journeys for many people who want to use a post office, particularly if they are disabled. We ought to look again at the issue, and cherish the fact that we have this network. We do not want to be saying, in 20 years' time, "Oh gosh, if only we'd saved the post offices! How valuable they were!"
People have also mentioned the defence cuts that were announced yesterday. I have the Queen's Lancashire Regiment in my constituency and I received a number of letters, prior to the announcement, from people saying that they wished to retain the regiment as a regiment in its own right. It has a proud history that stretches back 300 years, and more battle honours than any other regiment. This is not a party political point; I know that a number of Labour MPs want the Queen's Lancashire Regiment to retain its identity. There will be a campaign to save it, and I hope that the Government will show as much flexibility on this issue as they did on changing the referendums in the north-west. I ask them please to think again. If we want people to join these old, historic regiments, we must retain them and we need to think about how that can be done.
I was at the Farnborough air show yesterday, looking at the Eurofighter Typhoon. What a superb aircraft it is! Part of it is produced in my constituency, and I call on the Government to ensure that they support the military manufacturing skills that we have in the north-west by announcing their commitment to the second tranche as soon as possible, to give some security to the people in my constituency who work on that project.
Another point is that we are now going into a recess, which lasts about six weeks, before we come back for that useless couple of weeks in September, and then we will be off again until just after the party conferences. We cannot table written questions during that entire time. I know how hard working Ministers are, as they were under previous Governments, and they work during the recess. Why cannot we table written questions during the recess, with the proviso that it may take a bit longer for the responses to come back? We are all working—it is not as if we are not doing anything for that period. Would the Government consider, as part of the modernisation programme, the possibility of introducing written questions during recesses, which can be answered during a certain period, whatever that happens to be?
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) mentioned fuel tax. Let us be cautious about a shift to a tax on mileage. The figure of £1.30 a mile has been
548
bandied around in newspapers. I represent a rural constituency, where even a fraction of that would be hugely expensive. We all know what will happen: it will be introduced at one rate, which is fairly low, and people will think that it is not too bad, but two or three years down the line we shall all be pleading, in Adjournment debates such as this, for it not to be put up to £1.30 or £1.50. The car is essential in some rural areas.
Mr. Alan Reid: The road pricing system that I would like to see would involve no extra taxation on the motorist. The total take would be the same, but it would avoid the present system whereby people in remote areas pay more per mile because of higher fuel tax.
Mr. Evans: We have all heard of neutral taxation before. The temptation for Chancellors of the Exchequer—this one and others—to slap on another stealth tax whenever possible will be too enormous to resist.
The Deputy Leader of the House and I have bandied words previously about regional television. We both know, as we represent north-west constituencies, how important regional news is. Richard Frediani is leaving ITN to be head of regional news for Granada Television. I am sure that he is an excellent journalist and will do a great job there. It is important, however, that we stress the importance of regional television and regional news to all Members of Parliament to enable us to get our message across. We want to get more people voting at general and local elections, and the way in which we can influence them is to get our messages, and our campaigns, across on regional television.
I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will reinforce the message that regional television is vital to Members of Parliament in getting our message across to constituents on some of the campaigns that I have mentioned in my all-too-brief speech this afternoon. I wish everybody a happy, eventful and effective recess.
4.12 pm
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I am sorry. May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his maiden speech? I am sure that I was in the right place. The eloquence of his contribution made it worth while travelling up to Birmingham.
In my Hastings and Rye constituency, I have the honour of representing around 1,600 civil servants. Not surprisingly, recent announcements have caused alarm and despondency. I therefore want to make a few brief comments on behalf of this much-maligned group of public servants.
My constituents work mainly in the Child Support Agency, and the Department for Work and Pensions' jobcentres, which are both vital services in delivering the Government's agenda. The Government rightly strive, and have an obligation, to increase efficiency in delivering public services, but we do not need to undermine the confidence and self-respect of employees to achieve that end.
I therefore want the Government to distance themselves from the Opposition's characterisation of civil servants as pen-pushing, bowler-hatted, time-

549
serving bureaucrats, and to recognise that, in the main, they are hard-working, dedicated public servants, deserving of respect just as much as nurses, doctors and teachers. Folk such as Eddie Fleming, Anita Brown and Jacqui Ottley—some of my constituents who have visited me recently—are de-motivated when they perceive that their efforts are not valued. Those civil servants, frequently referred to as back-room, often deliver personal services to some of the most vulnerable citizens—lone parents, pensioners and the disabled.
Of course, the Government have a right and duty to improve delivery where that is possible, but I want to make four brief cautionary points. First, we have come up with a figure of 80,000 or so back-room redundancies, but where is the detail? What particular services will be delivered in a different way? At present, many of my so-called back-room civil service constituents are overworked, doing no more than we have asked them to do. What jobs do we not want done? When claimants are waiting, as I am told, 14 days for a ring back, that is clearly not overstaffing.
Secondly, if the perceived answer is technology, beware. Almost no large-scale Government computer programme has proved successful. I am not luddite in my belief that technology can provide efficiency savings, but in practice it is not happening. I am told that the current DWP computer programme for registering claims loses records and makes bizarre calculations, and it is not simply human error. We cannot lose jobs until the technology is proven.
Thirdly, our benefits systems are now so complex that to reduce the work load on civil servants we need to make life simpler. Sometimes rough justice is preferable to no justice when the complexity of the system gets things wrong. I believe that a system should always provide that a claimant knows whether they are eligible for a benefit and whether the system has provided the right answer. In many of our systems now, that simply does not happen.
Fourthly, in seeking to change the work force we must surely treat them fairly. They already feel unrewarded and undervalued. I do not wish to comment on pay rates generally—to some extent, that is a matter for the market, although I support equal pay for equal work. However, I consider that the DWP future reward strategy proposals are bizarre. In fact, they are a complete horlicks. I am told that what they mean is that wage rates will not be based on merit alone—the claim made for them—but on a competitive assessment which means that only a few can succeed. I reckon that we would not be that pleased if such a proposal were implemented in the House.
I come to my plea. My constituency of Hastings and Rye is an area of regeneration. The Government have done a brilliant job with the direct investment made through the South East England Development Agency, which in turn has cut unemployment in my constituency by some 1,600. We remain, however, the blackspot for unemployment in the south-east so public service jobs are vital to our local economy. I would welcome an assurance that, whatever changes are made, the Lyons promise still holds, namely, that areas such as Hastings will not lose civil service jobs simply because they are in the south-east and, better still, that jobs from the capital will be relocated there.
4.17 pm
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his splendid maiden speech and I wish him well in the future.
Before we adjourn for the summer, I wish to raise a number of points quickly. Unfortunately, since the previous of these Adjournment debates, this House—the mother of all Parliaments—has been further sidelined. Time after time, matters that should be brought to the House first are shared with unelected representatives such as members of the media or local authority officials. I very much regret that. We have had two important reports recently. The first was such a laugh that a new brand of paint has been brought out as a result of it. The second was critical of everyone but no one was to blame. Then the gentleman who runs all this fiasco, who occupies No. 10 Downing street, comes to the Dispatch Box on Tuesday and admits to the House that he has made various mistakes. Yet nothing is done. If ever there was a resigning matter, what we were told on Tuesday was certainly a reason for the Prime Minister to resign.
It was brass-taking nerve for this rotten Government to announce a five-year strategy to tackle crime. The Prime Minister was elected Labour leader on the slogan, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". He is now in his eighth year of trying to tackle crime and the Government have the nerve to come out with a five-year strategy to tackle it. What is wrong with law enforcement in this country is all to do with management. The two people I blame for the mismanagement are the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary must wake up every morning thinking, "Now what can I next make an offence?" What is going on at the moment is laughable. All Members of Parliament realise that there are serious matters to be dealt with.
I am delighted that my local newspaper, the Yellow Advertiser, launched a campaign called "More Feet on the Beat", which called on the Home Secretary to provide sufficient funding for an extra 10 police officers. The newspaper encouraged its readers to send in coupons and I was delighted to present the Prime Minister with more than 2,000 coupons yesterday and to present a petition to the House. The newspaper, its editor Mr. Graeme Allen and reporter Luke Walsh, should be commended for the campaign. I am delighted to tell the House that after four months the campaign has had some success. There is a more visible police presence across Southend, West and one of the three police stations—Eastwood—is now partly open. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will do what he can to take the issue further.
On several occasions I have mentioned the tragedy of my constituent, Maajid Nawaz. He was jailed for five years on 25 March 2004, accused of belonging to the Islamic Liberation Movement. I met the Foreign Secretary on 11 May to raise my concerns further and to ask the Government to make a plea for clemency on behalf of Maajid and the other detainees. I recently made further representations to the Foreign Secretary following the publication of the judge's summation. I have now received a letter from Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean. Mrs. Abi Nawaz has advised me that on Egyptian independence day—tomorrow—the President

551
of Egypt has the power to release foreign nationals from prison. I am disappointed that the Government are unable to ask for that to happen because the men have not served three quarters of their sentences. If there is any chance to make progress on that issue in the next 24 hours, I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to do just that. I certainly wish to thank the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Symons for their efforts and I hope that the nightmare suffered by Maajid and his fellow detainees will soon end.
Many Members of Parliament have mentioned the nightmare of post office closures. I represent a tiny urban area, but yet another five post offices—Bridgewater drive, Earls Hall, Eastwoodbury lane, the Ridgeway and the West road—have been suggested for closure. Local residents are very upset about the proposal because there are so many senior citizens in my constituency. I have complained to the Post Office, because its consultation process is a farce. I hope to present a petition on the issue later.
In May, I presented a Bill that would have put the onus on the mobile phone operators to prove to local authorities that there was a need for mobile phone masts and that they had no health implications. In June, I asked the Prime Minister about the matter. I am sure that he more than anyone constantly uses mobile phones. My concern is that phones have real health risks if overused, especially by young children. The Prime Minister replied that he would proceed "very carefully" and based on the "scientific evidence". In this case, it has become clear that the words "very carefully" translate into the Government doing nothing. The status quo remains, which is totally unacceptable. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has told me that it has not commissioned any research in the area. The only real research that I can find—the Stewart report—goes back four years and it recommends the precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technology. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to consider the matter and see what the Prime Minister means about proceeding according the scientific evidence, when no such evidence is being gathered.
The subject of abortion recently came to everyone's attention when Lord Steel of Aikwood, who introduced the original Bill, said that he now thought that we should look at it again. Many of us have been saying that as babies born at 22 weeks can be saved in special care units that help them to breathe independently, the law is an ass. The ultrasound pictures of an unborn child taken by Professor Stuart Campbell stunned us. The recent increase in the number of under-16-year-olds having abortions shocked us, so will the Deputy Leader of the House ensure that we reconsider the matter when we come back in the autumn?
Leigh creek badly needs dredging. It has been the lifeline of the port of Leigh for centuries, through its shipbuilding days to its current existence as a fishing and cockling port. The creek has been silting up for several years, with a shorter and shorter time between high tides when boats can leave and return. The course of the creek was changed, without permission, about 15 years ago, but as Leigh town council is still desperately grappling with the problem, will the Minister find out whether any money can be found to help with dredging the creek?
552
Finally, it occurs to me that some Members may not yet have booked their summer holiday. I implore them to come to Southend, where we have the greatest number of hours of sunshine in the UK. If that does not attract them, Southend museum has a display of finds from the burial chamber of a Saxon king, uncovered in recent roadworks. The exhibition will be transferred to the Museum of London.
I join all Members in wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everyone a very happy summer.
4.26 pm
Jim Dowd: It is always a delight to follow the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I have been to Southend before; that is why I shall not be going there this summer. May I tell the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for whom I have a warm regard, that whenever he rises to his feet many Members feel that the clocks have stopped? The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is a doughty fighter for the armed forces. I associate him most readily with the Royal Air Force, for which I, too, have great feeling. My father served 15 years with that august institution, including all the second world war years. According to my mother, I was born in the back of a squadron leader's car at RAF Gutersloh, so I retain the highest regard for the service.
I want to mention three items briefly. I realise that many Members want to speak so I shall cut back my remarks as much as possible. Furthermore, I do not want to antagonise the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas)—old and sad as he now is, compared with little and sad when he first came to this place.
I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport on Tuesday, especially as it relates to future rail developments in London. Although much of the detail still has to be finalised, the Crossrail project is making progress. In my part of south-east London, we warmly welcomed the announcements about the east London line. As I have been campaigning for its southern extension for well over 30 years, I am delighted that the funding has at last been allocated and that work can proceed.
Mr. Bob Kiley, the London transport commissioner said of the Secretary of State's announcement:
"This groundbreaking agreement means that London, for the first time, has the opportunity to make long-term decisions on planning major capital projects without the fear that funding will be withdrawn in future years."
That is good for all Londoners.
The head of finance and planning at Transport for London said:
"The Olympic projects we will now take forward include extending the East London Line (to Dalston Junction, West Croydon and Crystal Palace), expanding the DLR and new transit projects in East London and Greenwich."
The Clapham junction extension will have to wait. I do not mind those projects being described in relation to the Olympic bid, although the case for them exists whether or not we make a bid for the 2012 Olympics. I have a reputation for being slightly more sceptical about the bid than other London Members or some of the other Members in the Chamber. The southern extension

553
to West Croydon station involves the least cost, minimal engineering work and the highest cost-benefit for the investment, and we look forward to progress on that.
Sadly, we received less encouraging news in my constituency yesterday, when the star ratings for the acute trusts were published and the rating for University hospital Lewisham went down from three stars to two stars. At first sight, that might seem a diminution of service, but when one examines the reasons, one finds that the trust achieved eight out of nine key targets, that it underachieved on only one of the nine key targets and that it significantly underachieved on none of the key targets.
On clinical focus, four indicators were in band five, no indicators were in band one and the trust was placed in the middle band for performance. On patient focus, it had two indicators in band five, no indicators in band one and, again, was placed in the middle band for performance. On capacity and capability, it achieved two indicators in band five and no indicators in band one, putting it in the top band for performance. Paradoxically, although it lost a star—the press release states, "Hospital just misses out on top rating"—it missed out by one point, and that was for out-patient activity. The clinical services to people in the hospital have improved markedly.
The trust was pursuing the foundation trust bid in wave 1a, but that has been put in some doubt by its losing one star. However, four other hospitals that had three stars lost one star, but they have trust status, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health must consider those matters. In Lewisham's case, I hope that he will examine not only the quantative assessment by the Healthcare Commission, but the underlying qualitative information to see that the hospital is making steady progress and that the bid should be allowed to continue.
I have been a Lewisham resident for 53 years, and I have no doubt that University hospital Lewisham provides a better service to the people of Lewisham than it has ever done in its history. An extremely hard working and diligent chief executive and trust chair lead it, and it is a great resource for the people of south-east London. I hope that the service, which it provides so magnificently to my constituents, will continue to expand.
I wanted to mention one other matter, but in view of the time and the need to get others in, I shall leave my remarks there.
4.33 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I want to raise one or two important issues in my constituency.
For some time, my constituents have been telling me about their experiences and those of their relatives in our regional hospital, the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital, Wonford. At the end of June, I received a letter from a constituent, who drew my attention to his experience as a post-operative patient after undergoing eye surgery:
"To save money we were told we were shunted upstairs to Otter ward every Saturday by 2 o'clock and awakened even earlier than usual for a move on Monday at 7 am to be back on Parkerswell ward settled for the day shift to commence."
554
When people have an in-patient stay, it is not uncommon for them to be moved, and we all understand the pressures at weekends, when hospitals try to discharge their patients and sometimes bring a couple of wards together.
I was struck by the idea that a post-operative patient or patients should have been woken at an extraordinarily early hour in order to shunt them back on to the original ward in time for the day shift to come in. When one reads such stories, one asks oneself whom the service is for. Obviously, I wrote to the management of the hospital on behalf of my constituent, and I was astonished to receive a bland reply. It says:
"It is therefore our standard practice to group patients on to appropriately staffed wards at weekends on occasions when it has not been possible to discharge them by the time that the ward closes. This is the only ward we have within the Trust which operates on a five day basis and our practice is consistent with practice across the NHS."
My message to the Minister today is that, if that is standard practice and the way in which patients are treated—got up at an especially early hour for the convenience of the hospital process—that practice needs to be changed. I know that he will pass that on to the Department of Health. Even worse, I heard stories from people whose relatives were particularly delicate and ill when they seemed to be subject to so many unnecessary moves around the hospital.
When the story of that patient appeared in my local newspaper, I received letters from others, including some very serious cases of people who were very ill. I shall just read an extract because I will not identify the constituents for obvious reasons. A young man wrote to me:
"I would like to tell you about my mum, and this is more than I can bear, who was 69 and admitted to"
the same hospital in
"September 2003. She was shunted around five times in a four week period. With bravery and good humour my mum bore this … despite my pleas."
She died in the first week of November. He continued:
"Cancer patients it seems too are being shunted around the hospital in the last weeks of their lives."
That is quite unacceptable.
None of those things will appear in the star ratings that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) mentioned. No such figures appear in official reports from hospitals, but that is what is happening in them. It cannot be right that that sort of practice is allowed to continue. I am not asking the Government to create a new target for minimum moves, as part of the star-ratings system. To anyone with any fraction of compassion or common sense, that is an unacceptable practice. It does not put patients first; it does not recognise that hospitals exist to serve patients, not their regulations and processes. I hope that, by drawing the House's attention to that today, the Minister will assist me in getting that practice stopped.
Another matter on health relates to NHS dentistry, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) has raised already. We had a debate in Westminster Hall on 11 February this year, initiated by my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), about dentistry in our part of Devon. At that time, I could get no NHS

555
referrals for people living in the east Devon part of my constituency, but practices were still open to patients in the mid-Devon part, in Crediton, Cullompton and Tiverton. However, because practices were closed to them in Exeter and east Devon, I flagged up in that debate the fact that it would only be a matter of time before the mid-Devon practices were no longer able to accept NHS patients. That has happened: we now have no NHS practices available in mid-Devon.
The reason I bring NHS dentistry to the House's attention today is that, in trying to find any surgery for one of my constituents this week, my caseworker contacted the trust to find out where the nearest NHS surgery is and was told that a practice in Barnstaple—on the north Devon coast, some 30 miles from Tiverton—is still accepting NHS patients. When my caseworker said, "Well, it's rather a long way to go—30 miles to visit the dentist", she was told, "Well, perhaps they would like the drive."
Bearing in mind the opportunity of people travelling around the country in the forthcoming holiday period, I would agree that the journey by car from Tiverton to Barnstaple is most glorious. The scenery is fantastic, and there are many wayside inns and places to cool off and to enjoy the day, but that, frankly, is not quite what people want when they have a terrible toothache and are looking for a convenient NHS dentist. So I add my voice to those hon. Members who have called for NHS dentistry to be addressed by the Government. When we had our debate back in February, the local trust was waiting for the Government to make a decision on funding, and I urge them to get on with that as quickly as possible.
Finally, I sat through the "Patience Strong" guide to the countryside from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs yesterday, when she painted a very glossy, very attractive picture of the Government's strategy for rural areas, but I simply do not understand why small businesses in rural areas are being deprived of their enterprises agencies. In my constituency, the enterprise agencies are closing in Crediton and Tiverton. In Honiton, which has had a very successful enterprise agency, we understand that the contract to service that business community has been lost to the city of Plymouth, which is hardly rural and is at the other end of the county. So my final plea to the Minister is that, if rural communities and rural economies are important to the Government, at least keep those support services that have been seen to work, on which local businesses rely, and that deliver local services to local needs.
4.40 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his election victory and superb maiden speech. Mathematics was never my strong point at school, but a simple division of the time remaining and number of hon. Members wishing to speak suggests that I should be suitably brief.
I wish to dwell on the position of the maternity services in the town of Braintree, especially as situated in the William Julian Courtauld hospital. The name
556
Courtauld may be familiar to hon. Members because it was the famous textile firm founded in Bocking, which is adjacent to Braintree. For many years, it had mills in both Bocking and Halstead and was a major employer of labour. The specific community hospital that I mention was endowed by William Julian Courtauld after the first world war and subscribed to by the working people of Braintree for the benefit of the town.
The hospital has provided superb personal maternity services to the mothers of Braintree for many years, although we saw a shadow of things to come in 1997 when the then health authority proposed to close down all hospital services in the town of Braintree and, not being content with that, also those in the town of Maldon. There was a tremendous local campaign against that. The consultation was called "Taking the Initiative", but hon. Members can well imagine that local people had another expression for it, which went even further than "Taking Liberties". The campaign against the closures in 1997 and 1998 was successful, so the William Julian Courtauld hospital retained its maternity service, albeit somewhat diminished, because although the service had been general practitioner-led, it was reduced to being midwife-led. Nevertheless, the service remained in place and continued to serve the people of the town.
Last autumn, the care trust that now administers the service announced that the hospital was closing for a short time owing to sickness of staff and pregnancy among the midwives. That was understandable and I made no fuss when it took place; midwives of course have the same right to become pregnant as everyone else. The hospital reopened on a most peculiar basis. It would be almost impossible to make this story up, so hon. Members must take my word for it that what I am about to say is true.
The maternity hospital opened on the basis of operating between 9 o'clock in the morning and 5 o'clock in the evening, Monday to Friday only. I do not think that we have reached a stage at which the time when babies arrive may be programmed more definitely than was historically the case—mothers and fathers in the Chamber will recall that a more common time for a baby's arrival is the early hours of the morning—so hon. Members will understand the difficulty that that has caused. If it is anticipated that a baby will be born outside the nine-to-five period, it is possible for people to contact a midwife, who will get the key and let them into the hospital.
Hon. Members can well imagine what happened as a result of the change. A mother gave birth to a baby in the hospital car park, and the town is in uproar about what has happened. Meetings and demonstrations have been held, and there was a substantial march through the town of Braintree last Saturday. It largely consisted of mothers with young children, although a few people of more mature years were present, including me as the local Member of Parliament. A descendent of the founder of the hospital, Julian Courtauld, was also there. We spoke at the end of the march, and there is a universal view in the town that the full service should be restored.
It is possible that we are making progress, and I am raising the matter today because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will convey the state of affairs to the Secretary of State for Health. I

557
hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to persuade the care trust not to be quite so insulting to the mothers and children of Braintree.
There is a light to the case, even by its own logic. The number of babies born in the hospital rose to 22 at the end of last month. That is within the target of the health trust for the number of babies it wants to be born to justify a 24-hour service. The difficulty is, of course, that if it does not open on a 24-hour basis, fewer mothers go there and it is difficult to reach the target set.
I fully understand that those who have complications or potentially difficult pregnancies will go to the general hospital in Chelmsford, which can offer more specialised services. Births at the William Julian Courtauld hospital are expected to be—I say this as a mere man—of the more straightforward kind. However, the institution has been popular and has served the town well for the best part of 75 years. I hope that it continues and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will intervene in such a way as he thinks fit.
4.45 pm
Bob Spink: I represent a beautiful part of the country, set on the Thames, populated by good and self-reliant people who are proud to be British and who cherish our wonderful heritage. Hadleigh, for instance, has an historic castle and the ancient St. James's church, but it needs to regain its village atmosphere. Thundersley, Benfleet and Canvey Island are delightful communities. More than anything, Castle Point needs to conserve and improve its environment and amenities, which means stopping the overdevelopment.
A year ago, Conservatives took control of Castle Point borough council from Labour. The results are starting to shine through. An Audit Commission report was produced after just eight months of Conservative administration. Of course, things do not change immediately or without a lot of effort. In fact, the Prime Minister still blames the old Conservative Government for his failure to deliver on public services, congestion and antisocial behaviour—I could go on—after eight years in power.
The Audit Commission's report sets out an optimistic picture of
"the beginning of the journey".
It says:
"Political leadership within the Council was previously weak."
That was the old Labour leadership. It continues:
"The current leader"—
the new Conservative leader—
"demonstrates a determination to provide clear political direction."
The Audit Commission is right to highlight the problems that still need to be resolved. It is also right to point to the positive early action taken by councillors. For instance, it states that the new Conservative council has
"agreed a balanced budget … directed additional resources to priority areas … recognised the need for alternative forms of service provision",
and notes:
"Partners are positive about working with the Council".
558
In addition, the council has closed loss-making facilities, outsourced services and is still in the process of radical change to drive up the standard of services for the public and the value of the money that it gives to the public. I warmly congratulate the councillors on their efforts.
We must be patient, however. Rome was not built in a day, but the seeds of success are coming through. They were sown by the council's leader, Pam Challis, and her excellent team of councillors. In particular, I thank Jeffrey Stanley, who guided the team financially. He delivered the balanced budget and kept the council tax rise in Castle Point this year to below 3 per cent., a remarkable achievement. He held firm on spending throughout the council's departments to force the necessary reforms and give value for money. Jeff Stanley did a great service to the people of Castle Point.
I must also mention the chief executive, Barry Rollinson, and his team of officers and staff, who are professional, dedicated and hard-working. They deserve the community's thanks and congratulations and its encouragement to continue down the right road of reform so that we bring back pride in Castle Point.
One major local problem is that of disabled facilities grants to enable disabled people to live in decent circumstances in their homes. Castle Point has estimated that this year it needs £600,000 to cover the demand for those grants, and that does not include any new services likely to be recommended by occupational therapists. The Government made only £90,000 available to the council, which has topped up the figure to £150,000, but that is still only a quarter of what is needed—it will probably turn out to be even less than that as the new demand becomes known. That is tragic for disabled people unable to get the simple aids and adaptations that they so desperately need.
This is not a political matter; I seek to score no political points. I do not criticise the county council, the Government or indeed the borough council. I simply and sincerely ask the Minister to look at the case of Castle Point and to write to me or meet me so that we can start to find a solution to the problem. In all decency we must do that for the vulnerable people whom we represent and who depend on us. I thank the borough council's director of health and housing, Alan Longford, and County Councillor Bill Dick, who are working hard to resolve the problem for the community.
Still on local issues, I put on record yet again the need to find a way to give Canvey Island its third access road, which must be from Northwick road. Just a few days ago, Canvey Island was completely blocked off again because of a tragic accident. It came to a standstill, and so did much of the mainland. The environmental damage caused by congestion every day is incalculable. I congratulate the local newspapers, the Yellow Advertiser and the Evening Echo, on their campaign to try to improve matters. As I hold up a copy of the latter, hon. Members can see that it calls our traffic problems "chaos". I know that County Councillor Ray Howard has fought for years to improve matters locally, and I am happy to join him and his team in that fight.
Of course, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's policy to increase the house-building target in Castle Point from 2,400 to 4,000 without giving any infrastructure help whatever will simply exacerbate the problem. It is complete nonsense, and we must fight

559
every single inappropriate building application because more building without the infrastructure simply adds to our problems.
I want to raise a couple of police issues. I congratulate the divisional commander, John Mauger, his officers and staff on their efforts over the last year. They have had a tough time, but they are now getting on top of local antisocial behaviour, street crime and youth nuisance. They have improved those matters. There is still a lot to be done, of course, but things are moving in the right direction, and that is because of a sound strategy, good management of that strategy and excellent officers on the ground implementing it.
Nationally, the police need help. They are bogged down with bureaucracy. It takes three and a half hours to arrest someone, which stops the police responding quickly, investigating earlier crimes and walking the streets to deter further crimes. One solution must be improved IT. We need minimum, not maximum, administrative input from the police. Names, addresses and dates of birth must be entered once into a palm-top at the scene or in the police car, not many times on several forms back at the station. The police must co-operate with the Crown Prosecution Service to find ways of becoming more effective. We need mobile data units in police cars, so that officers can be linked to each electronically and can communicate with each other, speeding up their processing of crime and keeping them on the streets.
We need common sense, and we need to roll out IT solutions, hardware and system simplifications. That could save up to 25 per cent. of police time, which would mean 25 per cent. more police officers on the street. That is what the public want; indeed, it is what they deserve. By the way, it is also what the police themselves deserve because they are very hard-pressed, dedicated and professional, and I congratulate them again on their work locally.
I have spoken consistently on the European Union over the years. Briefly, I believe that we have to get out of the common fisheries policy, as I have said many times. We must now get out of the common agricultural policy, which ceased to be useful years ago. It is expensive, and it delivers problems, not solutions, to our farmers and consumers. It is increasingly inappropriate in an expanded Europe, and it damages the developing world, much to the shame of the whole of Europe. We also need to bring international development finance back under our own control. Bilateral project-based aid is much more effective and delivers better and more sustainable solutions than multilateral aid channelled through Europe.
I congratulate UK Independence party MEPs on using their position to inform the British public about the waste, excesses, corruption and stupidity of European institutions. The more the British people know about the EU, the less they like it. The EU is being driven hard towards a single federal state; our destiny is not to be consumed by that state. We must retain our sovereignty, retain the pound, stay out of the EU constitution, get out of the CFP and the CAP, bring back our international development funding to this country, and return to the simple trading relationship
560
and to rational co-operation with Europe where that is in Britain's interests. That is what the people of this country voted for and to give them less is to betray them.
4.55 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: This afternoon, I shall make a serious contribution on the subject of prostitution. Last Friday, the Government published an important consultation document, "Paying the Price", which I welcome strongly. Existing laws on prostitution date back more than 50 years and have, in my opinion, long been in need of reform. In one small part of my constituency we have had a serious problem with prostitution. I do not in any way condone prostitution, but as a Member of Parliament I have had to think seriously about it.
The traditional red-light district of Bolton is a small light industrial estate covering far less than a square mile, which is connected to the road network, surrounded by car parks and close to the town centre night life. As heavy engineering industry moved out, light industry moved in and the business men began to complain about the prostitutes, who were operating from 3 o'clock in the afternoon rather than from the early evening onward, which led to women walking through the area and business men visiting it to be harassed.
Because of the number of complaints, the police had to do something. They conducted a great deal of activity in the area, but the result was to decant the problem across the main Bury-Bolton road and into a pleasant residential area, where the problems escalated. Prostitution is connected with drugs—we have had yardies in the area—but the reason that I have had to take a keen interest in the situation is that in 18 months there have been 14 suspicious deaths in that small area. Two prostitutes, Carly Bateman and Danielle Moorcroft, aged 17 and 21 respectively, were recently murdered there; Danielle was five months pregnant at the time of her death. There have also been vicious attacks and drug overdoses. The area is surrounded by Bolton community college and the halls of residence for Bolton institute of higher education—now a university—and students are badly harassed. There were real problems, so the police started to be active in the residential area, as a result of which the prostitutes are now spread over a much wider area.
However, there is good news: we in Bolton now have a prostitution forum, which was established under the chairmanship of Councillor Frank White. It offers a strategic approach to managing prostitution back into the traditional area—the light industrial estate. No one lives there, so apart from business men in the day time, no one has a serious problem with prostitutes operating in the area. Of course Bolton council, the police and the health authority are taking an holistic approach: they are trying to get all the prostitutes off the game, off drugs and into jobs, and to look after their health. I congratulate the Bolton prostitution forum on its mature approach to a difficult problem.
The police have offered a curfew time that is now well known in Bolton: prostitutes can operate in the area from 7 o'clock in the evening until 6 o'clock in the morning, and if they operate outside the area police will harass them. There are closed circuit television cameras

561
in the area to keep the women safe, and during the curfew period the police keep an eye on what is going on. If the prostitutes do not conform to the curfew or if they operate outside the area, antisocial behaviour orders will be used. I am pleased to say that ASBOs have already been issued against two prostitutes, who are now banned from operating in Bolton. Just this evening, in the Bolton Evening News, the headline is, "Man banned from the red light zone". An ASBO has been applied to a man who is considered to be an extreme danger to prostitutes. He has become the first Bolton man to be banned, using an ASBO, from the red light area.
In addition to the consultation document that was offered last Friday, I hope that we may have a debate on the Floor of the House so that we can make far more serious contributions to this important subject than I can make this afternoon.
5 pm
Ross Cranston: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). His speech is a tribute to the real contribution that he will make in this place. I pay tribute also to his predecessor, Terry Davis, who will make a real contribution in Europe.
I shall start with Iraq. In normal times, I think that we would be focusing on the future of that country. We would be looking at the constitutional path set out in United Nations Security Council resolution 1546. We would be concerned about the security situation, which is condemned in that resolution. It restates the obligations of states such as Syria and others to prevent terrorism. It is not "normal times" because an election is pending in the United States and there may be one in this country next year.
I could be sadly deluded that there are normal times in politics. Perhaps political debate and an objective consideration of the facts are mutually exclusive. There was certainly something wrong with our intelligence in Iraq. At first glance that is surprising when it was accurate in relation to Libya and the A.Q. Khan network. That is what Lord Butler and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) and her colleagues inquired into. To suggest somehow that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was to blame for the intelligence failure, or the reading of intelligence, flies in the face of the facts.
The world community signed up to resolution 1441 in November 2002. Iraq was in material breach of its obligations because it had not completely disarmed. That was paragraph 1 of that resolution. In terms of the current debate, one could be misled into thinking that the concern at that time and subsequently was about whether there needed to be disarmament. It was not, it was about how to achieve that particular aim—should we permit the inspectors to stay longer. At page 112 of his recent book, Dr. Blix states:
"Looking at the material before us as a lawyer, I could not exclude the possibility that the Iraqis had destroyed both weapons and documents and that little or nothing was left. My gut feelings, which I kept to myself, suggested to me that Iraq still engaged in prohibited activities and retained prohibited items, and that it had the documents to prove it."
Even our eminent UK expert, Dr. Kelly, was of a similar view. For example, he offered his quite sophisticated knowledge to Mr. Gilligan of the BBC. It
562
is set out in paragraphs 230 and 231 of Lord Hutton's report. Dr. Kelly also made an important comment to Mr. Gilligan when he said
"there has been proliferation—not in terms of people walking across the Iraqi border with 20 shells, but supply chain knowledge—plans."
That is important in terms of the threat that Iraq posed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gilligan did not report what Dr. Kelly actually told him.
That leads to a few reflections about the media. I do not believe that there was a golden age of media objectivity. I believe, however, that we are blessed with a media whose range and depth must be the envy of other countries. However, there is a deep culture of suspicion about politicians and their motives in the media. Ian Hargreaves and John Lloyd, in their recent books, have written about the corrosive effects of this on the body politic. As a political class, we do not always help ourselves. Accusations of bad faith or, worse, deceit, on the part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are so casually and regularly made by some journalists and leader writers, and I find that deeply worrying. I utterly reject such accusations. In fact, I find them a personal affront.
One important issue that we should be debating is the basis on which there should be armed intervention where we have rogue or failed states. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an important speech on this earlier this year. Rhetorically, he said:
"The UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights is a fine document. But it is strange the United Nations is so reluctant to enforce it."
In 2001, the international commission that the Canadian Government had established reported on criteria of legitimacy for intervention. It identified five. These were seriousness, right intention, last resort, proportionality and the balance of consequences. We should debate the issue because, in the light of Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Sudan we need clear guidance on what the international community can do.
Briefly, the inadequacies of the coroner system were brought home to me earlier this year by a case in my constituency. There was no practical way in which an adverse finding by the coroner could be reviewed at the instigation of the people who were criticised. A fundamental Home Office review chaired by Tom Luce was published in 2003. Although the system has been reviewed a number of times over the last century, nothing has been done. That system is not transparent or joined-up, and does not meet families' emotional or practical needs. Change is needed, and I urge the Government to implement the review.
Finally, I introduced the Company Directors (Health and Safety) Bill last year. The Government believe that voluntary action is the way forward, but on the basis of the published research, I believe that more needs to be done.
5.6 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I should like to report on some concerns raised by my constituents and provide feedback on recent Government initiatives.
One of the most important recent announcements was the comprehensive spending review, and my constituents will certainly welcome the investments in

563
education and health. An intermediate treatment centre will provide another 100 beds by next year, which is much appreciated by the people of Swindon. I am pleased that we have significantly reduced NHS waiting times, and that NHS dentistry has been restored in Swindon after the complete lack of such a service under the previous Government. However, there are concerns about waiting times in audiology and secondary mental health services, demonstrating that that additional investment is very much needed.
I have a huge postbag of letters from people who, while recognising that the Government have made a great contribution to international aid, urge them to do even more. I congratulate the Chancellor on announcing a deadline for meeting the target of spending 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product on international aid, which will help to save millions of lives. The additional money to tackle crime is welcome, and I was pleased to learn today of crime figures showing that Wiltshire is the second safest county in the country. Residents appreciate their improved quality of life, and thanks are due to the police, the local community, the council and magistrates, who have made a concerted effort to tackle crime. Street wardens have had a huge impact on the Parks, Walcot and Central wards in my constituency, where they act as the eyes and ears of the community, take up issues of concern and get things done. Again, that initiative is thanks to the investment of the Labour Government.
We are not complacent, however. More should be done on antisocial behaviour, particularly prostitution, which has been successfully tackled in Central ward by the community, together with the council and local police. That could not have been done without antisocial behaviour orders and Government legislation making kerb crawling an arrestable offence. An antisocial behaviour order was recently imposed on a kerb crawler in Swindon to keep them out of the area. I am sad to record the death of Matt McCue, one of the people who led that community work, but the community has vowed to remember him and is determined to continue his work. The quality of life has improved significantly in Central ward and I know that with the additional powers and those that are being consulted on, we will be able to do even more.
We should not allow tolerance zones to be introduced. When I spoke to prostitutes, they said that tolerance zones are set up on industrial estates, for example, and they are too frightened to use those places. Introducing tolerance zones will lead to official prostitution and unofficial prostitution as well. Following the example of the Swedish Government, we should say that in our society no one should pay for sex. Those who do so fuel the antisocial behaviour associated with prostitution. We should try to minimise the problems in our society that result from prostitution.
I continue to get in my postbag tragic letters from people who have suffered in road accidents, who have family members who have suffered in road accidents or who have lost family members in such accidents. We need to do more to tackle speeding. The matter has already been raised in the debate. There is still a belief that it is acceptable to speed, and that speed cameras are naughty wicked things set up by Government, rather
564
than an attempt to reduce road deaths and injuries. But the evidence overwhelmingly shows that they do just that. Any MP who has to face somebody who has lost a family member in a road accident must emphasise that speeding is a major issue, and we need to make it as unacceptable as drink driving has become. I am working to support 20 mph zones around our schools, as I believe that is important.
Other hon. Members have spoken about maternity services, a topic that we need to draw to the Government's attention. Government policy is designed to extend choice in maternity services, but as we have heard from a number of hon. Members, it seems that choice is being reduced. In my constituency some Swindon women choose to use a midwife-led unit that is just outside the constituency in Malmesbury. That is being threatened with closure. The primary care trust there will make a decision on Tuesday. The maternity unit is extremely popular and is the only midwife-led unit available to Swindon women. It seems stupid to close it when it could be better used. Many people in my constituency do not know about it. If it were well used, it could be as economical as some of the other services or, as the evidence from elsewhere suggests, more economical.
I chair the maternity group here in Parliament, so I pick up a number of issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) has tabled an early-day motion about the home birth service being withdrawn in Peterborough. It is at a foundation trust, which is supposed to respond to local communities and provide more choice, yet a midwife there has been suspended for attending a home birth. That is strange. Women have a right to have a home birth and midwives have a duty to attend home births, so the circle is not being squared. Trusts seem to have no duty to provide the necessary midwives. If we are keen to promote choice in maternity services, I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to sort the matter out. Home births on average take up less midwife time than other births, so they should clearly be supported, as recent National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines show.
Finally, I should like to mention the crisis in Darfur. A number of hon. Members recently visited Sudan and saw the catastrophe. They recognised the efforts made by the Government, who are already the largest donor and have promised more money. Those hon. Members also urge our constituents to dig in their pockets and give money to the emergency appeal, because they have seen people who they know will be dead by now. They have seen the hunger, the lack of shelter and so on, and they urge the Government to do more.
I hope my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will raise those issues with the relevant Departments. I appreciate the opportunity to draw them to the attention of the House on behalf of my constituents.
5.14 pm
Dr. Rudi Vis: I have raised the case of Cyprus on many occasions, and I had hoped that by now it would be resolved amicably. As that is not the case, however, I return to it today. Let me remind the House that Turkey invaded Cyprus in July 1974—more than 30 years ago—thereby violating

565
every conceivable international norm. Two hundred thousand Greek Cypriots fled without their possessions, 5,000 were killed, and more than 1,000 are still missing. Countless UN resolutions, debates and efforts to find a solution have been thwarted by Turkey, by the putative leader of the occupied territory, Mr. Denktash and, more recently, by Mr. Talat.
The Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights have upheld every case against Turkey, but it has bluntly refused to comply. The Secretary-General of the UN, Mr. Kofi Annan, has done his best to assist, but major failings in the advice given to him have turned the clock backwards, not forwards.
A referendum on creating a united Cyprus was held on 24 April this year. The result in the occupied part was a yes vote, with two to one in favour. One should bear in mind that there are now more Turkish settlers—some 120,000—in the occupied territory than Turkish Cypriots, and that most Turkish settlers are distinctly disliked by Turkish Cypriots.
There are also some 35,000 Turkish troops in this small occupied territory. It was the Turks who voted yes; many Turkish Cypriots voted no. The vote in the Republic of Cyprus was a resounding no, with 76 per cent. of Greek Cypriots voting against Annan plan V. One would have thought that in any referendum 76 per cent. of people cannot all be wrong, but that is how the world reacted. The condemnation of the Greek Cypriots and of President Tassos Papadopoulos was nearly unanimous. At the same time, the Turkish Cypriots were acclaimed as friends of democracy and human rights, and as the only people really in favour of a united Cyprus. As I said, it was the Turkish settlers who voted yes. Three days ago, we received three Greek Cypriot mayors in exile. They are from the three most densely populated areas in the occupied territory—Famagusta, Morphou and Kyrenia. Their research, particularly in Kyrenia, suggests that the vast majority of Turkish Cypriots voted no.
Why did Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots vote no despite 30 years of division and a strong desire to unify? Annan plan I was put to political decision makers as the most balanced plan ever devised. Then, it was changed in favour of Turkey, and re-presented as Annan II. Again, that was described as the most balanced plan ever and changed in favour of Turkey, becoming Annan III. Annan III was of course presented as the most balanced plan ever devised, but major changes were made in favour of Turkey between Annan IV and Annan V, even giving Turkish troops the right to stay in Cyprus in perpetuity, albeit with their number reduced over the decades to 650.
Greek and Turkish Cypriots feel, rightly, that security issues have not been thought through; that human rights are not negotiable; that implementation of Annan V will take decades; that property rights have almost been forgotten; that the fate of the missing should receive attention; and that those in enclaves and everyone else should have freedom of movement. Those are all matters that we take for granted in the UK and, I should have thought, in the EU. After all, Cyprus is a full member of the EU.
The real problem with Annan V was that it had little to do with Cyprus. It was an attempt to push for a yes vote on both sides, regardless, so that EU accession
566
negotiations with Turkey could commence in December 2004. When the full truth comes out, the world will change its mind and the EU will want Turkey to negotiate fairly before contemplating allowing it to commence accession negotiations. It will not be possible to have another vote on Annan V. The best that could happen is for all Cypriots to come together to create a solution and put it to the UN. For once, Cyprus could do without foreign intervention, which has served only to deepen divisions and make it more difficult to find a lasting solution of a united and free island.
I say to Turkey and others that Cyprus is a full member of the EU and now has the power of veto over accession. That may assist in finding a fair solution.
5.19 pm
Brian White: I want to raise three brief issues, but, first, I echo the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne).
I stress to hon. Members who spoke about British Telecom telephones that the all-party group held a meeting with BT in which those who spoke today were conspicuous by their absence. Had they been present, they would have heard facts about the 40,000 loss-making phones and know that local authorities have an effective veto over whether they go. They would have realised that innovative councils such as Bolton had found a way of dealing with some of those BT pay phones.
I read with interest early-day motion 1496, which is about unscrupulous property developers from Bromsgrove, who divided up fields and offered plots for sale. A European land sales partnership is doing something similar in a lovely village called Bow Brickell in my constituency. It is offering a field for future homes and taking money now with a promise of a home in the future. The person responsible has bought a field for £90,000 and stands to make £3 million. There is little chance of the field getting planning permission, but the developer's information advances the growth of Milton Keynes as an inducement. As well as stressing the points made in early-day motion 1496, I emphasise to the Deputy Leader of the House that someone who has been barred as a company director is running the scheme and gets round the law by forming a partnership. I ask my hon. Friend to take up with the Department of Trade and Industry not only closing the loophole that allow scams such as those in Bromsgrove and Milton Keynes to occur, but extending the bars on directorships to partnerships.
The second issue echoes a matter that my neighbour, the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) raised. Choice is the in word, and yesterday the Public Administration Committee held a seminar to examine how choice works. One example was the direct payment scheme. There is a scheme in my constituency whereby disabled people can live as normal a life as possible. The council provides flats and Scope provides adaptations. The flats are spread over a normal estate, but treated as one unit. The Commission for Social Care Inspection has inspected them for years. However, under current regulations, they have to be treated as a care home. The warden is expected to go into each flat to inspect fridges, beds and the state of the flats. My house would not pass the test in those regulations, and I am sure that that applies to all hon. Members.

567
People who have lived in the flats for 20 years stand to lose their homes. That is absurd. Nobody believes that it is right, but because they do not fit the regulations neatly, the flats are being treated in the way that I described. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to take account of two issues: first, if we are serious about choice, inspection regimes and their targets should be designed to deal with diversity and choice; and, secondly, when such absurdities and red tape arise, we should use our regulatory reform procedure—no Tory Members turn up for that, but that is another story—to remedy them as quickly as possible.
A constituent, Colin Tripp, was injured at work and won compensation after a long battle. He thought that it was great until he began to receive benefits and his pension. The compensation is treated as income, not a lump sum. Consequently, the total amount that he receives in benefits and pension is considerably less than it would have been. The Department for Work and Pensions claims that it is taking nothing away from the compensation. There are genuine problems with that. Time prevents me from going into detail, but I ask my hon. Friend to pass on the case to the Department for Work and Pensions. There are many such anomalies in the benefits system, which is complex. Interaction between payments causes problems and although we have done much through the tax credit system, several anomalies still need to be examined.
5.24 pm
Keith Vaz: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his wonderful maiden speech and on his election. I did not campaign for him—perhaps that is one reason he did so well—because I was occupied, with the Deputy Leader of the House, in another part of the midlands.
I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) on another excellent speech. She spent many years on the Front Bench, but we have not heard her speak from the Back Benches on education, which is her passion. She will be greatly missed when she retires from the House next year; she is truly a great parliamentarian.
I have some holiday homework for three Ministers, in the form of three quick questions, which I hope the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on. My first question is to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In view of the excellent statement made yesterday by the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, in which he and the commission came out firmly against the proposal for a single equality commission, will the Secretary of State look again at the proposals? They do not have the support of the black and ethnic minority community in the United Kingdom, because there has not been sufficient consultation on them. It is not that the communities and I are against the idea of a single commission; it is that there is no guarantee that the race issue will be given the prominence it deserves. We are not against a single equality Act, because it is important to bring together the necessary legislation. However, if we abolish the CRE, given all the work it has done over the past 30 or so years, it will be essential that the race dimension is
568
properly represented in the new organisation. The summer recess will give the Secretary of State, my neighbour in Leicester, the time to look at what the chairman of the CRE has said, at what the 1990 Trust has said, and at what hon. Members have said on this issue, and to try to refashion the programme.
My second question is to the Attorney-General. Over the summer, will he redouble his efforts to deal with the Guantanamo Bay detainees? We hear that progress has been made, and five of the original nine detainees have been released. It is vital, however, that we continue to put pressure on the American Government, because it is wrong that British people should be held in Guantanamo Bay without charge or the possibility of a fair trial. Will the Attorney-General please press the initiative on this issue that he began more than a year ago?
The final bit of homework is for the Minister for Local and Regional Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). Will he hold a proper investigation into the way in which Leicester city council is being run by the Liberal-led coalition, which is a complete disgrace? If the Leicester, South by-election had been a referendum on the record of the council, the excellent Labour candidate would have won hands down. The fact is that council tax has been put up by 8 per cent., and £2 million has been cut from the voluntary sector budget. Vital projects such as the St. Gabriel's community centre, the Humberstone park café—about which I shall present a petition at the end of this debate—and the Morton, Northfield and Tailby tenants association are being cut by the Liberal council, which came to power claiming that it would represent the views of local people. All it has done is cut local services, causing misery and hardship to the 250,000 citizens of Leicester. May we please have a proper investigation into what it is doing? The claim that it made when it came to power that there was a £10 million black hole left by the previous Labour administration was absolute rubbish. It is important that the Liberal Democrats should be exposed for what they are doing in Leicester, and I hope that an investigation will be instituted over the summer months.
5.29 pm
Mr. Kevan Jones: I, too, add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) on his maiden speech. I played a small part in his campaign—the blisters on my feet have now healed—but I felt that it was well worth while when I listened to a very able new Member make a very good speech.
I wish to raise an issue that affects my constituency and those of many other hon. Members—attacks on NHS staff, and on ambulance personnel in particular. Those men and women are vital to the health service, and we rely on them at times when we fall ill or have accidents.
In the north-east, there has been an increase in the number of attacks on ambulance drivers and paramedics: from May last year to May this year, some 163 individuals were assaulted, and 58 of those assaults resulted in physical injuries. In addition, in a recent survey of 200,000 NHS staff, one in six reported that

569
they had been physically abused in some way while carrying out their duties. I must congratulate Unison on its work in the north-east, and its branch secretary in County Durham, Ray McDermott, on highlighting appalling acts of physical violence against his members. A recent Unison survey found that some 40 per cent. of paramedics and ambulance drivers had been attacked. Obviously, those figures do not include the verbal abuse that they and hospital accident and emergency staff must put up with on a daily basis.
Many of those attacks are by people who are intoxicated, and they lead to some horrendous injuries. One north-east ambulance driver had his jaw broken and was off work for eight weeks. The sad thing was that the offender was fined only £50. Another case involved a female member of the ambulance service who was beaten up so badly that she was unable to work for two years. The perpetrator got a measly 120 hours' community service. That cannot be right. We rely on those people for protection: they are vital key workers in our health service. If they are attacked by members of the public, the courts should come down heavily on the individuals responsible.
I have mentioned Unison raising awareness of such attacks, and I also want to pay tribute to the Evening Chronicle and The Journal in Newcastle, which have highlighted the appalling cases in the north-east. The onus is on us to ensure that those cases get maximum publicity, and to call for the toughest measures against those who attack ambulance staff. I agree with the comment of the chief executive of the Commission for Health Improvement:
"More needs to be done to ensure NHS stair can go about their work without the fear of being attacked."
I know that time is short, but I want to raise two other issues, one of which was raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). Sadly, I have never been to Southend, so I must take him up on his offer one day to visit his constituency. He raised the issue of post office closures. Let me give him a good news story on post office closures. In the village of Craghead, in my constituency, which lost its post office six months ago, the local community partnership has opened up its own post office in the village hall, with support from Government. That shows that if local people get together, they can provide local services, such as post office services, in a rural village. If he wants any details of that, I will pass them on to him.
Finally, I welcome the news today that the Government are going ahead with the referendum in the north-east for a regional assembly. I have campaigned for that, with other Members, for a long time. It would give the north-east a voice that it has not had for far too long. It would also lead to the reorganisation of local government in County Durham, which is long overdue. The current two-tier system does not work. In November, I hope that the people of Durham vote for a single unitary county council and that we get away from the ping-pong between the districts and the county, which leads to some of the most inefficient delivery of public services that I have seen anywhere. That will give Durham a vibrancy that it needs, it will give a focus to local service delivery, and it will give County Durham a strong local government voice.
The new county council, however, must be different from the one that we have at the moment, which, I understand, has only four women councillors, all of
570
whom are from my constituency. Clearly, the new county council needs to represent modern-day county Durham and be something of which we can be proud, not just for its service delivery but for championing a great county. On that point, I will conclude. I wish all hon. Members and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all the best for the summer recess.
5.35 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: As always on these occasions, we have had an excellent debate, with hon. Members from all parties showing their concern about local issues but also raising a range of national issues. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) raised the important issue of attacks on ambulance drivers and those who work in the health service. Such attacks are appalling, and it is right that they should be highlighted. The Opposition support all efforts to ensure that such attacks stop and that people who commit them are treated firmly.
The problem is not just in the health service. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers is running a major campaign about attacks on shop workers. I recently sent a petition from my constituency to No. 10 Downing street. I hope that the issue will also be treated with the seriousness it deserves.
We heard an excellent maiden speech from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne)—a constituency that we have all come to know. Although we perhaps do not all love it as much as the hon. Gentleman, we feel that we know it well. He paid a proper tribute to his predecessors, including Terry Davis, who was well respected in the House over many years. The hon. Gentleman is proud of his constituency—proud that it built Spitfires in the war—and it has some wonderful people. It is clear that he will represent them with the same power and effect as his predecessors. That is a strong tradition.
Is the Deputy Leader of the House able to give any more information about Equitable Life, which I mentioned during business questions? The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman, wishes to extend her jurisdiction to include the role of the Government Actuary's Department in her inquiry into Equitable Life. A written statement was produced later in the day, which said that her jurisdiction would be extended, but it did not say when the order would he made. Clearly, this is a matter of urgency. It affects hundreds of thousands of people who are distressed and concerned. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us anything more about that.
There have been some great themes in the debate. We have discussed defence and the White Paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) was concerned about the effect of the cuts on the Defence Logistics Organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who has great knowledge of the RAF, was concerned about the deep cuts of 7,500 in the RAF, which he described as deeply irresponsible. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) was unhappy at the potential loss of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was concerned about the Queen's Lancashire Regiment—one of the oldest, if not the

571
oldest, regiments in the country. Concern was also expressed that the Typhoon tranche 2 order should be placed and that there might be a capability gap if we get rid of a lot of our aeroplanes before the Typhoons are in place.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said—the best point that he made, I thought—that he wanted further Government commitments over Lord Lloyd's inquiry. All those points add up to the requirement for a debate, so I ask the Deputy Leader of the House, as I asked the Leader in business questions, for a full-day debate in Government time when we come back on defence and the White Paper.
Another theme of today's debate has been crime and antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), in his unique way, described the brass-taking of the Prime Minister and said that he had never heard anything like it when the Prime Minister talked about crime and antisocial behaviour. Given that there has been a 37 per cent. rise in violent crime in London, for example, one can understand my hon. Friend's point. My hon. Friend paid tribute to the Yellow Advertiser and its campaign for extra feet on the beat. He mentioned the editor, Graeme Allen, and the reporter, Luke Walsh. I am sure that we would all wish to pay tribute to pioneering journalists who stand up for law and order issues.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) suggested that we should evict antisocial tenants and he said that antisocial behaviour orders were a huge success because 65 per cent. of them were not breached. I was tempted to ask him about the other 35 per cent. When one thinks how much effort it takes to get an ASBO and how bad someone has to be to be the subject of one, it is a poor statistic that 35 per cent. are breached.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) mentioned the concern of the Rev. Bob Love about happy hours and hinge drinking in his constituency. He gave us the background of the nightclub capacity that they have there. He also said that he went out with the late night police. I too have done that and on the last occasion I was sitting in the back of the car while the officer was asking a young gentleman to help him with his inquiries. After a few minutes, the youngster asked, "And who's he?" The officer said, "Well, that's the Member of Parliament." The young fellow replied, "You've got a sauce—nicking the MP!" I am sure that we are all very concerned about antisocial behaviour, but I have always believed that feet on the beat are the answer. Our pledge is to put 40,000 extra real police officers on the beat. When the Labour party matches that, we will see some improvements in law and order.
Health was another theme of the debate. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) was very concerned by the proposed closure of the A and E department at St. Helier hospital. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd)—a somewhat unusual alliance—were both concerned about the operation of the NHS ratings system. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) pointed out that process is
572
often put ahead of patients and she described how some regional hospitals operate. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) was worried about the Courtauld hospital maternity unit. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) was also worried about the closure of a maternity unit.
All those points come together to show that it is only when our national health service is controlled and run locally and the professionals are put in charge that we will achieve the improvements that we would all like to see. I remember being a junior health spokesman and travelling around Europe with my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). We visited a German hospital and looked around a ward that was spotlessly clean. We asked the Herr Professor Doktor who was in charge why it was so clean and he said, "Why wouldn't it be?" We asked whether the cleaning was done by private contractors, and he said that it was. I asked him why they did such a good job, and he said, "Well, if it wasn't clean, we wouldn't pay." He was able, as the person in charge of the ward, to say that he would not pay if the job was not done well enough. We need to reach the point where the people in charge of wards in our hospitals can make a difference on issues such as cleanliness. That is how we will tackle the problems of MRSA and other hospital infections, which have increased so rapidly lately. It is an issue of management, and it needs tackling now.
A range of community issues was mentioned. My hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) were both concerned about the closure of post offices. The closure of BT telephone boxes was also raised, which is an important issue for isolated communities and in towns with communities where people do not all have mobile phones. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) supported BT. He said that there was a proper procedure and that if we had gone to the meetings of the committee, everything would have been all right. However, I did not sense that that was the mood of the House and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to answer that point.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute raised points about the commitment to a parcels service. We heard about mobile phone masts, about helping families with Sure Start and about mental health advocates. It was a really good debate of its type.
Another strong theme was red tape and bureaucracy. In a marvellous speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) highlighted the bureaucracy of the New Opportunities Fund, where people have to spend 10 per cent. of the money they hope to receive before they can realise their grant. He spoke about the difficulties experienced by a multiple sclerosis centre and a garden centre in his constituency due to pettifogging regulations. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire told us about a theatre that was being closed due to petty bureaucracy.
Police red tape, bureaucracy and the need for IT—a range of issues—were raised. They all come down to one central point: the Government are not cutting out bureaucracy. If we imagine the Government as a hopper bin, with money going into the top and the outputs and deliveries coming out at the bottom, we should see the

573
hopper getting bigger and bigger. We have big government in this country. It needs tackling, and the Conservatives are the people to tackle it.
I shall not go on for too much longer as we want to hear from the Deputy Leader of the House, but I want to mention the countryside. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley and for Castle Point (Bob Spink), talked of the threats to the countryside from the Deputy Prime Minister. In my area, we have the threat of airport expansion. We should be wholly committed—as indeed I am—to fight the threat to our countryside from too much housing and too many airports and buildings. We need a balance, so that development is not all in the south-east but also takes place in the north and in other parts of the country. We do not have that balance at present. The burst of growth that the Government are going for in the south-east will lead only to disaster. It is right that we should fight for the unique environment of areas such as Essex, Lancashire and, in my case, Hertfordshire.
The debate has been marvellous, as it always is. I hope that the Minister can answer all the questions in the time allotted to him. I wish everybody a happy recess and I thank the staff of the House for all they do for us.
5.47 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): I shall be unable to respond to all the questions, as 28 Members took part in the debate and more than 140 issues were raised, so I shall have to cherry-pick. In all seriousness, I will try to ensure that the appropriate Ministers are made aware of the points raised, and if Members have asked for a matter to be taken up with a particular Minister I will deal with it in writing, so that they receive an answer.
Like the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), I shall pick out some of the themes in the debate, but I want to talk about two speeches in particular. The first is the excellent maiden speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne). He has already shown the House that he will make a good Member of Parliament and a doughty fighter for his constituents. I know that he will put the same energy into his job as he put into the campaign, which was a remarkable effort. All parties can see that in my hon. Friend we have a worthy MP. He is also a family friend, so I congratulate him personally. I confidently predict that, whenever the general election comes, the swing to Labour in Hodge Hill will be enormous—as it will be in Leicester, South, too—and that we shall write new records in the books.
The second speech is that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), about which other hon. Members have spoken, too. She made an important speech about education and further education in her constituency—her lifelong passion in politics. It struck me that her point concerns the problems of success. Demand for post-16 education in Dewsbury is greater than provision, and that is a problem of success.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire criticised the Government and tried to present his usual Chicken-Licken-the-sky-is-falling-in picture of Britain, before berating us for the problems of success. We need
574
more houses and airports because we have more jobs, and we need more roads and railways because economic activity has increased. The debate shows that we are dealing with the problems of success. It is ironic that I am replying to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, because she opened the sixth-form college in my constituency, which is a symbol of her success.
Many hon. Members raised the issue of defence, and I acknowledge that some serious points were made about the future of defence. Parliament's first duty is to debate the defence of this country, and two defence days remain in the Session and the Opposition can put forward their points in an Opposition day debate. The picture that this morning's newspapers and some hon. Members presented does not reflect the reality of the comprehensive spending review that, yet again, we have a real-terms increase in defence expenditure.
The increase in defence expenditure is possible because our strong economy has resulted in an increased tax take. Unemployment has fallen because of the Chancellor's policies, which have full employment at their forefront, and the public expenditure that flows from them would not exist if we had alternative policies. Although it is right and proper for hon. Members to raise issues such as the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and other constituency concerns, it is also incumbent on us to put those things in context.
On the crime figures, The Independent did a good job of being independent this morning. Unlike some other reports, it pointed to the British crime survey, which is the best measurement of crime and which has not changed its methodology for 20 years. [Interruption.] To be fair, the Prime Minister has used the British crime survey, which shows that crime has fallen by 25 per cent.
I am not denying that problems exist—goodness me, antisocial behaviour and violent crime are the biggest issues in my constituency postbag. Both Government and Opposition Members have raised those issues—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) based his speech on them. The recorded crime figures as reported by the police are exactly that—reported crime—but the British crime survey, which is comprehensive, gives us a different picture.
Crime has fallen for the past seven years. On the whole, that is a result of clamping down through the changes in the criminal justice system and the provision of extra resources for the police. I got the figures out for this debate because I anticipated that the issue would come up: there are 12,500 more police officers on the streets of this country than there were six years ago, and there are also 3,800 community support officers. Most of us can now look our constituents in the eye and say, "Yes, you see police officers on duty". We would like to see even more police officers, but the figure has increased.
Crime is also falling because economic activity and employment have gone up. Full employment is the best policy to deal with social exclusion, deprivation, crime and other issues. It is no coincidence that as employment has risen and mass unemployment has become a distant memory—hopefully, it will never blight this country again—crime has decreased. It will take generations to

575
solve those problems, but the Government's policy is "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", and it is succeeding.
I shall mention briefly some of the health issues and reply to the specific question on the star rating system asked by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I can report that Sir Ian Kennedy, the chairman of the Healthcare Commission, has made no secret of his dissatisfaction with the current system. He wants to improve it. It is for that independent commission to decide how best to assess the performance of the NHS, and it is developing a new approach to the assessment of NHS bodies. So I think that directly answers the question, which was raised by two or three other hon. Members.
Let me turn to dentistry. There is no denying that there is a problem. It is not acceptable that the constituents of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) have to drive 30 miles to a dentist. There are other examples—North Cornwall was mentioned and other parts of the country are affected. The situation is not acceptable, but more dentists are being trained and coming on stream now than ever before. Again, I have the figures with me. We have announced that we are investing—not are going to invest—an extra £368 million in NHS dentistry. We have recruited 1,000 more dentists, and by reforming the dental system to improve the long-term oral health of the nation we will make further improvements.
I remember campaigning against the closure of university dental hospitals. I remember going on demonstrations 20 years ago, when university dental hospitals and training hospitals were closed and medical places in universities were cut. The 1981 Budget took 26 per cent. from the higher education budget in one year. That had a long-term implication. The Government were chided in the debate for blaming everything on the Conservatives who were in government seven years ago. Of course it is right that the Government should take responsibility for the faults that we have caused by our own policies in that time, but no serious commentator could deny the underfunding in our infrastructure and public services that resulted from Geoffrey Howe's Budget in 1981 and the Lawson policies in the following decade. That tide is turning under the Government's programme.
I shall get off what are perhaps party political points—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".]—but I think that I have spoken the truth. Perhaps I shall come back to a couple more party political points at the end if I have time. I find these debates fascinating. They are very good for Parliament. They are clearly good for raising constituency issues. I have a little points system in my mind: I award points for contributions. When hon. Members mention their local newspaper, it is always worth a point. If they name the editor and the local journalists, it is worth two points. If they name the local police superintendent, they get three points.
A competition for the number of issues raised seems to be going on between the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and, sometimes, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer). The hon. Member for Southend, West is ahead on points at the
576
moment. There are also points for regular contributions to these Adjournment debates, but I have to award the prize to the hon. Member for Southend, West. He normally raises the hospice movement. He did so today, during points of order just before the debate, so that he could get a second bite of the cherry. I congratulate him on that.
Bob Spink: I did that.
Mr. Woolas: I am so sorry. I apologise to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). There are so many points to be awarded in these debates that I have got the wrong constituency. I am, of course, referring to the beautiful constituency of Castle Point, which the hon. Gentleman has described.
I apologise for not being able to respond to all the specific points that have been made. Important constituency issues have been raised, and I will take them up. I am reminded of a lesson from the superintendent in my constituency—to award myself a point—Dick Crawshaw, who told me about the differences in how the police treat Members of Parliament. In the old days, if we got caught out doing something wrong, they would make an exception for us. Nowadays, they make an example of us. It is right that we should take up those constituency issues.
A very happy recess to you, Sir, and to all the staff of the House and all hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sure that those good wishes are reciprocated and apply also to our absent Friends.
It being six o'clock, the motion for the adjournment lapsed, without question put.

PETITIONS

  Kings Meadow Swimming Baths
  Jane Griffiths: I rise to present a petition on behalf of no fewer than 2,000 of the constituents of Reading, East. It opposes the plan to tear down the Kings Meadow swimming baths, and to develop Kings meadow and Caversham lock on the green banks of the Thames into a hotel, apartments and other developments. The petitioners would like the area to be retained as a public amenity. They were concerned, as was I, that after awareness of the petition became public, two people turned up and damaged the swimming baths, apparently to prevent the building from being listed. I would be surprised if, as is being said in Reading, that work was carried out on behalf of the council, but the neglect of the swimming baths and allowing the building to be covered in graffiti is a shame.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of Mr Robert O'Neill, residents of Caversham and Central Reading close to the River Thames, and other residents of Reading.
  Declares that Kings Meadow and Caversham Lock should not be redeveloped but retained as a public amenity.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency not to redevelop Kings Meadow and Caversham Lock but to retain them as public

  577
  amenities; and that the House of Commons urge the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that no open space in Kings Meadow is redeveloped.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Bridgewater Drive and West Road Post Offices
  6.1 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I have the honour to present a petition that has been organised by the Rev. Graham Steel, Mr. Ahmed Khwaja, the Somerset Garden estates, Mendip residents' estate and Westborough residents association. It has been signed by more than 1,000 people who are concerned about the damage that will be done to our senior citizens and the disabled if the Bridgewater drive and West road post office branches close.
  The petition states:
  The petition of Mr Hobday and others,
  Declares that many are concerned about the proposed closure of the Bridgewater Drive Branch of the Post Office, Bridgewater Drive, and others
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to do all in its power to prevent the Post Office from closure.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Humberstone Park Café
  6.2 pm
  Keith Vaz: I rise to present a petition on behalf of Rob and Mo Green and 2,000 other constituents in Leicester, East. It concerns proposals by the Liberal-led Leicester city council to sell off a property that is currently occupied by the Humberstone Park café, which has been a local resource for a number of years. The proposals will mean that the café will have to close and the community facility that has been provided will thus be at an end.
  The petition
  Declares that Leicester City Council is to sell off a number of council-owned properties including Humberstone Park Café. The petitioners further declare that once the café building is under private ownership the general public will have no say on future developments at the site; and that the café is an important service for the community which should remain in the hands of the City Council.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that Humberstone Park Café remains a Council-owned service for the community.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  6.4 pm
  Dr. Richard Taylor: I have to express a little disappointment. A few moments ago, I thought that we were going to have an audience of four or five hon. Members, but I now discover that they have melted away, as if by magic. May I thank through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker for selecting me for this debate, because it comes at an absolutely crucial time? I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), for delaying her well earned holiday for an extra few minutes. She is welcome on the Government Front Bench.
  The last debate of the day has been given lots of names. It has been called the last-ditch stand and the last post. Even worse, it has been called the graveyard debate. I hope that that is not prophetic. After the Secretary of State for Health's announcement this morning, it appears that the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health is being abolished. I hope that this debate is not the death knell of that organisation.
  There is still time for the Government to rethink and change their mind. They were recently generous in changing their mind considerably on one Bill with which I was involved—the Human Tissue Bill. Although we achieved no reasonable amendments in Committee, some useful amendments were accepted before Third Reading.
  Although I am on the Opposition Benches, I hope that the Minister might recognise me as an ally in some ways. I support the Government on NHS spending and on many NHS reforms. By convention, a solitary Independent Member does not have any hon. Friends in this place. I was caught out early on in my career here by calling the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) my hon. Friend, but I really thought he was. A former hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton wrote in his diaries:
  "There are no true friends in politics. We are all sharks circling, and waiting, for traces of blood to appear in the water."
  I hope the Minister accepts that, as an Independent, I can be a friend on occasions to both sides of the House. I also hope she accepts that my comments are given in a spirit of friendship and helpfulness, not in opposition.
  I genuinely want to prevent the Government from making a foolish step, to the detriment of patients. Many will see their decision as a U-turn, or wasteful of money already spent. It might be seen as dictated by a desire to spike the Opposition in their claims, but that is not necessary. I would say the same thing even if Conservative Members were present: the Government do not need to be frightened of the main Tory Opposition on the NHS. Every time the subject is raised in Prime Minister's questions or Health questions, the Government score total, annihilating victory.
  The abolition of the commission is a disaster for patients, the NHS and the Government. Let me give a brief history of the situation. After my election to the

  579
  House, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who was a junior Health Minister, wrote:
  "The culture within the NHS needs to change so that the views of patients and citizens are not only valued but listened to and acted upon as well."
  When the Government introduced the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which was to abolish community health councils, they faced a tremendous revolt. The House of Lords tabled an amendment. To cap that, the Government sensibly tabled a much better amendment, which led to the foundation of primary care trust patient forums. They gave them huge powers and advantages that CHCs did not have.
  Inevitably, the Government then formed the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health in January 2003 and gave it the enormous task of establishing itself and more than 570 patient forums, with a minimum of seven members each, by 1 December in that year, which was 11 months later. By that time, they had succeeded with about 550 of the 570 forums, from a budget of £34.9 million, £8 million of which had gone to support existing CHCs in their prolonged existence, £5.2 million to the independent complaint and advocacy services and £5.7 million to their own national centre, with the rest being spent on forums.
  The commission's focus is so in line with Government thinking on empowering people that I cannot understand the Government's decision. They wish to empower citizens to be active, and not just middle-class retired people but the disadvantaged and the silent voices, such as single mums and the disabled. There is a very useful report in The Guardian today, in which two key advisers to the Prime Minister say that the Government must
  "end the democratic deficit caused by the disengagement of the working class from almost all forms of community involvement",
  and that
  "Democracy and citizenship had to move from the periphery of progressive politics to its heart".
  I believe that the commission is going some way towards doing that. A grossly disabled person serves in one of the PCTs in my area. I do not believe that the alternative, the NHS Appointments Commission, could do that. Would it go out and find that sort of person when it is used to finding those pillars of society who become non-executive directors, and who find that they immediately lose their true independence because they have to work under rules of consensus?
  I want briefly to go through some of the other things that the commission does that are so vital. I had a letter from its chair just before Christmas, when I had written to ask how she was getting on with the tremendous task before her. She wrote:
  "I hope that you will agree with me that we have achieved a great deal this year. I hope that the New Year will see the new system finding its feet and fulfilling its promise."
  There you have it—it is a system, which needs a head as well as a body and limbs, so that it can function as a whole. It is a national body. It has to liaise with Government, strategic health authorities and other national organisations.
  An example of that, and its effectiveness, is a recent memorandum of understanding, dated 29 April, between the Local Government Association, which is so
  580
  vital because of the formation of overview and scrutiny committees, and the commission. The document describes the wider role of the commission, saying:
  "The Commission is responsible for submitting reports to and advising the Government on how the PPI system is functioning. It liaises with national bodies on patient and public involvement issues and makes recommendations to these bodies and the Department of Health as appropriate."
  National liaison facilitates local liaison. Overview and scrutiny committees are a tremendously welcome innovation by the Government, because they improve public involvement and bring some democratic accountability into health service decisions. But one cannot have every such committee and every forum reinventing the wheel on co-operation all over the country.
  To me, there is no argument about the vital role of forums, but I still believe that they have to have a fully independent national co-ordinating body, which the commission shows every sign of becoming. Abolish it, and patient involvement will be set back by months, if not years. If primary legislation were involved, we would be in for months or years of uncertainty, lowering the morale of the very people who are necessary to inspire those on the forums, particularly the disadvantaged, the disabled and the inarticulate—the silent voices that we are desperate to tap into.
  To give an example, local groups that do not work without central leadership are patient participation groups set up by many general practices. In my experience, they are regarded by the GPs as a way of telling patients what they want, rather than of patients telling the GPs what they want. Recently, a constituent writing to me about a different subject mentioned patient participation groups. She wrote:
  "Those of us who have spent any time on Patient Participation Groups, for instance, have found it a great waste of time because the consumer is not listened to. Rulings come down from above!"
  At a recent meeting with professional representatives of the NHS Modernisation Agency and the NHS Confederation, I was alarmed to realise that they did not know what real patient involvement is. Unbelievably, they felt that it was limited to an individual patient's decisions about his or her own health care. I am delighted that the Government have not fallen into that trap. Today's statement says that
  "Patients' Forums will remain the cornerstone of the arrangements we have put in place to create opportunities for patients and the public to influence health services."
  I appeal to the Government to pull back from a decision which was taken unilaterally and without consultation and which was opposed by 71 per cent. of those who replied to a Health Service Journal online poll. Is abolition a political imperative? Can it be that the Government are frightened that forums with national backing would be able to expose some of the NHS's shortcomings? Surely not.
  I want the Minister to state whether primary legislation is necessary to confirm abolition. How long will it take to run things down, only for the new arrangements to restart them? I remind the House of the question that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) put to the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday:
  "who was the idiot who thought that we could cut the infantry at a time when the pressure on it was enormous?"—[Official Report, 21 July 2004; Vol. 424, c. 356.]

  581
  I turn that question around and ask the Under-Secretary of State for Health: who was the idiot who thought that we could remove the generals and officers from the ordinary soldiers of the forums when the pressure on them to succeed is enormous? I ask her to take all the points I have made on board and to persuade the Secretary of State for Health that it is in the interests of the Government, patients and the national health service to cancel this abolition, which will remove at a stroke the one vital, promising and truly independent arm's length body.
  6.19 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) on securing this debate. It is not a graveyard slot, even though the House is about to rise for the summer. I assure him that Ministers do not go on holiday quite as soon as ordinary MPs do; I seem to find myself at work next week.
  Today, we set out our proposals for all the Department of Health's arm's length bodies. It is probably worth while running through some of the background.
  The NHS plan 2000 heralded a period of investment and reform. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognised that that has significantly improved outcomes for patients. I am delighted to hear of his support for these changes. At a national level, the Department of Health has driven the reform. It has set a clear and ambitious framework for doing so. In addition, the arm's-length bodies from the Department—a national network of statutory organisations—have been deputed to regulate the system, improve standards, protect public welfare and support local services. These ALBs have contributed significantly to the pace of change described in "The NHS Improvement Plan", which was published last month.
  The wider network of ALBs built up over the years has become too cumbersome in the context of devolution. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that quite a lot has changed. The ALB sector must recognise and reflect the shifting balance of power towards the front line and towards patients. Again, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the shift that is taking place and the Government's vision and support for that.
  The thinking that underlies the first thorough review of ALBs for many years reflects that. The ALB sector as a whole needs to remain coherent and fit for purpose. It needs also to enable itself to engage easily and efficiently with the service and the support that it gives to services.
  Arm's length bodies have often been interventionist in their backgrounds and high profile. That has meant they have had a maximum impact in their areas of responsibility. That has been right while the momentum for change was being created, but the price has tended to be, as time has moved on, an increasing burden on the NHS, and has led to some poor co-ordination of agendas. We therefore took the view, entirely rightly, that ALBs need to be streamlined both in number and functions. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing this not in response to anything that the Opposition are doing, but merely to reflect the fact that we are succeeding on the pace of change, reform and
  582
  investment that we set ourselves. The results of that have moved forward significantly enough at this point to be able to reflect those factors in the changes that we are proposing and have outlined today.
  The streamlining goes hand in hand with that. The lifting of burdens is linked with efficiency. The ALB review is a significant component of the Government's drive to make the public sector more efficient, and a key part of the implementation of the recommendations in the Gershon efficiency review.
  In the report "Reconfiguring the Department of Health's Arm's Length Bodies", which we published today, we have described our plans for the future of all the Department's ALBs. There will be a reduction in their number by almost a half to 20. We are confident that the reduction will lead to savings that can be invested in front-line services of £0.5 billion by 2007–08. It is easy to lose sense of how much money that is, even in today's health service, and the advantages of reinvesting it in front-line services.
  As our earlier written ministerial statement set out, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will be abolished. Patients forums will remain the cornerstone of the arrangements that we have put in place to create opportunities for patients and the public to influence health services. Stronger, more efficient arrangements to provide administrative support, advice and training will be put in place after consultation. These will enable forums to concentrate on their core functions, maximising the resources available for spending on real involvement rather than on administration. These changes fit well within the overall objectives of the ALB review.
  A clear quality framework for forum activities in monitoring and reviewing services will be established and will be communicated to forums. We are working closely with key stakeholders—forums in particular—to take this work forward and identify the best body to do that. The NHS Appointments Commission will become responsible for making appointments to patients forums. To pick up the hon. Gentleman's point about the search for members of the commission and nonexecutive directors, the commission has been a useful body in establishing the forums. However, another of its key tasks is to work with Government Departments to make sure that its work and the work of the patients forums is fully reflected in the cross-Government work on citizen engagement.
  The timetable for implementation has not yet been set, and we will work closely with key stakeholders to ensure that there is minimum disruption for staff, people who support the forums and forum members themselves. I emphasise that our decision to abolish the commission was not borne out of concerns about its performance, nor does it indicate a reduction in our commitment to patient and public involvement. The Government share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm about empowering patients—I am an enthusiast myself—and there are many examples of that empowerment, not least the expert patient programme, which is a fantastic initiative that changes the emphasis of the doctor-patient relationship that he described. The commission's performance, particularly its achievement in setting up the forums and recruiting about 5,000 members within a tight time scale, is highly commendable. Our commitment to empowering

  583
  patients and the public by providing opportunities to influence change and increasing care choices is a key theme of the NHS improvement plan and the continuing modernisation of the NHS.
  We decided to abolish the commission and make better use of existing organisations to support, promote and implement patient and public involvement and ensure that it develops in the widest context possible. Effective involvement builds trust and confidence in public bodies, and helps public services to adapt to the needs and expectations of their users. The NHS Appointments Commission is the expert body that was set up to make public appointments, so it is logical that recruitment on the scale necessary to maintain forum numbers is carried out by an organisation that is expert in making appointments.
  Patient and public involvement is not just about patients forums, although they are an important part of the arrangements that we have set up. The NHS is the key implementer of patient and public involvement, and it, too, needs advice and support to do so better and to learn from the experiences of others. It is not a statutory function of the commission to advise the NHS about patient and public involvement, and there should be a more strategic and joined-up approach to providing that advice to forums, the NHS and other organisations that provide health care so that patient and public involvement is embedded in their services. We will therefore ensure that those functions are covered for all providers as well as forums, and that work is developed with other bodies more generally involved in community engagement so that the lessons from patients forums and from NHS experience of public involvement are shared across sectors. Primary legislation will be required to abolish the commission, and it will be introduced in the usual way when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, we will explore alternative options on the implementation of the decision.
  Patients forums are currently supported by a wide range of local providers. There have been some difficulties with that approach, not least the inconsistencies in the support that forums receive. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of consistent support, but inconsistencies are inevitable, given the large number of contracts. The problem must be addressed so that all forums can benefit from strong local support and carry out their functions as effectively as possible. By learning from the commission's experience we will ensure that forums all receive high quality support and can make even more of an impact.
  The current budget for the commission is £33.3 million. There will be no cuts to that budget, I can assure the hon. Gentleman. We will invest more resources in patients forums, and any savings that
  584
  accrue from the abolition of the commission will be invested in patients forums and in providing expert advice on patient and public involvement.
  In the time remaining, I shall describe how patients forums will be affected. As I said, they are the cornerstone of patient and public involvement. They will not be abolished, nor will their independence be undermined. Rather, the support they receive is to be strengthened. It is key in the new arrangements that forums remain as independent as they currently are, so that they can continue to be responsive to the views of local people. That is the essence of what they are about.
  The 5,000 current members of patients forums are beginning to get their work under way, so we are just beginning to see the results of that work. The all-party group on patient and public involvement hosted a reception for forum members earlier this month. The hon. Gentleman was in attendance on that occasion, I think.
  Dr. Richard Taylor indicated assent.
  Miss Johnson: The purpose of the event was to celebrate the achievements of forums so far. We need to retain and build on the momentum that already exists. The key to doing that will be to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum during the implementation of our recommendations.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman works closely with the patients forum in his constituency. I am very encouraged by the work that that forum has been carrying out. The forum and sixth-form drama students in the area worked together to produce a video on wasted medicines. A copy of the video was, I understand, sent to every GP surgery in the area in January, to be played in their reception areas and waiting rooms. That is an excellent example of the kind of work that forums are carrying out and demonstrates the value of that approach.
  I emphasise that we are committed to patients forums and their work. We are beginning to see them influencing change locally, considering patients' views and the services and reflecting those. They need strengthened and more consistent support to carry out their work and they need to work to consistent, high standards. Of course, they must continue to be independent. The proposals that we will bring forward following consultation will ensure just that.
  I conclude by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that the interests that he has represented in the debate and our interests entirely coincide. There will be advantages to the new arrangements as we develop the detail and give patients forums the support due to them. The emphasis will change towards more support for the patient—a trend that we all welcome in the health service of today, and which will drive the health service of the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Seven o'clock.

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

Child Poverty
[Relevant documents: Second report of the Work and Pensions Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 85, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6200.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
2.30 pm
Sir Archy Kirkwood: I am very pleased to have the privilege just before the summer recess of introducing this debate on the Work and Pensions Committee report on child poverty in the UK, which is an important piece of work. I am gratified that colleagues have turned out in such numbers for the debate, even though they are busy and have other duties clearing their desks before the summer recess. I am pleased to see the Minister as well. He will not have to sit by his phone for the next three hours. Last night, I heard him described in the bars downstairs as a dark horse. I do not know whether that is good or bad, but I wish him well, as I am sure other colleagues do, and look forward to hearing what he has to say.
It is particularly apposite to stage our short debate on this important subject now, as we are able to consider the detail of the Government's plans as outlined last week in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on the comprehensive spending review. We know where we have come from, and we now have a better idea of where we are heading. After the debate this afternoon we might also have a better idea of how we will get there.
I just want to outline some of the details in the report in order to facilitate the debate. For me, the value will be in listening to what other colleagues have to say, especially those who are not diligent members of the Select Committee. It is always good to get views other than the contributions normally made by members of the Committee.
First, I shall briefly discuss the extent of child poverty, the targets and how the Government propose to change the methods of measurement, and employment strategies for specific groups, and then, if there is time, I shall speak briefly about child care, tax credits and benefits.
It is astonishing that over the past 25 years the United Kingdom has done relatively poorly on child poverty. Internationally, our child poverty rate has been comparatively high. It is salutary to remind ourselves that in 1998 the UK had the highest child poverty rate in the European Union. That has significantly changed. By 2001—the figures for that year are the most recent—the UK was ranked 11th out of 15 European nation states, and I am sure that our relative position will have improved a great deal since then. We will learn more about that when the figures are updated. It is clear to any objective observer that much progress has been made, but we started from a very low base.
136WH
If one considers the subject and looks at the past, it becomes absolutely clear that specific groups of people who look after children are at a much higher risk of poverty. On the basis of measurements after housing costs, 3.6 million children in the UK are in poverty today. This is a serious issue, and although commendable progress has been made, much more needs to be done. We must not be complacent about this policy area.
The at risk groups about which we all know and about which the statistics are clear include households in which no adults are working, households headed by a lone parent, households with four or more children, households from black or minority ethnic groups, and households with disabled persons. The preponderance and risk of rooted, in-depth child poverty in families with those characteristics are clearly demonstrated.
There is also a geographical and spatial incidence of poverty, and that was demonstrated to those who took evidence as part of the Committee's work. It is clear that there are difficult pockets of poverty in Wales and parts of Scotland. The Committee visited Northern Ireland. Although the measures for assessing the extent of the problem were slightly different and not directly comparable, I was struck by the relative extent of poverty in Northern Ireland.
However, I was struck most forcefully by the extent of poverty in inner London and Parliament and the Government must do something about that. The ambitious targets that the Government have rightly set for themselves cannot be properly achieved unless significant progress is made on the extent and incidence of child poverty in inner London. It is something to which the Department must pay careful attention.
Mr. David Drew: The report is highly readable, and that is not unimportant given the gravity of the subject matter. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that hidden child poverty is not necessarily picked up on, particularly in rural areas because of the increasing social stigma and the way in which we measure that poverty through free school meals, which is the most appalling measure in small rural primary schools that one could use? Does he not agree that we must pick up on the sensitivity of data collection methods used?
Sir Archy Kirkwood: I am very happy to concede that point in full. The hon. Gentleman would expect nothing less, given the area that I come from. Rural poverty is very difficult to measure and the poverty indicators do not pick it up. We must tackle rural poverty as a matter of urgency.
The public service agreement target that the Government set for themselves for 2004–05 will be met. The Committee's report recognised that and the Government's CSR statement last week reiterated a claim that I think and hope will be found to be true, which is that they are broadly on course to meet the 2004–05 target. The report says, in a way that I hope that is readable and accessible, that substantial investment and a clear future focus on the hardest to help groups is needed in order to maintain momentum. Poverty is measured as household income below 60 per cent. of median equivalised incomes. The progress

137WH
against the target is measured before and after housing costs and there is some controversy about which of the two measures should be used.
The spending review announced a new child poverty target to halve the number of children in relative low-income households between 1998–99 and 2010–11, on the way to eradicating child poverty by 2020. That target will use the new child poverty measure published in December 2003 using a three-tiered approach consisting of absolute low income, relative low income and, importantly, material deprivation and low income combined. Low income will be officially measured on a before housing cost basis. An important point that one cannot ignore is that, ostensibly, it will enable easier comparison with sister European and other international indices.
The Committee's report acknowledged that the after housing costs measure is important, however, and recommended that it should be used on the basis that spatial distribution is better reflected by examining both measures of poverty—merely relying on before housing costs measurements provides a distorted view of actual housing standards and does not take into account high-cost housing areas such as London.
The child poverty review document published last week stated that the Government would set an additional target in the 2006 spending review
"to halve by 2010–11 the number of children suffering a combination of material deprivation arid relative low income."
The child poverty review and the Government's response to the Committee's report stated that the combined material deprivation and low income measure will reflect the impact of housing costs on living standards and capture the effects of persistent poverty. I am sceptical about that, and I would be pleased to hear the Minister's reassurance that such reflection and capture will happen.
I would also like a reassurance that the after housing costs poverty statistics will continue to be published, because the new statistics will not be available until 2006. In the interim, it is important that the after housing costs measure be maintained, lest those who are more cynical than me about the Government's motives think that they are doing it because it is an easier target to achieve.
I think that the Committee wanted the Government to pursue a clearer policy framework between now and 2010. I was certainly looking for that. I thought that it was important that we got our recommendations to the Government in time so that they could be considered before the comprehensive spending review was finalised. That happened, and I believe that we had an impact—the Department and the Government took some of our recommendations on board.
I am grateful for that, but the Government response to the report rested on the fact that the existing strategy for child poverty reduction could be found in "Opportunity for All", a document that is becoming rather long in the tooth; in the UK national action plan
138WH
on social inclusion, which is used for European Union purposes and the Lisbon agenda; and finally, in the document that was published last week—the child poverty review document. If I am disappointed about anything, that is it, because it does not really add up to a strategy that will help us take the steps that I think are necessary to maintain momentum between now and 2010, if this job is to be done as the Government say they want.
I hope that we hear a bit more about the Government's coherent step-by-step strategy on how they intend to halve child poverty by 2010. Put basically, I think that the Government's policy is still merely one of work for those who can, support for those who cannot. I do not want to diminish the importance and the value of that approach, because I think that it is the right approach, but it needs to be developed. As we are talking about a Government who are gearing themselves up for a third term—should the electorate allow it—I think that we need some more coherent and detailed thinking than that. It was a perfectly serious and sensible way to approach the Government's first term, but it is now getting a bit out of date and needs refreshing to make it adequate for a third parliamentary term.
Getting parents into work is still an important factor. The Government PSA target is to reduce the number of children living in workless households by 6 per cent. from spring 2003 to 2006—the spending review set another target relative to that, to reduce the figure by a further 5 per cent. between spring 2005 and 2008.
As we also have Sir Peter Gershon's agenda to reduce the number of staff available to man the Jobcentre Pluses, be personal advisors and do the processing for the benefits, is the Minister is confident about those who suffer multiple barriers? The easy wins have all been achieved—the people who were nearest to the labour market have, happily, thankfully and gratefully, been helped into work—so we are now dealing with a client cohort that is suffering greater barriers. The task gets harder, not easier, as do the resources in terms of personal staff time. We cannot get computers to give people personal advice if they suffer from problems such as mental illness—at any rate, not easily, as far as I can see.
There are some questions about the PSA targets for workless households in terms of the staff cuts of last week. The other big question about that, of course, concerns inactivity rates. Nearly 2 million are not active in the labour market and it is also difficult to assist them. The same problem arises in terms of reductions in staff. However, the only answer that the Government seem to have is pilot schemes. I do not diminish the importance of that, because I think that one has to be careful about rolling out new policies—we have a plethora of pilots all over the place and some are certainly worth studying—but I think that we need to see more than pilots.
I would like to see some of these bits of policy rolled out, because it seems stark staring obvious to me that, in some cases, they would help if they were rolled out nationally and funded properly. The other thing about the new deal and people who are on inactivity benefits—and not in the labour market or trying to get into the labour market—is that the pathway to work pilots need to be rolled out as soon as we can get all the evidence

139WH
from the work that is being done on them. I also believe that the new deal for disabled people is grossly underfunded, given the task for which it was designed.
Lone parents are another obvious cohort of the work force that needs better and more direct attention paid to it. The Secretary of State told the Committee that the Government's target of getting 70 per cent. of lone parents into paid employment by 2010 was "challenging", which it is. There are many pilots: the work search premium; the return to work credit, which could be a very effective benefit; the compulsory action plans; the work-focused interviews, which are helpful; discovery weeks, which are welcome; child care tasters; and extended schools, which are to be piloted in six cities. All that is excellent stuff, but the pilots are likely to have minimal effect in the next three or five years unless serious money is put behind them so that they can be rolled out to give people access to them in other parts of the country.
Disabled parents are another deserving group, but there is no specific employment support for them. They have the double whammy of trying to look after children while trying to get back into the labour market. I need to be persuaded that more cannot be done to help them. The Committee recommended free registered child care for that group and extending the return to work credits nationally as soon as possible. We also need to learn quick lessons from the pathways to work packages, so that we can roll those out, too. Disabled parents are a very deserving group and we need to help them.
The Committee is doing a particularly important piece of work on service delivery to black and other ethnic minority groups. I have no direct constituency experience of this area of public policy, but it is evident that we are not giving our customers and clients in very hard-pressed communities equal access to the Department's services. It never occurred to me that merely issuing Chinese language leaflets to the Chinese community was not all that one needed to do. It has been driven home to me by examining all the evidence that many members of the Chinese community, particularly its elderly members, are illiterate in their own languages. If we know that, we cannot ignore it. It is not easy to do, but the Department needs to work harder to meets its target of reducing by about 16 per cent. the different rates of employment between black and other ethnic minority applicants and the rest of the population. That has been the target since 1998, but the situation is not improving fast enough.
The Committee considered employment zones with some care and in some detail. Extending such measures to ethnic minority communities would be a significant step forward.
Child care is crucial to making real progress in tackling child poverty. The 2004 spending review was extremely welcome. I like to think that the Committee's recommendations and our report on child care earlier in the year were partially responsible for the welcome addition of new child care places and further funding. The children's centres are also extremely good. I would like to know more about how those centres and places will be allocated, and whether that will be done on the basis of the most disadvantaged. I would also like to know where the child care capacity for the professionals who will man such centres will be found, as that is a problem. One of our worries during the inquiry was
140WH
capacity. We will have the same old problem that we have with nurses, doctors and dentists: capacity is not there when we need it. The Government will need to try to do something creative to tackle that.
If the employment market is not buoyant enough to do that work thoroughly and to the extent that the Government need, what then? Will they make up the difference? Work for those who can and support for those who cannot will not by itself last until 2010 and 2020 and deliver levels of employment and income that the Government want and we all earnestly hope for. What is the Government position? Some of us are old enough to remember the days when child benefit was a big issue in politics; it never gets a mention these days. Indeed, the whole child poverty review document, which is the foundation of the Government's plan to eradicate child poverty, mentions it only twice.
I might be being a little unfair, but I have concerns about benefit levels, and about targeted benefit increases as opposed to universal increases. We should think carefully about that. The Government should have plans. As it seemed that nobody else was going to, the Committee took a cockshy at working out what we would need to pay at 2004 prices to halve child poverty by 2010; it would be an additional £5 per child per week before housing costs, and an additional £10 a week using the after housing costs measure. Those seem like large amounts.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's figures. Has he calculated what that would mean in terms of gross cost to the Government?
Sir Archy Kirkwood: The next part of my contribution will answer that important question. There are all sorts of assumptions, and these are cockshy figures—they have to be, as assumptions for 2010 must be broadly drawn. However, if the financial support was targeted, it would cost at least £500 million; if it was universal, it would cost around £3.5 billion. Those are big sums, but compared with what we have spent to date, they are perfectly manageable over the time scale.
All I can say to the Government is, if not these figures, then what? Of course, they must be careful with figures, because some Oppositions are irresponsible and might try to hold them to them. However, I am sure that there are ways of doing research that would inform the debate in a way that would not impale Governments on hooks in the future. It is time that we did that. If the Government are serious about having a properly sponsored and informed debate between now and 2010, that is what they should do. It was what I was hoping for from the CSR and the child poverty review, which is an important document, but it lacks that essential element, which makes it less useful.
I can say on behalf of my colleagues on the Committee that we will continue to monitor closely both parts of the strategy—work for those who can, and security for those who cannot—as we accept that both are vital to eradicating child poverty. Much has been done, as Ministers are fond of saying, but how the Government are to achieve their ambition in the coming years is still not clear enough.
2.54 pm
Ms Karen Buck: The Committee rightly celebrated the boldness of the commitment to ending child poverty within a generation and the achievements to date. Today, I celebrate the subsequent achievements that are set out in the comprehensive spending review and flagged up in the child poverty review. I will not rehearse those points again, because the Chairman, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) has spelled them out. I pay a warm tribute to his leadership in the Committee over the years and through this inquiry.
There is a great deal to be proud of, not just in the work of the Department for Work and Pensions but in the many complementary strategies of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Education and Skills, and indeed throughout Government. We on the Government side should take a great deal of pride that the latest assessment of the poverty figures and progress by the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the Government's "redistributive programme"—the "R" word, which I am perfectly proud to claim—had
"brought big gains for low-income pensioners and for families with children at the bottom of the income distribution."
It is not just the Government drawing attention to their own achievements—the Joseph Rowntree Trust, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and many other organisations have, in a sense, audited the progress so far. We need to stress that in an era of cynicism. As the Chairman said, and I suspect that this will be echoed by others today, there is a need to step up a gear to reach the next target in 2010 and possibly even more so to reach the target of eradicating child poverty.
We must ensure that we reach those targets everywhere—in all regions of the country. I am grateful to the Chairman for drawing attention to the situation in London, which I will briefly refer to again. There is a very unequal distribution of concentrations of poverty in different areas of the country. Inner London has the highest child poverty in the whole country. I have said this before and I am afraid that I will say it again: leafy-sounding Regent's Park and Kensington, North has higher unemployment and higher free school dinner entitlement than Jarrow and Gateshead. That is an indication of how the world has changed and keeps changing. Our policies and strategies need to keep changing to keep up.
The Chairman also made reference to the heavy concentration of child poverty among Britain's black and minority ethnic communities, which is indisputably true. I was fortunate enough to have a debate in this Chamber quite recently on the discrimination and disadvantage facing Britain's Muslim communities, which experience by far the worst income poverty and many of the worst manifestations of poverty in the round. That is particularly the case for the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. There is also a concentration of poverty in larger families. We have yet to do enough to help families with a disabled person, either a parent or a child, and others. The progress to a single target must not mask the fact that we must make progress regionally in tackling child poverty among many of the groups that have the hardest to resolve difficulties.
142WH
I want to emphasise again my concern about the Government's measurement of poverty and the before and after housing costs targets. I say that again with a regional bias, because London is where the disparity between before and after housing costs will be most stark. Currently, before housing costs, 24 per cent. of children in London are in poverty. After housing costs, the figure is 38 per cent. In inner London, 36 per cent. of children are in poverty before housing costs, but after housing costs, the figure is a staggering 54 per cent. The national average before housing costs is 21 per cent. and after housing costs, it is 28 per cent. There is clearly a disparity, as the Chairman also said. We must be careful about that, and in the age of cynicism, the Government must be careful too, so that it is not easy for our critics to claim that the goalposts are being moved. As a representative of a region where the before and after housing costs differential is by far the most dramatic, I must say that the situation probably worries me more than it would worry representatives of other parts of the country.
It is right that much will depend on the rigour and the quality of the material deprivation indicator that the Government are working on. However, the Committee was concerned, as am I and many organisations—the Child Poverty Action Group, Shelter and others—that if there is a significant difference between the after housing costs measure and the new material deprivation measure, people will look askance. It will open the Government up to a great deal of criticism. The Government need to provide assurance from this day forth that the material deprivation measure will be constructed in such a way as to capture children from families with high housing costs.
I want to continue on the housing costs issue by drawing attention to a development that we referred to in passing in the Select Committee report but that has gathered pace since it was written. The implications for the anti-poverty strategy and for the Department of the Government's policy on rents causes me much anxiety. The overwhelming majority of tenants renting in the social housing sector are on benefits, and that is where poverty is most intensely concentrated. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been engaged for some time in a policy of what it calls rent restructuring. Its intention is laudable in many ways, and rational: to try to minimise differentials between rents in the registered social housing sector—the housing association sector and in council housing provided both directly and through the various other manifestations, and to link rents more closely to the market value of properties.
A recent ODPM consultation document proposes a further acceleration of the rent restructuring policy. It will mean that local authority tenants pay £11 more per month; that is 5 per cent. more on top of a 15 per cent. real terms increase already planned under rent restructuring. In the housing association sector, tenants will pay £17 more per month, or 6 per cent. on top of a 5 per cent. real terms increase in RSL rents. What those dry statistics actually mean is that a pensioner with an occupational pension of £12,000 per year net of tax and national insurance and a current rent of £66 per week would pay a third of their income in rent. A family comprising a couple with two young children and a rent of £81 per week—which is about the cost of the social

143WH
housing rents in my area—would have to increase its earnings by £25 a week to avoid relying on housing benefit.
The Government's rent policy will do two things, and I would like the Minister to address them: it will increase the work disincentive by deepening the poverty trap for families paying rent in social housing, because their rents will be higher and therefore higher to escape from; and it will push up the housing benefit bill. Has he discussed with the ODPM the housing benefit implications of this policy?
In terms of the child poverty agenda, the work incentives policy and the social exclusion implications concern me most. Having already begun pilots of a standard housing allowance in the private rented sector—for which there is much to be said—the Government are now moving towards introducing a pilot of a standard housing allowance in the social rented sector. That causes me much concern. Taking child poverty in the round and accepting, as the Government do, that housing conditions and the quality of housing are an important factor in child poverty, this policy will mean that in areas of high housing demand—of housing shortage—people will have to choose between their income and the quality of their housing. Those are the poorest people; I appreciate that there is a market choice higher on the income spectrum. This will intensify social exclusion, as the poorest people will be driven towards the poorest-quality and cheapest housing.
The Government's response to the child poverty report did not engage enough with some of the issues that we flagged up about London—in particular, its higher costs. The issues affect the whole country, but London is at the sharp end. If the Minister has not done so already, I hope that he will have the chance to study the Cabinet Office report on London, which was published yesterday. Its press release states:
"Higher costs of housing, council tax, childcare and transport costs mean that the tax and benefit system has a different impact on work incentives in London than elsewhere in the UK."
That is the first time that the Government have seriously acknowledged that something different needs to be done to ensure that the high-cost area agenda, which relates to London, although not exclusively, has to be tackled.
Some 97,000 homeless households are in temporary accommodation and on present projections, that number is set to increase by about 5,000 a year. Families in temporary accommodation are priced out of the labour market. Rents in my constituency, many for ex-council properties, are £400 a week. The situation creates an absolutely insuperable hurdle for working families.
The progress made on tackling homelessness and bed-and-breakfast accommodation has been a real achievement by the Government. However, if we are to continue with that progress, accepting that the growth of the temporary accommodation sector will continue to increase, the Department for Work and Pensions must grasp that nettle and tackle the issue of work incentives for families in temporary accommodation, so that the people who have the double burden of being poor and having been homeless are not locked out of the labour market.
144WH
The Committee welcomed what has been done so far to tackle housing need through the decent homes initiative. I welcome the Government's announcement in the comprehensive spending review of investment to create 10,000 new homes, and I welcome the fact that the DWP has agreed to include a temporary accommodation numbers indicator in its child poverty list. That rightly carries on from the decent homes initiative.
However, a vital, huge and growing area of need that impacts on child poverty is still being missed: overcrowding and housing pressure, which are chronic and growing issues. Some 300,000 families live in overcrowded housing. I ask the Minister to hear representations from those of us who are concerned that movement on targets such as the decent homes initiative, homelessness and temporary accommodation should not squeeze out that critical area of deprivation and poverty.
Finally, I turn to child care. A huge amount of work has been done: the national child care strategy, the roll-out of Sure Start, the children's centres announcement, which was further enhanced by the Chancellor last week, the neighbourhood nurseries initiative and the enormous increase in out-of-school and holiday provision. Those things are very welcome. However, the child care strategy's concentration on families looking for child care in order to work indisputably has a detrimental impact, which might not be evenly distributed across the country, on unemployed households.
In our report, we stated that we were concerned that the informal child care sector, which includes child minder networks, crèches, drop-ins and playgroups, was being squeezed. We said that that was in part due to pressures on local government funding. The Government disputed that in their response to the report, and said that there had been a diversification into early education and full-time child care.
That is true only up to a point. It is not the case in my constituency or in many others. There are massive closures and a lot of churning, although there has still been a huge net gain. That churning is impacting most seriously on families who are not in the labour market but some distance from it, and who will not make the step quickly into full-time employment and requiring full-time day care. The Department should liaise with the Department for Education and Skills about that urgent area to ensure that strategies are in place to allow families and communities in need to get the child care responses that they require as they take steps towards training and preparing themselves for the labour market.
Our report flagged up, as did our earlier report on child care for working parents, the need for some modifications to the tax credits regime. I am a little concerned that the Department continues to argue that not much modification is required and that 320,000 recipients of the child care tax credit is an adequate number. It is far better than in 1999, but it is still modest; and the scheme is not working in high-cost areas or for larger families. The line in the Government's response about the need to incentivise parents to shop around for affordable child care misses the point. As a parent, I

145WH
think that we need stable and consistent child care—care that we can cherish as we cherish our children; it is not a market good or a supermarket purchase.
Mr. Hopkins: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a report in last week's Sunday Mirror, which said that the average cost of child care in this country is about £134 a week but that in the Scandinavian countries of Denmark and Sweden it is zero. Should we not aim for zero?
Ms Buck: Yes, we should aim for zero. We have a long way to go, and further progress is required. At the moment there is a real gap in affordability and supply. I have no problem with paying for my child care—as a higher earner, it is right and proper that I should do so. However, a mix of taxation and charging is not unreasonable for child care for younger children. That might change as children aged three and four move to early education, but lower-income families—I would define that term generously—should not have to contribute.
The report said that child poverty should be at the heart of the strategy, that poverty reduction could be achieved through work incentives, and that a wide-ranging series of strategies would be needed to improve neighbourhoods and life chances. However, inequality matters too. My serious worry is that although the IFS report gave the Government due credit for their work in raising incomes for the poorest, it also flagged up the fact that inequality, which rose sharply during the 1980s, remains historically high.
An opinion poll earlier this week showed that many members of the public do not believe that Britain has become a fairer place. Although we need to make further progress in tackling the incomes of the poorest, we should recognise that inequality in itself has moral, social and economic disbenefits to society. Unless we do so, poverty reduction will not occur as widely as we would wish; and we will not achieve all that we can to transform the country.
3.12 pm
Tony Baldry: The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) made some extremely good points about the impact of housing costs on poverty. However, their impact is felt not only in London, as I hope to make clear.
I congratulate the Select Committee on producing an excellent report. Most observers would expect politicians to agree on public policies to eradicate child poverty. No one wants child poverty—everyone wants to eradicate it—but, like poverty on a global scale, everyone would do it differently.
The buzz word in the report is strategy. Many of the Committee's conclusions focus on the national strategy on child poverty. For instance, it recommends that the strategy develops
"immediate policy initiatives to assist children in severe and persistent poverty"
and that it should
"earmark new resources to provide for adequate school clothing for all low income families".
146WH
The Committee also recommends that the national strategy should
"ensure nutritionally balanced school meals"
and
"expand the role of the social fund to help tackle severe and persistent child poverty".
The national strategy is clearly seen as the means to ending the grinding and unremitting poverty in which, shockingly, many children live in the United Kingdom.
As one would expect from a Select Committee report, the recommendations to which I have alluded and many others deal with the detail of child poverty and how the Government should tackle it. On the big picture, however, I was slightly surprised to read the recommendation that a separate fighting fund should be set up for London and other city areas. Of course, I acknowledge that London often has the most visible poverty, but there is often hidden poverty elsewhere—the sort of poverty that we may not see because we are blinded by the wealth seen elsewhere in those areas. Those pockets of hidden poverty, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned, are often in rural areas. I represent a constituency in north Oxfordshire that I suppose could be described as essentially rural.
People often think that the sun is always shining for people in Oxfordshire. For some, maybe it is. However, for many, especially children, their daily experience is of the poverty that one associates more with inner-city streets—poverty that means that they have a tough upbringing as children and a tough life as young adults, made all the tougher by the fact that they live in an area where the cost of living is way beyond their means but where they are trapped. The only way in which they can escape is often to end up homeless in areas such as London.
Let us consider two wards in my constituency. Banbury was an overspill town in the 1960s. Large numbers of new houses were built at that time and people moved from inner-city London and Birmingham, many to work at the General Foods factory—now Kraft's factory—in Banbury. In Ruscote, according to the last census, 30 per cent. of families have no central heating; 45 per cent. of young adults do not hold any further education qualifications, often because they have not had the opportunity to gain them; and unemployment is more than double the average for the district.
Ruscote is not alone. Neithrop, another ward in Banbury, is much the same. Almost 40 per cent. of people have only the very basic qualifications because of limited opportunities, and more than double the area average are unemployed. Almost 10 people in every 100 live their life as a carer, including young people under 20 looking after a sick parent or relative. It is no surprise that those areas show deprivation that is more familiar in some inner-city boroughs, when as children living in Neithrop and Ruscote they are unable to get the qualifications that they need and as young adults they simply fall into the poverty trap, only to be faced with the huge task of climbing out.
Although I agree with the Committee that child poverty is often widespread in London, it can be as acute, if not as frequent, in some rural areas. I would have welcomed a conclusion that highlighted hidden child poverty in other areas, particularly rural areas,

147WH
rather than reinforcing the notion that it is primarily—or only—an inner-city phenomenon. It most certainly is not.
The Government usually allocate funds on the basis of formulae, which often do not take sufficiently into account the fact that there can be pockets—wards—within districts where there are serious social concerns. That is not necessarily reflected in the formulae for allocating local authority grant, money through the health authorities, or other funds. I hope that the Minister will recognise that fact when drafting the national strategy on child poverty.
The idea of a national strategy will, I suspect, be given added thrust if, as expected, the Prime Minister appoints a new children's Minister or commissioner—it has been mooted that there may be another seat at the Cabinet table—as part of the forthcoming reshuffle. The Select Committee points out in its report how the Government
"should increase its attempts to tackle child poverty via all Departments whose responsibilities touch on child poverty."
I agree. Indeed, the Government agree. However, the reality has been different. Even with the earlier appointment of a Minister for Children, albeit one outside the Cabinet, there has not been much joined-up government to reduce child poverty.
One need only consider the experience of the Sunshine centre in my constituency, which helps 1,200 children and parents—that is a lot of children and parents. The centre is doing everything that the Government set out in the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters". It was set up in early 1998 and its purpose has been to help parents, carers, families and children living in the areas of north Oxfordshire that I have referred to: Neithrop, Ruscote and Grimsbury.
The Sunshine centre has been extremely good in bringing together large numbers of statutory and non-statutory stakeholders, including the Community Fund, the Basic Skills Agency, the Children's Fund and the two local authorities—Oxfordshire county council and Cherwell district council—as well as private benefactors. However, the mind-boggling range of organisations that the centre has to juggle to help those less fortunate who live in north Oxfordshire means that, were it not for the excellence and dexterity of the management team at the centre, not nearly so much might be achieved.
The centre does an amazing amount and is an enormous benefit to local people. It necessarily has to involve a lot of different people and organisations. It provides personal support for children and families, does outreach work, supports local schools facing specific challenges, encourages volunteers, promotes health clinics and health and well-being locally, and provides a range of activities, from Tots-R-Us to after-school clubs. In fact, the initiatives that it undertakes are almost too numerous to set out. If one centre in one constituency has to juggle that much to gets its funding and fulfil all the roles necessary to reduce child poverty, as outlined in the "Every Child Matters" Green Paper, there is clearly a need for a genuine children's Minister, with the genuine authority that would be indicated by a Cabinet seat to promote the joined-up thinking that will be necessary if we are to halve child poverty by 2010 and eradicate it by 2020. Therein, I suspect, lies the problem.
148WH
I join the Committee in congratulating the Government on meeting some short-term child poverty reduction targets—notably those for this year—but meeting the 2010 and 2020 targets will be far more challenging than the Government realise because it will involve helping the most disadvantaged children. Employment will make a major contribution, which, in turn, will necessitate ensuring that there is even greater availability of affordable child care, on top of that already announced by Ministers. Indeed, making accessible and affordable child care available to all by 2010 should he the Government's goal.
Furthermore, if we are to halve child poverty by 2010, the poorest and most desperate families must be given an extra £10 every week for every child. That is the very least that they require. Departments are now working out how to spend the money that the Chancellor has given them, and Ministers will need to fulfil the commitment to provide £10 every week for every child if we are to halve child poverty in just over five years.
Clearly, the national framework on child poverty will have to look at the employment and child care on offer to parents, the education available to the disadvantaged and the provision of basic benefits to help to lift children and parents out of poverty. That will involve working with a wide range of age groups in a wide range of areas. Given what is happening in north Oxfordshire, the Children's Fund will be one of the bodies best placed to help. Indeed, when the Cabinet Office set it up in 2000, it made it clear that it would act as a bridge between Sure Start, much of whose work is aimed at very young children, and Connexions, which is aimed at people aged up to 19. I have seen a good number of local Children's Fund projects, including the Sunshine centre, the Carers centre and the Fritwell centre.
The Children's Fund works in areas such as Ruscote, Neithrop and Grimsbury, where poverty is deeply rooted, starting with parents and finishing with children. Only four months ago, however, it issued an SOS to all Oxfordshire Members of Parliament. That was pretty brave for a Government agency. It openly said that it was fighting Ministers over plans to withdraw almost half its funding for this year. In fact, Ministers relented and did not cut anything from its budget this year. Crucially, however—this cannot be stressed enough—they were unable offer any assurance that those cuts would not be made next year. In Oxfordshire, that means that the 50 per cent. cut could simply be made in 2005–6. It goes without saying that losing such a huge amount of funding would create huge problems locally.
As things stand, Oxfordshire has £3.3 million in funding until 2006 to help children aged between five and 13, and their families. The money is intended to help children who are often socially excluded and disadvantaged, including those who are disabled or who live in rural areas or in poverty, as well as isolated parents and parents with mental health difficulties. With no assurances to the contrary from Ministers, there is a suspicion locally that the original plan of making cuts in the total budget of 15 per cent. in the first year and 30 per cent. in the second year is still looming large over the Children's Fund and its projects and that it has simply been delayed.
A 15 per cent. cut in funding by 2006 will almost certainly affect a number of projects in Oxfordshire, including the youth offending team, which receives just

149WH
£20,000. Almost all its work would be reduced. A 30 per cent. cut in 2005–06 would, in the words of the chair of Oxfordshire's Children's Fund, result in
"abandoning much of our programming in order to meet the government's target."
Given that the Select Committee points out throughout its report that the Government are not on track to halve child poverty by 2010, why are the Government still threatening a cut of almost 50 per cent. in Oxfordshire's Children's Fund? Why, indeed, are the Government threatening any cut to the Children's Fund? Why is the Children's Fund seemingly not part of the national strategy to reduce child poverty, when it is meant to bring together all the disparate groups involved in child poverty, which are currently not sufficiently joined up?
Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman is making an impressive and helpful speech. I would like to find out how much cross-party consensus there is in the House about measures to tackle child poverty. Implicit in what he has been saying is that he supports the goal of halving child poverty by 2010, that he wants the Children's Fund at least to be maintained, and that he agrees with the Select Committee about the £10 a week for the poorest children. I also understood him to say that he would like an expansion of support for child care as it relates to employment particularly.
That is all very helpful. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is at odds with what Labour Members perceive his Front-Bench team to be saying about Government spending. Could he clarify that? Does he perceive his Front-Bench team's view differently, or does he hold a different view from that team?
Tony Baldry: I take responsibility in this House for what I say, but cannot take responsibility for what anyone else says. This week, I have gone through a different Division Lobby from the leader of my party when voting on Iraq and other issues. The hon. Gentleman will have to listen to my speech, and if he wants to ask about Conservative Front Bench policy, he will have to ask the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman.
Why do Ministers state in the "Every Child Matters" Green Paper that the emphasis should be on the work that voluntary groups undertake with local social services, when that involves exactly the group of children that will be most affected by the cuts? Uppermost among the needs of children who are vulnerable is stability, and charities need stability to help children. Removing funding removes the stability that charities can offer children. One need only attend to what the Children's Fund has been saying throughout the country, not just in Oxfordshire. It is obvious what problems local charities and NGOs will face in dealing with the Government's cuts.
The Carers centre, for example, has employed much-needed additional staff on the basis of funding provided through the Children's Fund. What is likely to happen to those staff, the projects that they run and the children who benefit from the projects? The Carers centre is just one of the many NGOs in north Oxfordshire that might be adversely affected.
150WH
It will not be possible for local authorities to make up the shortfall. Oxfordshire county council social services are already under intolerable pressure, and the county council has had to increase council tax by 6 per cent. again this year to cover its budget. Council tax in Cherwell has increased by almost 30 per cent. since 2001. Social services, therefore, are not in a position to help the children whom Ministers have recently identified as being in particular need.
I ask the Minister to visit some of the excellent projects such as the Sunshine centre and the Carers centre and witness the superb work that they do, before he even thinks about pulling the rug from under them early next year. Because the Sunshine centre just happens to be in Prescott close, I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister asking him to visit it. That was not least because I should genuinely welcome more visits from Ministers to my constituency. I perfectly understand why Ministers might visit only constituencies where there are by-elections, or those of their Labour parliamentary colleagues, but if they do not visit the full range of constituencies in the country they may sometimes gain a stereotypical view of what a seat such as Banbury is like. That applies to many other constituencies, too. I would very much welcome a visit to the Sunshine centre in Banbury by the appropriate Minister.
Many of the systems to tackle child poverty are already in place, but there are only five and a bit years to go until the 2010 target date for halving child poverty. There is simply not the time or the will, among the people who have built up infrastructure locally to tackle child poverty, to do it all again and introduce wholesale changes. The structures and systems already exist. What is needed is a Minister with influence in the Cabinet to get the infrastructure working in the parts of the country where it is not working now. To lose the Children's Fund and have it replaced by an unknown body—or, worse still, to expect other parts of the system to bear the strain—simply will not work, and will most likely result in areas such as Oxfordshire, which are already perceived as prosperous, losing out even more to the inner cities.
I ask the new children's Minister, or commissioner, if and when one is appointed, to commit to the continuation of the Children's Fund, so that areas such as Oxfordshire do not feel marginalised from the child poverty debate, but can continue the good work that they have been doing over recent years. Such a commitment, as part of the national strategy on child poverty, would be welcomed by everyone and would mean that we could all help to ensure that there are no areas of hidden child poverty left in Britain.
3.30 pm
Miss Anne Begg: I should point out to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that, because Labour has done particularly well in Scotland, and indeed across England, in winning non-traditional Labour seats, when Ministers visit Labour-held constituencies they often get a picture of a full range of different socio-economic groups. My constituency, according to most definitions, is affluent. It scores very well on all of the indicators, such as high employment, low unemployment and high wages. Housing costs are high by Scottish standards, but

151WH
certainly nothing like the high housing costs in London. It is a measure of how well the Labour Government have been doing, or how badly the Conservatives are doing, that Labour holds a full range of constituencies, including many rural ones, in Scotland as well.
However, that was not what I had intended to say. As a member of the Select Committee, I am delighted to be here this afternoon to discuss the report on child poverty in the UK. The Committee is hard-working and tribute has already been paid to its Chairman, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood). The fact that he and two thirds of the members of the Committee are present, on the last Thursday before the summer recess, is also a testament to how hard the Committee works and how seriously it takes this subject. It was an important subject for the Committee, not least because child poverty is at the heart of any issue relating to social equality. It is a cross-cutting issue and will not be solved by one Department—the Department for Work and Pensions, in the case of what our Committee is charged to do.
Child poverty is also a cross-Parliament issue. In Scotland, and indeed in Wales, many of the measures that need to be put in place to help to end child poverty will be delivered by the devolved Parliaments, rather than necessarily just by Westminster. However—it is worth making this point for any members of the Scottish press who happen to be present—there are still important decisions to be taken at Westminster with regard to Government spending in Scotland. Indeed, 55 per cent. of all Government spending in Scotland is still determined by UK Ministries, and the DWP is one of them. If Scotland is to deliver on the promise to end child poverty in a generation, it is not just what the Department for Work and Pensions in Westminster does that is important, but what the different Ministries in the Scottish Parliament deliver.
I congratulate the Government on what they have done. Often in debates such as this, because we consider what still needs to be done, the balance can appear negative. However, from what has been said already this afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you should have gathered that most of us on the Committee are pleased with what the Government have done to date and the enormous strides that they have made. We found that they were on track to hit their target for the end of this year, which is to reduce child poverty by 25 per cent. We know that, in the case of 2010, things will be much more difficult.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) said, the thrust of the Government's promise to end child poverty in a generation is bold and ambitious. It is extremely easy to say, and many people say it and have said it. However, what is easy to say and what is easy to deliver are two different things. I was reminded during the contribution of the hon. Member for Banbury and the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) that fine words are extremely easy to say, but that it is much harder to put the hard cash or the commitment in policy behind those fine words to make a difference. I believe that the Government are committed to making a difference and ending the scourge of child poverty that we have suffered in this country.
152WH
These days, I keep referring to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire—our blessed Chairman—as my hon. Friend, which perhaps shows that we have become a bit too friendly on the Committee. However, I have just forgotten what he said—perhaps I should not have gone off on a tangent.
Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend recall that the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks that when the Government took over in 1997 the United Kingdom had the worst child poverty figures in the European Union? He made the point that although we have edged up the table, from 15th to 11th, those figures are from 2001 and are out of date.
Miss Begg: I told you that we were close on the Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker—my hon. Friend read my mind and knew exactly what I was going to say, even though I myself had forgotten it. His point is exactly correct: we had a dismal record in the past and although we are beginning to improve, we still have a long way to go.
The problem with using relative measures, which we will continue to do, is that as a country becomes more prosperous they become moving targets and harder to achieve. However, I still believe that we still should try to ensure that everyone is above 60 per cent. of median earnings. That should be the measure to strive towards, not only because of the cash that it would put into the pockets of families, but because it would help to address the equality issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North alluded. If we are to break the cycle of deprivation and poverty, the goal must be equality and giving young people life chances, not just putting cash in people's pockets. Too many families have been thrust in to that cycle, but have not been able to climb out of it, because the life chances of the next generation have not been materially improved, as compared with those of previous generations. I shall return to that point at the end of my contribution.
Our Chairman made a number of points about making work pay, which is, rightly, the basis of the Government's anti-poverty strategy. As a disabled person, I am often accused of perhaps over-egging the importance of work, but it is important, not just in terms of the money that it earns for a family, but in terms of family self-esteem and the well-being that families feel in contributing to society, rather than necessarily being just a recipient.
The Government have done a great deal to make work pay, which is also important, in ensuring that people have the incentive to come off benefit and go into work. The child and working tax credits have played a large part in that, although I have some concerns about them. I am aware that the Minister is not directly responsible for tax credits, which are obviously a Treasury matter, but the way in which the system has worked and the problems involved in its implementation last year have affected the income of many families and will continue to do so. I will not go into too much detail, but I hope that the Minister will take the issue seriously and look into how tax credit overpayments and clawbacks are working—they are probably leaving some families on an income below that

153WH
which the Government have deemed necessary for a family to survive on. It is from that angle that I would like him to consider the matter.
I would like the Minister to give an assurance that he will look into what is happening as a result of last year's problems, which are compounded by the fact that the system is not working as smoothly as it could this year. Sometimes there has been a double clawback—there is the in-year clawback as well as the problem from last year.
I have organised an early-day motion asking that the Treasury consider writing off all overpayments made through the Department's error. I am afraid that I have not got particularly far in asking the Inland Revenue to do that, but I always live in hope. Writing off overpayments would have made life easier, because it would have meant that families could have started this year with a clean slate and would not have had the burden of paying back overpayments from last year.
Part of the problem is that the tax system is so generous that overpayments have sometimes been very high, particularly if there were various add-ons because of a disabled child, or extra child care costs, and so on. The very generosity of the system has created problems for, or made things slightly more difficult for, families living close to the breadline who received overpayments.
Mr. Steve Webb: On the issue of tax credits, does the hon. Lady share my concern that, as most of the support for poor children will now be delivered through tax credits and not weekly social security benefits, the system may be much less responsive than it needs to be? As she has intimated, tax credits try broadly to get things more or less right over a year or so and make clawbacks the next year, but poor people need money today. Leaving aside the generosity of the system—and I accept that it is generous—is she satisfied that using tax credits as a key way of getting financial help to children is structurally the best method of doing so?
Miss Begg: If the tax credits were working absolutely as they should, and if the in-year calculation could be adjusted in under a month in order to ensure that, things could work; but that: depends on people telling the Inland Revenue of the change of circumstances, the calculation being done and people being told of that quickly. That is assuming that everything goes smoothly, and that is not happening at the moment. That is why I ask the Minister to look into the underlying principles of the tax credit system and consider whether it can deliver for the poorest families.
I know that those on income support have not yet migrated on to the new system, but there are people who have fallen out of work and are coming under the new system. Perhaps the time has come for the DWP to consider the impact of the workings of tax credits on the whole system of family support, for which that Department is responsible. I know that the issue belongs with the Treasury, and it is unfair to put everything on to the Minister, but this is an important matter, because all the issues will impact on the final income of the families we are trying to help.
154WH
It is interesting that the Select Committee today published another report, on the use of IT in the DWP. We are very critical of the workings of the Child Support Agency and the failure of the IT system to deliver the new, slimline, easier, more transparent payment system for child support. Child support is an important part of the equation for ensuring that families with children get the money to which they are entitled and that they share in the prosperity of the parent without care. If the parent without care is on a reasonable income or is a high earner, the children should get the benefit. Much of the report that we are discussing today is important, but there is a range of other policy areas that impact on families' incomes.
I want to consider a couple of the difficult groups that will pose a real challenge for the Government if they are to meet their target to halve child poverty by 2010 and eliminate it by 2020. One group is families in which there is either a disabled adult or a disabled child. Things have changed dramatically in recent years. Because of advances in medical science, disability is not a thing of the past, as some people might have thought it would be—they might have thought we would be able to cure everything—but more disabled people are living longer and have life aspirations that were undreamed of 50 years and even 20 years ago.
In some families, therefore, a severely disabled child is cared for at home, not in an institution, as would have been the case 20 or 30 years ago. They will be expected to go to a mainstream school and participate in family life. However, that can put an enormous strain on the family, and it has implications for whether one or other parent can work. There is extra help with child care, such as the premiums on the child care tax credit, but sometimes it is very difficult to source child care. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North talked about the difficulties in that regard. Things have improved enormously, and I have no quibbles with the Government's basic policy direction on child care, but it is still difficult for all people at all times and with different family needs always to be able to access child care.
The problem of supply is particularly acute when a child has especially difficult needs. In addition, a child with a severe disability may live at home much longer than other children. Although there is often an aspiration that they will be able to move on to independent living, the family's commitment will go on for years beyond what is usually regarded as the childhood years.
Of course, there are also families in which a parent has a disability. I am keen that as many disabled people as possible should work and that disability should not rule work out. Indeed, in some cases, including this job, it can be an advantage; it is quite nice to stand out in a crowd occasionally. However, work is not an option for some people with disabilities, and it is important that the children in those families do not suffer the negative life chances that may result from having a parent who is not as active and cannot take them out as much as other parents.
Some people will never work. They may not have obvious disabilities, but for a range of reasons and with the best will in the world, we will never get them into the work force. However, child care is very important for them, too, simply because it may be the one chance that

155WH
the children have to experience life outside the home. It may be their one chance to be taken out and to have the interrelationships that children need. As my hon. Friend said, child care should not be just for those who are in work. In some family circumstances, because extra help is needed with parenting skills and all sorts of other things, child care is important if we are to ensure that the child or young person is given the same life chances as children in other households.
That leads me to my final point, which is that we must ensure that we do more than just give out cash. I am not saying that cash is not important—of course it is—and it is important to have the measure of income levels, but as our report says, that can be somewhat mechanistic at times. We can measure how much money comes into a household and material deprivation, but it is also important to find a way to ensure that the individual's life chances are improved, and that is not down just to the Department for Work and Pensions. With the best will and all the money in the world, other policy measures must be put in place. Money alone will not ensure that some children are lifted out of a life of poverty and deprivation.
It is not just about the obvious things: it is not just that there has to be a good education system, so every school in every area is good; it is not just about good, affordable housing and ensuring that we take young children out of damp tower blocks, where it is impossible for them to go out to play; it is not just about ensuring that children have healthy, nutritious food; it is also about making sure that a drugs policy is in place, under which the children of two parents who are both heroin addicts are given help to kick the habit, so that they can be competent, good parents. I have never met a drug addict yet who does not feel strongly that their children should be given the best, but it is often difficult for them to get out of the cycle that they have got themselves into and help their children. We need to consider those groups, too.
We are talking about policy beyond the Department for Work and Pensions, but it has the challenge to solve the more difficult cases and go from a good start to ensure that we meet the targets and, for the first time in history, end the scourge of child poverty.
3.51 pm
Andrew Selous: As a member of the Select Committee that produced the report, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to hear about the perspective of other hon. Members who did not serve on it.
The report focused on child poverty, following the Government's objective to eradicate it within a generation. However, on some of our overseas trips during the course of our studies, we were met with a little surprise that the UK was focusing so much on child poverty. The comment was made that other countries, including France and Denmark, were focusing on poverty within families and that that was being considered across the scene. Although we have heard a number of times this afternoon that there are 3.6 million children in poverty, as the Government define it, it is worth remembering that, by the same definition, some 13 million people in the UK are living in poverty. Some of those people, particularly pensioners, have been the
156WH
subject of a lot of focus, but if the children and pensioners were taken together, we would still be short of that 13 million figure. Let us not forget the other people who deserve a chance to fulfil their potential.
Definitions always bring their own problems and with a relative target there is always the slight danger that, as the economy does well and there is economic growth, it is more difficult to achieve. The Government are right to have both a relative and an absolute measure of poverty, because it is not healthy in society if income differentials get too far apart. However, by the same token, it would be perverse if any Government were to be hit over the head because the economy was doing particularly well and that happened to make the target harder to achieve.
On the definition, there was strong concern in the Committee about the change from an after housing costs basis to a before housing costs basis. That was met with considerable puzzlement by Committee members. Our constituents do not have a choice whether to pay their rent every month and, particularly in high-cost areas, rent is such a significant part of people's weekly budgeting. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) has already spoken about her area. The area that I represent is in the south-east of England. It has similar problems that are not so pronounced, but it would make a large difference to my constituents if these matters were just considered on a before housing costs basis, because that would not be a true reflection of their financial situation.
It is important to state at the outset that a sound economy and strong economic growth underpin a Government's chance to reduce poverty, whether child poverty or other types of poverty. That is the basis on which everything rests. Since about 1993–94, there has been a consistently good economy in this country. We turned around some rocky economic problems and many improvements to the child poverty statistics were founded on that.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said in her contribution, which I much enjoyed, it is important to ensure that people have the greatest potential not only to get a job, but to maximise their earnings when they are in work. I am struck, as is the Chairman of our Committee, by the American approach to such matters, which they often call ABC—getting a job, obtaining a better job and looking at a career. It is an excellent first step to move people from the unemployment queues into work, but for many people there is much in-work poverty. A permanent life on tax credits lifts them, hopefully, beyond the poverty level. However, many people are not lifted beyond the poverty level even with tax credits. None of us is happy about that and we need to pay attention to such matters.
When preparing for today's debate, I noted that, within the United Kingdom, 8 million people still lack basic skills; 28 per cent. of Britons are qualified to apprentice skill craft and technician levels compared with 51 per cent. of people in France and 65 per cent. in Germany. Furthermore, to pick up some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, 36 per cent. of adults of working age—more than 30 million people—lack basic school leaving qualifications compared with 28 per cent. of people in France and 17 per cent. in Germany. To put the debate in a broader context, unless we keep the economy sound and ensure that we continue to invest in our work force,

157WH
so that they have the potential to earn money to enable them to get out of poverty for a lifetime, everything we try to do in the Department for Work and Pensions will always be much harder to achieve.
Within my constituency, I am delighted to see the co-operation that exists between the learning providers, the student population and mature students. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and I frequently attend the learning partnership meetings between the parties concerned in Bedfordshire and Luton. It is excellent to see what is happening to help people to gain the skills that they currently lack.
I commend the work of the Learning Warehouse in Leighton Buzzard in my constituency. It is a collaborative venture that brings together for the first time in the United Kingdom different learning providers from many further education colleges to run varied courses. It is wonderful to see young people full of confidence as a result of that organisation. It is a great credit to Bedfordshire county council, which set up the project.
One of the reasons for poverty that did not receive as much focus in the report as it should have done is debt. Like many other hon. Members, I am extremely worried that UK personal debt has now passed £1,000 billion, the results of which I frequently experience in my advice surgery. I refer to people who have mortgage problems and those who have borrowed too much on credit or store cards. Perhaps they were forced to do so against their better judgment, or prompted more strongly than they should have been. Such matters lead to real problems that result in a great amount of child poverty. It is important to consider what we can do in practical terms to remedy such problems.
I was impressed by the work of the excellent charity Credit Action which visits many schools throughout the country; its excellent director, Keith Tondeur, is a frequent visitor throughout the country. It is particularly important to provide our young people with basic and sound money management skills, particularly with regard to debt—credit is too easy a term; let us give it its true name—as they leave school and before they enter the world of work.
I salute the work of credit unions, which do an excellent job. The hon. Member for Luton, North and I share an interest in that the Chalkhill Blue credit union in my constituency has just merged with the Money Matters credit union in his constituency. The merged credit union does excellent work in Dunstable and Houghton Regis. This is very basic work at grass-roots level, which we need to do to ensure that we build a savings culture and that people can borrow at rates that are less exorbitant than those charged by many people in this business. The "sub-prime market" is a horrid term—I particularly dislike it. It refers to the extra-loaded interest rates that people who have no security are very often charged. We need to monitor that and to encourage the extremely important work of credit unions. Many surveys show that debt is the major cause of relationship breakdown.
When we examined the data on children in poverty, we discovered that, of the 3.8 million children living in poverty in 2001–02, some 1.7 million were in lone-parent
158WH
households and 2.1 million children were in couple households. That is significant. Roughly a quarter of all British children in the whole of the United Kingdom are in lone-parent households, yet that one quarter of British children are disproportionately represented in the overall number of children who are poor: 45 per cent, of all children who are poor come from that 25 per cent, segment.
We also know that the 80 per cent, of children in poverty with lone parents live in households in which no one is in work. Surprisingly, by contrast, of the 2.1 million children in couple households who are in poverty, some 70 per cent, of the parents are in work. That means that nearly 1.5 million children whose parents are in work have not been brought out of poverty by the tax credits that the parents receive. I mention that because so many commentators on both sides of the House agree that we need to address that issue.
In paragraphs 187 and 188 of the report, the Committee commented on the fact that in February this year the chief executive of Sure Start, Naomi Eisenstadt, commended the preventive work that several voluntary organisations have started to do to ensure that couples stay together. Too often, we in this country intervene when things have already gone too far, and it is excellent that Naomi Eisenstadt picked up on that point.
I was particularly pleased to hear of a meeting in my constituency that was convened by a group of people concerned about youth homelessness. When they looked into the issue, they realised that relationship breakdown was the major cause. The group is committed to setting up a community family trust to work with schools, registrars and health visitors. Given what has happened elsewhere in the UK, the group genuinely believes that such a trust will make a significant difference in helping couples to stay together. We know from all the data that, where there are opportunities for both parents to work, both the mother and the father can help to provide child care. It is worth remembering that recent surveys show that men now provide a third of all child care. We also know from a study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that, in a trial in which a large number of couples were given a money no object chance to mix work and lifestyle, the majority of mothers and fathers wanted to work and care for their children.
Therefore, there are all sorts of reasons for encouraging community family trusts. Over time, spreading the work that they and other such organisations do will play a crucial part in helping the Government to fulfil their child poverty objectives.
Rob Morris: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, does he, like me, think that, although very welcome, the £5 million of Government support for the marriage and relationships support grant, which is referred to in paragraph 55 of the Government's reply to the Committee's report, is somewhat low?
Andrew Selous: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I fail to understand why, as a nation and as political parties, we happily write out the cheques for the costs of social failure, which are estimated to be £12 billion, £15 billion or £30 billion, depending which

159WH
study one considers. However, they are universally agreed to be very high and to cause an enormous amount of emotional and personal upset, yet we spend only a tiny amount on prevention. We have got it completely the wrong way around. If I were in charge of my party's future financing, I would ensure that we put the money into prevention. I would find the money from somewhere and ensure that we focused on prevention. It is the sensible thing to do, and it need not cause any division between any of us. Frankly, however, until we and the Government take it seriously, we will not make the progress that we all want to see towards the child poverty targets.
As some of those who gave evidence to the Select Committee pointed out, it is a little puzzling that, welcome as the tax credit system is for many of the excellent things it has done, there are those who lose out because they are a couple family rather than a lone-parent family. Some 1.5 million children are in receipt of tax credits, but couple families—on the Government's own equivalised income measure of child poverty—are receiving less.
I will provide the Committee with a brief example. For 2003–04, where the 60 per cent, median is £181 a week, a two-parent family with two young children on a pre-tax income of £150 a week would be £17 below the poverty threshold that the Government have set—they would be on £164. A lone parent in the same position with two young children would be £37 above the poverty threshold—a gap of £54 between those two family units.
The Chancellor said recently that support should be based on family need, not structure. I broadly agree with that, but the evidence of the workings of some of the tax credits is that there are differential effects. I am particularly concerned that a man and a woman, who are essentially a couple and would like to share a home together for the sake of each other and their children, become much worse off if they move in together.
Without going into an over-detailed explanation, for those who want to follow it I refer hon. Members to page 114 in volume III of the report and the example of a typical couple on low earnings that shows how, if they moved in together, despite the reduction in expenses from not having to pay two lots of council tax and two lots of rent, the offsetting by the loss of their tax credits would be so much more that they would end up with £54 a week less.
By way of illustration, a couple came into my surgery recently. The man was carrying the child of the woman. The first thing that she said to me was, "I'm a single mother". I talked to them for a while. There was a problem about a gas bill that they could not sort out and a problem about some repairs to the woman's council house. The gentleman carrying her child was familiar with her problems—in some ways he knew more about them than she did—and it was obvious that they were a couple, yet they were living apart and the woman regarded herself as a single mother. If we are serious about trying to help couple stability and to help couples to stay together, we need to consider a tax credit system that causes such a big gap—£54 a week is a lot of money for many people—if we are to make progress on child poverty, which is what we all want to do.
As was said earlier, it is particularly important that the Child Support Agency does far more to get money through to those parents with care it is failing to reach.
160WH
We know that, where couples are separated, 70 per cent, of parents with care are not getting all the money that the CSA has said that they should get. They either get none at all or not what they should get. There is more work to do on enforcement. Our Committee is considering the matter and I hope that we can do something that will make a big difference.
Time is moving on. The last area that I will mention is that of social enterprise. As we get the remaining children out of poverty, we know that we are going to be tackling those families who are furthest from the labour market and are the hardest to reach. I believe that social enterprises will have a big part to play in helping us to reach those families.
I think of the work of an excellent social enterprise employing some of my constituents called Recycle-IT. It is based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Luton, North but it employs a number of my constituents. It has had fantastic success at getting people into the labour market, keeping them there and providing them with skills, which conventional businesses would not have been able to do. It is excellent work. It is very seed-corn and quite small-scale at the moment, but I commend it to both the Committee and to the Minister for further study because I think that it is an area that can make a big difference.
Mr. Hopkins: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Recycle-IT. Is it not significant that the people who run Recycle-IT came from youth work and are aware of social problems? They are not simply business people.
Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman is right. Those people came from youth work, but they also had a high level of business awareness. Their business does not rely on grants. When I spoke to the founder of the firm earlier in the week, he was a bit disparaging about those social enterprises that just receive grants. A large one in Tottenham that did just receive grants has gone out of business. Recycle-IT is run on a business model as well but they manage to employ people who are far from the labour market. That is the crucial point.
4.14 pm
Vera Baird: I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation centenary lecture "Our children are our future" for teaching me that it was as long ago as 1904 that Rowntree identified, for the first time, a life cycle of poverty: poverty during childhood, poverty for parents when they had children and poverty during old age. That life cycle of poverty was broken only for short periods—when an adult before one's children were born, or after they had grown up and left home.
The striking truth about what existed in the UK when we came to office in 1997 is that that life cycle of poverty had firmly and widely returned. The facts are that during the two decades before 1997, the number of children growing up in workless households rose to almost 20 per cent,—one of every five kids did not have a parent earning any income from work—and the number of children in low-income households more than doubled to 4 million.

161WH
I, too, pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee. As he said, we must never forget that the UK—one of the richest countries in the industrial world—suffered worse child poverty than nearly all other industrial nations. Indeed, anyone reading the reports on the condition of Britain in 1997 would be shocked by one straightforward but disgraceful fact: when Labour came to government, one in every three babies in Britain was born into a low-income household. They were born not into opportunity, but into poverty.
Mr. Paul Goodman: The hon. and learned Lady has given some figures about relative poverty, which, as far as I know, are correct, although they are not all the figures. Can she confirm that expenditure figures are sometimes considered more reliable than income figures where absolute poverty is concerned, and that the living standards, as measured by expenditure figures, of all groups rose under those Conservative Governments?
Vera Baird: I will come to absolute and relative poverty and comparators in a moment.
In the context that I have just set out, as well as that of the importance of every child having the right to realise their potential, which was simply being denied by poverty, the Government set their ambitious long-term goal to halve child poverty by 2010 and to eradicate it by 2020. They started from a very low level. On the basis of absolute low income, 2 million children have been lifted out of poverty. It seems self-evident that they must have been in it when the Conservatives were in power. As measured by relative low income, 500,000 children have been lifted out of relative poverty, so they must have been in it when the Conservatives were in power. I believe that there is general agreement, which has been reflected in this debate and in the report, that the Government are on track to meet their target of reducing child poverty by a quarter by next April.
I wish to refer to two specific concerns arising from the report and the Government's response and then to make two extra points. First, I want briefly to add my voice to those of several members of the Select Committee who spoke about the adoption of the new measurement. The Government admit that the target on an after housing costs measure is much more challenging. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has done research on the impact of the change and shown that between 700,000 and 900,000 children who are counted as poor under the after housing costs indicator will not be counted as poor under the new measure. The risk is that the link with the old measure of 60 per cent, of median income after housing costs will be lost by moving to the new measure.
I appreciate that the Government make it clear in their response that the after housing costs measure will still be published in the households below average income figures, but it will not be in the headlines. The comparator will be more elusive in future years, which is undesirable. I would wish to persuade the Government of that, not only because of the scepticism that will inevitably be engendered, but because it genuinely will be more difficult to hold the Government to account.
162WH
Secondly, the report recommended that the national strategy on child poverty should develop policy initiatives to assist children living in severe and persistent poverty, consider such problems explicitly and create an indicator against which progress could be measured. The Government's response simply says that a general strategy is already in place and that it will help children living in severe and persistent poverty. By the way, the new child poverty measure tackles the causes as well as the symptoms of child poverty and also will measure the depth and severity of poverty and its persistence. It is a triple-decker measure, which I have simplified for the purposes of my argument.
I am not completely satisfied that the Government are placing sufficient focus on the Committee's concerns about the extent to which the anti-poverty strategy is reaching the very poorest children; they seem to be unclear about how far it is reaching in respect of those in severe poverty. We were not alone in thinking that; the Child Poverty Action Group and Save the Children also believe that it is vital that the Government develop a range of specific policies for those children and create an indicator against which their progress can he measured.
Last year, Save the Children published research that estimates that about 1 million children in the UK are living in severe poverty. We made two suggestions about how to deal with that. We think that the Government should consider a large-family premium or an additional premium for more children, thereby weighting support towards large families. There is a strong case for such a premium, because larger families are at higher risk of experiencing child poverty and of being in severe and persistent poverty.
We also recommended expanding the social fund to help to tackle severe and persistent child poverty, and considering paying child development grants. In the past, the CPAG among others recommended that for times of particular financial stress—for example, when children have growth spurts and grow out of their clothes or when they move school and need new sets of clothes. The Government have not really said yes or no to those steps, particularly to the last one. Although they are relatively small steps and this is a very big issue, the Government should place greater focus both on them and the issue.
There has been substantial recent publicity about the difficulties of getting adequate nutrition for children in poor families. NCH—the National Children's Home—recently published an interesting report called "Going hungry: the struggle to eat healthily on a low income". It surveyed 55 families living on low incomes from across Great Britain; three in five were on income support, and two in five were employed but on a low income. It also looked at two focus groups—one in an urban area and one in a rural—and at a regional survey of the costs of eating more and less healthily.
Almost half the parents in the surveyed group had gone short of food during the previous 12 months to meet the needs of someone else in their family. Over a third of parents had gone without food in the past month so that others in the family could eat. One in five families said that they did not have enough money for food, and a further two in five said that they only just had enough money for food. Five of the families on

163WH
income support said they had been so desperate for money in the past 12 months that they had considered doing something unlawful.
The diets of the children in those families were nutritionally poor. Only a minority of children in the survey regularly ate vegetables. More than a quarter never ate green vegetables or a salad. Most children ate some fruit, but a quarter ate it only occasionally, and a further one in 10 never ate fruit. In contrast, nine out of 10 children ate sweets and chocolate, and one in five ate them every day.
The report comments on marketing to children and how, nutritionally, that usually influences children's diets for the worse. However, the report's overwhelming point is that low income is the reason for the children's poor diets—and for that of their parents, because they had poor diets, too. Despite our best efforts, some parents just do not have the funds to provide a nutritionally adequate diet for themselves and their children. The figures were checked out and, significantly, on average, families were not spending enough on food to enable them to eat healthily.
The focus groups that were interviewed confirmed that the reason for that is that food is one of the few flexible items in the budget of a family on a low income. If there are debts, the food budget suffers; many costs are fixed, and food is the only flexibility that they can find. The old image of parents going without so that their children can eat well is not just historical but remains a reality in the UK today.
We made a specific recommendation in relation to an old problem: it is essential to ensure that nutritionally balanced school meals are available, and available stigma free. We noted first that there were problems of meal quality even on current nutritional standards. Clear research, which the Government acknowledge in their response, shows that comparatively cheap options, such as swipe cards, can overcome the problem of low take-up of school meals, which continues. If a child is getting one good, nutritional meal a day, that is a step forward. This old problem has been given extra importance as a focus for Government action because of the NCH research.
I am indebted to Women's Aid, which briefed me today about the poverty experienced by children who have lived with domestic violence. Women's Aid makes it clear that it is not aware of any research on the financial hardships suffered by survivors of domestic violence or their children. It urges the Government to commission such work. When women and children flee domestic violence, they often suffer repeated hardship and poverty, and, of course, the uncertainty of homelessness. Often, survivors have to leave behind all their possessions, or most of them, and start again with next to nothing.
The social fund system is far from generous. If a loan is granted, repayments will be deducted from the mother's income, and it might take her years to obtain suitable accommodation and get the basic essentials that many of us take for granted. These women need special consideration. They may experience more than one move—unfortunately, many parents and children have to move home and school several times.
Persistent perpetrators of domestic violence often find ways of tracking down their victims. Last year's briefing from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on
164WH
homelessness and domestic violence referred to the case of a woman with three children who had moved 23 times. That can obviously be a cause of persistently low income. Every move is likely to involve fresh losses and additional expenses, so it is important that the needs of this group are not overlooked and that we find better ways of ensuring the safety of abused women.
To give some indication of how prevalent this problem might be, domestic violence is involved in at least 16,000 contested contact or residence cases every year. It is not a small issue. There is a further element that, as a lawyer, I feel a little shy about mentioning: legal costs. Women's Aid briefed me that for abused women involved in family proceedings, legal costs often exceed £20,000. It is not unusual to have as many as 15 or 20 court hearings during constantly contested custody and access disputes. With continual litigation and mounting costs, a woman can end up with a statutory charge from the legal aid fund on the family home and unable, because of poverty, to get rid of it and move to a safer place if her partner catches up with her.
If an abused woman fears that she or her children will suffer harm if a child support assessment form is sent to her former partner, she can ask that the Child Support Agency does not act to collect maintenance from him. However, in those circumstances, she will not get the £10 a week child maintenance premium that she would otherwise have been allowed to keep from any child support payments made by the child's father. That means that she will be £10 worse off than other single parents who do not have a reason to fear their former partners. In other words, to be safe, an abused woman is likely to be living below the basic state minimum, inevitably leading to long-term hardship.
I envisage that the next stage of the anti-poverty policy for children will involve continuing current drives while reaching out to those in severe and persistent poverty and those with particular reasons—often life transitions—for falling into poverty. That is my thought for the future. None of that detracts, however, from the fact that we have a lot to celebrate in the considerable progress that our Government have made in tackling child poverty during the past seven years.
4.30 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, but making a speech is only one of my reasons for attending this afternoon. I also wanted to listen to other Members and learn from their wise words and good thoughts. I have listened with great interest to what they have said and commend the many fine speeches, as well as the report.
I have a specific interest in child poverty. Nine years ago, there were more children under five in my constituency than in any other—that is quite a statistic. My constituency also had the largest number of housing repossessions and people losing their homes. Even now, despite being in the south-east, there are severe pockets of poverty there. Another factor behind my speaking today is that there are a large number of single parents in my constituency, and I gave them the specific commitment that I would fight their corner when I came to Parliament. I have tried to do that as best I can.
Housing is a major part of poverty, and in my constituency there is a desperate shortage of decent houses to rent. Rents are high, but there is no decent

165WH
housing available. Although many people's poverty in terms of income and other measurements may not be as severe as other people's, where they have to live is a part of their poverty. The last-resort housing of young single mothers with children in tower blocks with people who have serious social problems is a measure of how far we have gone downhill in housing provision.
Some 30 years ago, housing provision in my constituency was infinitely better than now; we could provide houses with gardens for families in those days. We can no longer do that because there is such a desperate shortage. I have severe criticisms not only of previous Governments, but of our own Government because of their failure to provide council housing. We have spoken about such matters on many occasions in this Chamber, and I feel strongly about them.
I was involved in the decision to build Marsh Farm, which is the major council estate in my constituency. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) will know it. The houses on the estate are still decent today, and there is a wonderful and warm community there, but people would not have had those houses had we not forced through the decision to build. Effectively, such decisions have been taken away from us, and I am concerned about that.
Housing costs play a large part in policy now. Another factor behind poverty is that in 1972 the Conservative Government pushed through the Housing Finance Act, in which they switched subsidy from housing to tenants. So, rather than the housing being subsidised, and having the historic subsidy from the stored equity of council housing, the tenants were subsidised in a means-tested manner. That led to a strange situation, especially in housing association homes with higher rents.
In 1997, I was canvassing in one such area in my constituency and people were asking what a Labour Government would do for them. I said that for one thing we would create jobs and bring people back into work. A Labour councillor friend took me aside and said, "Kelvin, do not talk about jobs; they do not want them. They would be terrified of losing their benefit." Those people were so deep in the benefit trap that they could not afford to get a job. That situation has got worse, simply because we chose to go for a means-tested system of subsidising people in housing rather than the historic system that we used previously. Even now, I would want, if we could, to revert to the previous way of subsidising housing for those who desperately need it.
At least a third of the population—the number gets bigger every year—will always need decent, socially provided, rented homes. Such people will not be able to get into owner-occupation, and it is becoming impossible for people to move from one sector to another. Parents such as me subsidise their children to get them into owner-occupation; we can afford it because we were in owner-occupation. There are two separate classes of home occupier: home owners and tenants. The idea that we can swap sectors and choose sectors has, sadly, been lost. That was a choice in the past.
166WH
We have talked about the figures, saying that we started from a low base for improvement. That is fair enough, and one can make much of the figures, but they need to be uprated.
Andrew Selous: Does my constituency neighbour feel, as I do, that the avenues of shared ownership could be further explored? We have had some good schemes, under which people could get on the housing ladder by owning only a proportion of their home. Would the hon. Gentleman welcome moves towards shared equity schemes to try to bridge the gap that he rightly identifies?
Mr. Hopkins: Yes, if they were realistic, but with surging house prices that is becoming more and more difficult. However, this could be considered the other way round. If an owner-occupied house was falling into disrepair, the local authority could take an equity share, repair the house, keep it in good condition and, when the occupier died, buy out the house and use it for social housing. That, too, is an excellent idea, but such suggestions would work only at the margins; they would not make a massive difference.
Chapter 3 of the report, headed "Background", contains a simple graph showing that 14 per cent, of children were in low-income households in 1979, and that that figure had risen to a peak of 34 per cent, by 1997. Without wishing to be partisan, that is an indictment of the Thatcher and Major era. After nearly eight years of Labour government, we have managed to bring the figure down a little, but we have not returned to anything like the 1979 level. I think that the figures are about right—the target suggests that we will return to 1979 levels by 2010—but that means that, 31 years on, we will have the same child poverty. That is not good enough.
I talk a lot about Scandinavia, because I think those countries do things well and I believe that we ought to imitate them. At the extremes, Sweden has 10 per cent, of children in poverty, Finland about 7 per cent, and Denmark about 5 per cent., but we still have about 25 per cent. We keep saying that we have the most successful economy in Europe, and certainly in the European Union. We do, except for Scandinavia. We are doing extremely well, yet we seem to be unable to deal with poverty. I think we can deal with it.
I have heard many warm words spoken about the Government and what they have done so far. My Government have made some progress, but not enough, and my criticisms will be sharp. If we wanted to bring those figures down quickly, we could. It is a matter of political will. I do not want to give my hon. Friends heart failure, but if I occupied No. 10 Downing street—I have no illusions about that; I am also aware that pigs do not fly—I would say that we should try what they do in Denmark.
We choose not to do what is done in Denmark, Sweden or Norway. Norway is the third most equal society in the world, the first two being so poor that the people have nothing to share and are equal by virtue of their poverty. Norway is the most equal society in the developed world; I am a member of the all-party group and I have been to that country, which has a wonderful society. We should imitate Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Why can we not do that?

167WH
The statistics are of interest. That is what prompted me to come along this afternoon and say my piece. I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take what I say seriously. I would set the zero figure to one side as what it represents is so far ahead and difficult to achieve that I do not want even to think about it. If we are to reduce poverty, we should bring it down to the Scandinavian level, and we could do that quickly if we had the political will. I am fully aware of the implications for taxation and redistribution, but if the Government were to go ahead I would vote for them with a will. I think that many would support them. Indeed, I doubt whether there would be a single rebel on the Government Back Benches.
The problem is one for the Government. They have to be told that there are ways of solving the problem of child poverty, and it is they who have to change. They must listen. They should look at what is done in Scandinavia and start to imitate it. It will take us 31 years to get back to where we were in the time of Jim Callaghan and Denis Healey—now our noble Friends in another place—which now looks like a golden age of socialism. I did not think it was at the time, and I am old enough to remember it very well. We had serious economic problems then, but we still managed to have much less child poverty than we have now, when we are much richer and more successful.
There is a logical problem with saying that we can do difficult things when we have a really serious problem with our economy, but we cannot do them when we have a very successful economy. I do not think it is true that we cannot do those things. We can and we ought to.
4.40 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: This has been a wide-ranging debate. One of the interesting things, thinking back to when I worked for the Institute for Fiscal Studies and spent many happy years churning out statistics, is how the debate on child poverty has broadened. I welcome that very much. I was looking at the Government's executive summary of their child poverty review and I was quite staggered by the breadth of the subjects, which include women prisoners, drugs, large families, social housing, decent homes, the social fund, child care and children's centres. The breadth of the issues raised is extraordinary and hon. Members have rightly mentioned many of them in the debate.
I congratulate the Select Committee, many members of which are present today. Many of them are very knowledgeable about the subject, which means that the Committee is of a high calibre. Not least among them is the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), who was on the radio this morning talking about a different Committee report and managed to work the words "obfuscate" and "concomitant" into his response, which must have been a first for the "Today" programme. I congratulate him on his erudition.
More seriously, I congratulate my hon. Friend and his fellow Committee members on ensuring that this vital topic is studied in depth. I cannot help feeling a twinge of sadness that it is being debated at the fag-end of the summer. I mean no disrespect to the Minister who is with us today, but the fact that the most junior Minister in the Department has been sent to respond to the
168WH
debate, and that we are debating the issue not in Government time but in the House's time on the Adjournment is rather sad. I have said this before and will say it again: although I welcome the fact that the Government have a target to abolish child poverty—that is entirely laudable—the issue still never quite gets the attention that it deserves. The slot that we have been given this afternoon perhaps indicates that as much as anything else.
We should pay tribute to the End Child Poverty Campaign, which has helped to put pressure on all the political parties by saying, "Well, what are you going to do about the issue?" I think that it gave evidence to the Committee—I am certainly aware that written evidence was given. It has done an important job in keeping the issue high up the political agenda.
I welcome the fact that there is a future strategy: the child poverty review. Much of it is aspirational. We need many more timetables and details about when things will happen, but there are many important things in the strategy. I also welcome the fact that, finally, the Government have accepted that child poverty is about more than income below a certain threshold. I welcome the fact that, in measuring progress towards their goals, the Government will consider material deprivation. That is an entirely positive step.
I cannot help noticing in passing that the Government have drawn up a list of items of material deprivation at the back of their "Measuring child poverty" report. They are important things—the sort of things that we would expect. They include children not being able to go swimming and people not having enough money to keep their home in a decent state of repair and replace worn out furniture. Including such things is welcome and sensible.
However, bizarrely, the Government will collect the data, do the counting and then decide the definition. They will not say, "Hang on, we can say now that surely anybody who fails to tick off three items on the list is poor." Instead they are saying, "We'll look to see what the answer is, and then we'll work out what the question is." I cannot help feeling that that is the wrong way around. Surely we ought to agree now. We could sit round when we finish at 5.30—I am happy to stay if anyone else would like to—go through the list and say, "Surely if there are three things on the list that someone lacks, in any common decent sense they are poor." We do not have to wait until we have done the counting to decide that that is the case. However, the Government state:
"Analysis of these data"—
on deprivation—
"will determine the…measure…used, for example, the number of items a family must lack to count as…deprived."
I feel that that is the wrong way around, but it is good that it is being done at all. That has to be a start.
We have had some well informed contributions and one theme that has come through in practically every contribution is housing. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) made a powerful and effective contribution, giving a regional dimension and making some general points. If anybody in this Chamber should be sitting by a telephone later this afternoon, it should be the hon. Lady. I wish her well.

169WH
I represent a relatively prosperous constituency, and the poor children whom I meet are the ones I see almost every week because their parents are about to be homeless. On page 41 of the Government's child poverty review, published this month, there is a chart showing the number of households in temporary homelessness. I was staggered by how stark it is. At the start of the 1980s, barely 10,000 households fitted the category. That rose steadily to about 60,000 at the start of the 1990s—I think that that reflected the repossessions crisis of the early 1990s. The number decreased in the mid-90s. It happened to turn at 1997—I do not know why it should be that particular year—and then rocketed. That is shocking.
We all know about the knock-on effects. We have heard of some of them in this debate. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) mentioned some of them. Shelter says:
"There is no more shocking manifestation of child poverty than homelessness. Since 1997 the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation has more than doubled…and the average length of time they spend there before getting a permanent home has almost trebled."
The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) rightly pointed out the problem for women who suffer domestic violence of being constantly moved around. She gave some powerful and extreme examples. The children, who are in one of the bigger groups of people in temporary accommodation, have their lives messed up. One finding from Shelter's survey of 400 homeless households with children is that, on average, the children were missing 55 school days—the equivalent of a term—per year. If they are missing a whole term out of every year, the Government have failed them and it is one of their biggest failures. That chart shows the shocking figures. Thousands of children and their parents are having their lives, health and education messed up, and they are becoming depressed. It is awful.
While we welcome the fact that the Government have got the numbers down by a quarter in the first phase of the anti-child poverty target, which has to be a good thing, there are still far too many children living in abject conditions, as the hon. Member for Luton, North said. Unless the housing issue is sorted out, child poverty will continue to be a serious problem.
Andrew Selous: I was particularly pleased that members of South Bedfordshire Women's Aid attended the pilot meeting for the community family trust being set up in my constituency. Given that he has talked about domestic violence and its terrible effect on children, would the hon. Gentleman welcome it if that sort of preventive work were done on a more widespread basis?
Mr. Webb: Indeed. As the hon. Gentleman says, prevention is critical. I shall come on to that. Let me return to housing, because it is the central issue on which the Minister needs to respond. If the Government are going to switch to a before housing costs basis for every income measure, the deprivation measure must have a housing element to it. They say that they need to use before housing costs for international comparison.
170WH
However, if it is a bad measure, let us do things properly for our country. If we must use it, we must, but let us consider housing and material deprivation. The Government, in the usual vacuous manner of Government responses to Select Committee reports, say that they will stick an extra page in "Opportunity for All". Whoopee! It is a thick document, full of statistics, and now there will be another one in there. That is not going to help a single child. However, if the Government were accountable—they are accountable for their targets; the ones that they measure, not just the telephone directory of statistics that is "Opportunity for All"—they would possibly do more about it.
The Government will have no incentive to tackle the problem of children living in temporary accommodation if there is nothing that directly relates to that facet of poverty in their material deprivation measures. I would far rather that housing costs were taken into account as well, but if the Government insist on not doing that, they should include housing in the material deprivation measure.
There is a raft of other issues on which hon. Members will want to hear the Minister's reply, so I shall go through them as quickly as I can. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), a humane member of his party—I hope that I do not embarrass him by saying so—mentioned the community family trusts, which do an important job on a small scale. We should all like a lot of what they do to be supported on a much larger scale. The exchange that he had with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) indicated that the cost of what is done on parenting and on helping families who want to be together to stay together is miniscule compared with the potential benefit that could be achieved by going down that route.
On the welfare of children, the Government have a target of ensuring that 70 per cent, of lone parents are in work. That is a very bad target because it is not about the welfare of children. Individual lone parents should be encouraged and enabled to make the right decision for their child and for their circumstances—for example, the particular local situation they are in, what caused them to be a lone parent; they may have just divorced.
If, when all those choices are added together, they happen to add up to 70 per cent., whoopee. If they do not, the Government should not then try to lean on people to make a different choice if it is not necessarily in the child's interest. They should not set arbitrary targets of that sort and then apply pressure to reach them—what is the point of a target if the Government apply pressure? They should be enabling and encouraging individual lone parents to make the choice that is in the best interests of them and their children.
Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Webb: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I had better not, because I do not want to take up too much time.
We talked about the Child Support Agency. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) mentioned it and the Committee has published an excellent report on it today. The CSA is a mess. It is a shambles. I do not doubt that the Minister will tell us how wonderful it is,

171WH
but the Department's own report on the CSA shows that the new system is worse than the old one. It is not working and it is over budget—it is over everything. In the interests of children's welfare, the Government must come clean on this matter at some point and come up with a plan B. I do not know what that is at the moment. Plan A is just many more lone parents not getting their maintenance premium because they are not swapped over on to the new system, which means many children in deeper poverty because of the Government's incompetence in delivering the new system.
We have talked about the social fund. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar mentioned it. There are some shocking statistics about the number of people who are too poor to be helped by it. The most recent social fund report shows that more than 400,000 applicants were turned down for budgeting loans—more than half of them because they were too poor. They had too much debt to borrow any further. I do not suppose that their social fund debt was the only one that they had. Many of those were families with children, and 87,000 lone parents were turned down because they were too poor. How can there be a welfare state that one can be too poor to be helped by?
In a sense, some of the aggregate headline stats are fine. As we have heard, the people who are near the labour market and who are near the poverty line have been helped over, and that is great. However, there is so much serious, deep, complex poverty that just has not begun to be addressed.
We have talked about the tax credits. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South mentioned them. I remain concerned about an annual system, even one working as smoothly as she hypothesised it might. She referred to a month, but people need the right amount of money each week when they have children and they are in poverty. Hoping that the Inland Revenue will deliver in a month is, in my judgment, talking about three weeks too long. The whole issue of annual assessment of tax credit needs reconsidering.
I want to raise the issue of benefit sanctions, which I do not think has yet been discussed. In a sense, the Government are becoming prouder of sanctions. The Chancellor in his Budget speeches says that the use of sanctions is part of the reason why claimant unemployment is falling. Well, it is falling but inactivity is not. For as long as the Government rely on them as a central plank of their policy and use them massively, there will be children in poverty—the Government will never get rid of child poverty if there are lots of children whose parents are facing sanctions from the system. I know that the point of sanctions is that one does not use them. However, the statistics show that they are being used and that there are children in those families who are living well below the poverty line. For as long as that is a central element of Government policy, they will never abolish child poverty.
There are people below the poverty line because they are facing sanctions and there are people below that line because they are repaying social fund loans. Three-quarters of a million income support recipients are paying back an average of £10 a week from their basic benefit in social fund loan repayments. They are living below the poverty line because they had a need. The
172WH
social fund has its place, but while so many families live below the poverty line as a direct result of Government policy we will never eradicate child poverty.
I do not think that I have done justice to the breadth of issues that have been raised in this high-quality debate. The housing issue is central. I understand why Government Members, as well as praising the Government, have been balanced in their contributions and have been willing to criticise. I applaud that. Let us not be remotely complacent. In a sense, achieving a quarter of the target a quarter of the way through is behind schedule, because it is the easiest quarter. If the Government are really to achieve their goal in 20 years, we should be well ahead of schedule. At a time when the economy is doing well and lots of money has been put into tax credits, the proportion of the task that we have got through makes me think that the goal will not be reached on schedule.
It is good that the Government want to abolish child poverty. However, I fear that, unless momentum is renewed and the housing problem, debt and the benefit system are properly dealt with, we shall not achieve the goal that we want to achieve.
4.55 pm
Mr. Paul Goodman: The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), will confirm that before it began its inquiry into child poverty in the UK he received a small delegation—my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and me. We wanted to discuss with him, as members of the Select Committee, what inquiries we should carry out in the near future. I think he will confirm that near the top of the list—in fact, I think it was at the top—was child poverty.
It seemed vital to us that in Britain we should get as near as possible to equality of opportunity. I do not mean equality of outcome—that is for socialists. If I were a socialist I should sit on the Labour Benches, and if Labour Members were Conservatives they would of course sit where we do. I found the inquiry enthralling. I tabled numerous amendments, some of which, to my elaborately concealed astonishment, were accepted by the Committee. As I reflect on the inquiry now, I am wearing my usual two hats and, as usual, sitting opposite the Minister—to whom I thought the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was slightly unfair. Who knows, he may not be a junior Minister for much longer, but might be taken from us, so the hon. Gentleman should enjoy him while we have him.
The debate and the report fell into two parts. The first part was, to use the word used in the report and by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), mechanical. It related to the Government's targets and to people's incomes. The second part, which the hon. Lady spoke about this afternoon, dealt, especially towards the end, with what I call the human dimension. It reached beyond targets and incomes to the human aspect of poverty and to wider challenges.
I must deal with the dry stuff first—targets and incomes. The Government's aim, as we know, is to eradicate child poverty. It has never been quite clear whether that means relative poverty, absolute poverty or severe and persistent poverty. It is a noble objective,

173WH
but I have one reservation about it. To eradicate something one must set a target, and I am always worried about the gap between people's perceptions and hitting a target. A Government claim to have hit a target and eradicated child poverty may not be greeted with enthusiasm by people who still feel that they are living in poverty. That is my reservation about the word "eradicate".
Mr. Hopkins: With reference to the point I made, if the Government had referred to achieving Scandinavian levels of poverty, that would be an achievable target. "Eradication" sounds perhaps a little too difficult.
Mr. Goodman: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about Scandinavia. I think that it would be difficult for us to become a Scandinavian society, for various reasons, but I do not want to go into that now or I shall lose my way, and we cannot have that.
The Government have set targets for reducing the number of children in poverty. The way in which Ministers measure poverty varies. Targets can be hit on a before or after housing costs basis; the basis used by Ministers varies. The Government's target for 2004–05 was to reduce child poverty by a quarter. To hit that target, they sometimes used "before" housing costs figures and sometimes used "after" housing cost figures. The Government's target for 2010 is to reduce child poverty by half, but to hit that target, as we have heard frequently, they are to use the "before" figures only, although the "after" figures will continue to be published. That, of course, makes the target easier to hit. That is why the Committee said:
"The Committee believes that the decision to adopt only the before housing costs measure is mistaken."
The Child Poverty Action Group, which is of course not run by Conservative central office, has said:
"At a stroke, the measurement change in the relative low-income measure has 'removed' 900,000 children from poverty."
The move is really a sleight of hand. The Government are coming very close to saying, "If you can't hit the target, move it a little bit nearer."
However, at least we know the basis of the figures: they are either before housing costs or after housing costs. The measure for 2010 is less certain. We know that there will be three measures: the relative income indicator that we have now; an absolute poverty indicator; and a material deprivation and low income combined indicator. It is still not clear whether all those will have to be moving in the right direction for the Government to proclaim that they have hit the target. The Committee recommended that the Government should state exactly which measures they will use to define the eradication of child poverty, and how they will use them. There is a danger of the Government saying, "Even if we can't hit the target with one arrow, we may be able to hit it with the other two, or at least one." That would be a curious change.
On severe and persistent poverty, the Committee recommended that the Government create
"an explicit indicator against which progress can be measured."
174WH
The Government's response was not to offer such an explicit indicator. The Committee recommended that Northern Ireland be brought into the poverty figure assessment, and the Government said that they would "take account" of the Committee's view.
The Chairman of the Committee suggested in his opening remarks that the Government's response to the Committee was not altogether satisfactory. Reading the response, I rather felt that we made a series of suggestions to the Government, and the Government then mostly told us what they were already doing, but perhaps it was ever thus under all Governments.
On targets and incomes, the conclusion of Conservative Members—I am now wearing my other hat for a moment—must be that there has clearly been some progress on incomes. If we redistribute money, we will raise people's incomes. There is no great mystery to that. The Government are likely to hit their child poverty target for 2004–05, but hitting the 2010 target will be much harder as the Government move towards addressing the needs of those whose needs are more and more difficult to address.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies argues that the child tax credit will need to rise in line with earnings beyond 2005 if the Government are to meet their targets on child poverty, but there is no sign that such a policy has been factored into the Chancellor's public finance projections. All that raises wider considerations. People do not live in a vacuum, in which the Government simply put money into people's purses and wallets; they live in the real world, in which the state of the economy, growth and profits put more money into people's purses and wallets than government ever could or should. I take the point that the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) made about the IFS findings. I think it is very hard to separate how much of the progress made since 1997 is the direct result of Government policy, and how much the indirect result of the broadly continuing health of the economy.
Furthermore, although increasing incomes is necessary in reducing poverty, it is not sufficient—and I now move away from the subjects of incomes and targets—because if families are truly to escape poverty, the Government need to help not only to raise the incomes of those in need but to improve the outcomes for them. The hon. Member for Northavon addressed that point. As the Committee put it:
"The question has also been raised of whether the emphasis on the income measure of poverty means that anti-poverty strategies tend to focus the policy response on increasing parents' incomes … rather than, for example … on improving outcomes for children by improving public services or supporting stable parenting … it is necessary to look more broadly at other causes which … interact with worklessness, such as marital and relationship breakdown, unstable parenting, inadequate levels of educational attainment and healthcare provision, and involvement in crime."
The Committee concluded:
"The national anti-poverty strategy must reach beyond raising incomes and address the human dimension of poverty, thus boosting"—
to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South—
"children's life chances."
It is obviously a truism that there is a link between family break-up, unemployment and poverty. This country has the third highest divorce rate in the

175WH
European Union, the fourth highest rate of births outside marriage and the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. Those issues concern my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire a great deal.
The Committee acknowledged the link between life chances and family break-up:
"The child poverty rate is … affected by the large-scale changes in family formation that have occurred in recent decades with a large increase in lone parent families".
In fact, there was a bit of a tussle about that section of the report early on. The Committee also drew attention to the Government's 1998 Green Paper entitled "Supporting Families", in which a chapter headed "Strengthening families" said that the Government
"share the belief of the majority of people that marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children."
In the light of the Prime Minister's attack on the 1960s earlier this week, I think that we can presume that that is still the Government's view, but perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.
Given that view, however, we think it a retrograde step that the Department has apparently decided to change the family and child study statistics, so that they will no longer report on married, cohabiting and step couples but will report simply on couple families and lone parents. I think the Committee felt that the Government were in a bit of a muddle on marriage. Perhaps part of the reason is that married couples, which I stress are no different from other two-earner couples in this respect, lose out under the tax credit system, as one organisation, CARE, argued in evidence to the Committee.
The Committee agreed that, although poverty among lone parents is concentrated among those out of work, poverty among couples is concentrated among those in work. It said:
"It is clearly desirable that the Government's view on the role that marriage plays in the quality of parenting, if any, should be clear".
That implied that their view is not clear. The Committee also said that
"relationship and parenting support programmes and initiatives undertaken by the Government … should be assessed and evaluated."
We concluded, in a famous piece of horse trading, by urging the Government
"to commission research into the factors contributing to stable parenting and life chances"
and by recommending that
"the national strategy should consider new initiatives to strengthen family ties."
Again, it is disappointing that the Government's reply simply said that further targeted studies, which I think was a reference to the Committee's suggestion, would be "considered".
I want to deal briefly with child care. The Committee welcomed Sure Start and the roll-out of children's centres. My view on the targets for lone parent employment is exactly the same as the one I think was expressed a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Northavon: we cannot have a model of choice and targets; it must be one or the other, because there is a direct clash between the two. Interestingly, the Committee's previous report on child care was consistent with a choice model.
176WH
A key point of this report was the suggestion that the Government's strategy of reducing poverty by encouraging poorer people to work may have reached its limits. The Chairman of the Committee stressed that point earlier. We know that some groups find it especially hard to get and keep work and that poverty is concentrated particularly among ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and lone parents. We also know that some groups and individuals, such as parents with young children, older pensioners or pensioner couples, may not want to work. It is complex to address those groups and people who, for whatever reason, it will not be possible for the Government to get back into the marketplace.
I should like to suggest three principles, the first of which is simplicity. The Committee found in all its inquiries that there is a bewildering proliferation of funding streams for projects. That is a real problem for Governments, who like to have lots of initiatives to announce because that is good news for them. This Government are particularly blameworthy in that regard. We need fewer pots with more long-term funding. There is the famous example in Hackney, which was discovered to have been funded by up to 30 initiatives.
Secondly, the Government have a problem, with their continuing concentration on means-testing, in reaching the groups of people who are hard to get into work. There are huge non-take-up rates in the various pension policies that the Government have produced. Poverty cannot seriously be addressed in the groups we are talking about while the Government rely so heavily on means-tested benefits with low poverty rates.
My third principle is rather more ambitious and the Government are, to a degree, already interested in it. The final section of the Committee's report said:
"If child poverty really is to be abolished, the Government's anti-poverty programme must reach beyond raising incomes, and address the human dimension of poverty … increasing good parenting, aiding family stability, raising levels of educational attainment and healthcare and … boosting children's life chances."
The voluntary sector and faith communities have an enormous amount to contribute, and so do the Government. The Government have announced that religious groups will be consulted as a matter of course. I should be grateful if the Minister could write to me and let me know how that is going, because we need to consider seriously in future years the contribution of faith communities.
There has been some progress on incomes, but we must be legitimately critical of the extraordinary vagueness and sleight of hand about targets. More seriously, and non-party politically, people will in future look back and see that we are still in our infancy when it comes not to raising people's incomes, which is not too difficult, but increasing life chances. That task faces us all in the years ahead.
5.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) on securing this debate, even in the twilight hours of this Session, at a time that I understand was

177WH
chosen by Mr. Speaker's office, not by the Department for Work and Pensions. That is no reflection of the importance that the whole House attributes to this issue.
I welcome the long-standing interest in these matters shown by the Work and Pensions Committee, on which I once had the honour to serve under the hon. Gentleman's chairmanship. I particularly welcome the Committee's most recent report on the subject, which is a constructive contribution to the debate. That has been reflected in some very fine speeches: I listened carefully to the points made by all hon. Members who contributed and I will do what I can to address as many of them as possible in the time available.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) referred to the Child Poverty Action Group, to which all of us pay tribute for its long-standing role in these debates. It was set up in the late 1960s, as some hon. Members will remember. I am among them, and, having spent 20 years working on issues of poverty even before being elected to the House, to be described as a junior Minister is something of a compliment, although I know that it was not intended as such by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). At the time, the group did not feel it necessary to set up a bank account, on the basis that child poverty would soon be sorted out and eradicated. We have found that the problem is a little more resilient, which is why we are still debating it today.
When we came to office in 1997, nearly a third of all children in the UK were living in low-income circumstances, as hon. Members have reminded us. That was one of the worst records in the developed world. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) reminded us of the Chancellor's foreword to the child poverty review, in which he pointed out that each of these was a child
"born not into opportunity but into poverty … a young child's chances crippled even before their life's journey has barely begun."
The proportion of children living in households with relative low incomes more than doubled between 1979 and 1997. Early-years provision was patchy, variable and in some cases non-existent. Our need to act on that inheritance was, and is, beyond doubt, and that is what we are seeking to do. The Government are committed to halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it by 2020, although hon. Members have reminded us how ambitious those targets are. That means not just improving the well-being of children, but transforming their prospects.
Our aim is to ensure that, in future, all children are able to lead rich and fulfilling lives in childhood and to realise their potential as adults. That is underpinned by the public service agreement target to reduce the number of children in low-income households by at least a quarter by 2004–05. That, too, is an ambitious target. Achieving it means reversing a long-term trend. We have risen to the challenge and are on course to meet that target, as the Select Committee acknowledges, but we would be foolish to underestimate the task ahead. We have set ourselves a further challenge in the new public service agreement, announced on 12 July, to halve the number of children in relative poverty between 1998–99 and 2010–11, on the way to eradicating child poverty by 2020.
178WH
The Treasury's child poverty review has reinforced the importance of the contribution of a wide range of public services in tackling poverty. That has been reflected in this afternoon's debate. The provision of financial support for families and getting parents into work must be complemented by mainstream public service interventions that meet the needs of poor families and children.
We are also committed to following the proposals laid out in the Green Paper "Every Child Matters: Next Steps" to ensure that every child has the opportunity to reach their potential and fulfil their ambitions. Action is required across a number of fronts if child poverty is to be reduced in a sustainable manner. Moreover, measures that help to tackle child poverty can help to achieve wider Government objectives: furthering the goal of employment opportunity for all, reducing social exclusion, improving the health of the nation and preventing crime.
The Government have demonstrated their commitment to tackling child poverty. We have set and extended challenging targets. We have directed unprecedented resources towards poor children. We are meeting the challenge of ensuring that mainstream public services deliver for poor children and we have responded to the growing coalition of support for action in developing the next steps.
I welcome the Committee's report and, because we are seeking to build a coalition against child poverty, the fact that Members from all parties have expressed their commitment to tackling the problem. I also welcome the Committee's recognition of the progress that we have already made.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to our strategy, described in the fifth annual "Opportunity for All" report in 2003, which also sets out the considerable progress that has been achieved against a range of indicators. The key elements of the strategy are to make work possible, provide financial support, break cycles of deprivation and improve public services. We will publish the sixth "Opportunity for All" report in the autumn.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the scheme being a bit long in the tooth, but the information is published in a report so that the public can annually hold us accountable for our plans and achievements. We will continue to publish details of a range of indicators that relate to child, family and community outcomes.
The cornerstone of our strategy is to deal with the underlying causes of poverty, not just with the symptoms. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and, interestingly, by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). The key to the strategy is to ensure that employment rates are raised. Our labour market policies have resulted in the highest employment figures on record, with 1.9 million more people in work than in 1997 and the lowest unemployment rate since 1975. The lone parent employment rate rose to 53.4 per cent. in 2003 from 45.6 per cent. in 1997, and long-term youth unemployment has been virtually eradicated.
The hon. Members for Wycombe and for Northavon said that such targets as raising lone parent employment to 70 per cent. inhibit choice. However, those targets are not ours, but those of lone parents themselves.

179WH
Compared with the aspirations of lone parents, the target of 70 per cent. is, although stretching in itself, rather modest. Some 90 per cent. of lone parents say that if they had high-quality child care, they would seek to take employment. Our policy is to provide them with that choice through the provision of child care and other necessary support.
Andrew Selous: It is my understanding from one of the Committee's recent visits to Brussels that the European Commission also has a target of 70 per cent. for lone parents in the labour force, which it is keen for all member states to achieve.
Mr. Pond: The targets established under the Lisbon protocol mean that all member states have sought to raise employment overall to 70 per cent. We are the only country so far to have achieved it, although the lone parent targets are obviously more stretching overall.
Creating employment, the establishment of a national minimum wage and the tax credits are ways in which we can seek to ensure that we can tackle the underlying causes of poverty. The tax credit is at the heart of the strategy, which is to ensure that we can make work pay. For too many years, people moving into employment found that they nevertheless remained in poverty. By setting up a seamless system of support for families with children and setting those tax credits at levels that hon. Members have acknowledged are generous, we are making a major contribution to dealing with child poverty.
However, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South made important points about difficulties that have arisen from introducing a system that affects 6 million families—the biggest reform of family support since the establishment of the welfare state. She drew attention to the risk of tax credit overpayments and subsequent clawback pushing families below the poverty line. However, where the Inland Revenue makes a mistake of a sort that a family might reasonably think to be correct, the Inland Revenue code of practice on overpayments explains the criteria for deciding when either not to pursue an overpayment or to make arrangements to ensure that the repayment does not cause hardship.
One of the major issues in the debate has been measurement. I fully understand the potential for cynicism on that, which is why we undertook the review, at the outset, of how to measure child poverty. We wanted to ensure that there was a clear and credible set of indicators by which to measure our progress towards our long-term goals of halving and then eradicating child poverty. That is why we had a comprehensive consultation before emerging with the new measure, which adopts a tiered approach covering absolute low income, relative low income, and material deprivation and low income combined. Each tier has significance in its own right, and I can confirm for the hon. Member for Wycombe that our objective is to make progress on all the indicators, because child poverty will fall only when all three are moving in the right direction.
Some hon. Members were concerned about us using the before housing costs figure, not the after housing costs figure. We understand that, but we are doing so because we want to measure our progress against the situation in other countries. When we took over, this country had a shameful child poverty record
180WH
internationally, and the before housing costs figure can give us an internationally consistent measurement. However, we give a commitment that we will continue publishing the after housing costs figures in the annual report "Opportunity for All" and that the deprivation measure will include housing costs.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to several pilots. He accepted that the return-to-work credit, the extended schools pilots and various of our other child care measures are valuable, but urged us to get on with rolling things out. We would love to do that, but we need to ensure that such interventions are effective in targeting the problem we face.
The hon. Gentleman also asked the "What then?" question: if we find that the employment route—work for those who can, security for those who cannot—is not appropriate, what do we do then? I must remind him, however, that child benefit is already more than 25 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1997. There have been even bigger increases in the income support rates for families with children, and, since 1997, we have been spending £10 billion more in real terms on financial support for families with children. That is an indication of our commitment to ensuring that we achieve that balance of work for those who can and security for those who cannot.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) raised important issues about the situation in London, as well as asking about housing, and all hon. Members will want to pay tribute to her expertise in those issues. Unfortunately, I will not have the opportunity to respond in detail to those points in the few remaining moments. However, we are aware of the possible impact of rent restructuring, which is why we have built in safeguards to ensure that rent increases are not excessive for any individual household and why we are treading carefully in considering housing benefit reform to ensure that we do not make people still worse off.
We heard several points about the national child care strategy. I think that hon. Members acknowledge that we are making a major investment in child care as we move towards having children's centres in every community. That is essential to ensuring that children have the best start in life. We also want to give parents real choices, which is why we have made changes to employment rights.
I acknowledge the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North about the greater impact on London, and the Government are doing what we can to ensure that we support people in London as far as possible in meeting child care and other such costs. However, my hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) say that child poverty in rural areas often hides behind a cloak of apparent prosperity.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar mentioned nutritional standards. The problems that parents—particularly lone parents—faced in the past, when they may have had to let their children go hungry or go without themselves, underline why we are having this debate. We are all committed to dealing with child poverty. I very much welcome the Committee's report and the opportunity to debate it this afternoon.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what percentage of households in Iraq have(a) working electricity and (b) running water; [184275]

  (2) what percentage of the Iraqi population live below the poverty line for the country. [184276]

  Hilary Benn
  Social statistics available for Iraq are currently limited and unreliable. DFID is considering ways in which to assist building statistical capacity in Iraq and has made available —30 million to the UN, including for statistical support, through the International Reconstruction Fund Facility For Iraq.

  The UN is working with the Iraqi Central Statistics Organisation and Ministries to develop up to date statistics. A United Nations Development Plan (UNDP) survey of Living Conditions of Iraqi Households is due to be completed in November this year and will include economic indicators such as income, day to day expenditures, availability of health and education facilities and access to public services. A World Food Programme Baseline Food Security Assessment, due next month, is likely to produce estimates of the amount of poverty in Iraq.

  In early July, peak production was averaging around 4,500 MW, just above pre war production levels. Progress has not been as rapid as planned, primarily as a result of sabotage and security constraints. High summer demand due to increased temperatures has resulted in reduced hours of electricity supply to most areas of Iraq. Significant programmes of long-term rehabilitation of electrical infrastructure continue.

  Estimates suggest that immediately after the conflict, 60 per cent. of urban and 30 per cent. of rural populations had access to safe water. Considerable work has taken place since the end of the conflict to improve the quantity, quality and reliability of water supplies. There are no reliable statistics of current coverage, but informal estimates by the former Coalition Provisional Authority (South) indicate that, in the south, coverage has increased by 10–15 per cent. since May 2003. Water quality and volume in Basra is expected to exceed pre-conflict levels during the summer of 2004.

  The joint UN and World Bank Needs Assessments of last year estimated that of the 70 per cent. of the Iraqi population that live in urban areas, 30 per cent. live near the poverty line. Approximately 60 per cent. of the population is dependent on free food rations under the Public Distribution System (PDS). Poverty in southern Iraq is particularly serious. A 2003 World Food
  380W
  Programme study on chronic poverty calculated that approximately 21 per cent. of Iraq's centre/south population were chronically poor or unable to meet their basic needs over long periods of time, even after assistance provided through PDS.

  Advertising
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money was spent on advertising and promotional literature for his Department's initiatives, broken down by year since 1997. [183804]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID's expenditure on publicity, which forms a part of our effort to raise development awareness and understanding of international development issues in the UK, has been as follows:

  £

  Amount

  1996–97

  579,916

  1997–98

  399,755

  1998–99

  674.531

  1999–2000

  879,354

  2000–01

  1,484,281

  2001–02

  1,286,053

  2002–03

  1,300,000

  2002ߝ04

  773,772

  DFID does not hold a separate advertising budget, the majority of advertising relates to recruitment advertising in newspapers and journals. Figures for the four calendar years 2000–03 are as follows. Expenditure figures for the previous years are not available:

  £

  Amount

  2000

  751,972

  2001

  1,208,191

  2002

  914,571

  2003

  871,246

  Africa (Trade)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what policies the Department has to stimulate trade between African countries. [185838]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development (DFID) is supporting a number of initiatives on developing trade and regional integration between African countries. As part of the G8 Africa Action plan DFID has committed to support African efforts to advance regional economic integration and intra-African trade, including the development of regional institutions. This includes support for the work of the Trade and Regional Integration Department at the UN Economic Commission for Africa, and the Africa Union's Trade, Customs and Immigration Ministerial Committee.
  381W
  DFID is also supporting the regional economic communities in Africa to implement free trade areas and customs unions. One example is the £12 million regional trade facilitation programme to help expand trade in Southern Africa, and improve the incomes of poor people by increasing economic opportunities in the region. The programme will cover the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) and Common Market for Eastern and Southern African (COMESA) secretariats and member states.

  The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) which are currently being negotiated between the EU and the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries also offer an opportunity to promote regional integration in Africa. One of the key objectives in the Cotonou agreement for EPAs is the development of trade between neighbouring countries. The UK is pressing the European Commission to ensure EPAs progress towards this objective as well as supporting capacity building in African countries to purse this in the negotiations.

  Capacity Building Projects
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the institutional and regulatory capacity building projects(a) initiated and (b) funded by his Department each year since 1997 in (i) Asia, (ii) Europe, (iii) Central America, (iv) South America, (v) Oceania and (vi) Africa including the amounts (A) of money and (B) of aid in kind (1) pledged and (2) delivered to each; and if he will make a statement. [186231]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  It is not possible to give this information without incurring a disproportionate cost. DFID's "Policy Information Marker System" does not include specific markers for institutional or regulatory capacity building projects. While a substantial proportion of DFID projects have a capacity building component not all do so. To identify those that do would require examining all projects approved since 1997 individually. Since 1997 over 4,500 individual projects, each with a commitment level exceeding £100,000, have been approved. There are, of course, many other projects that have been approved below this ceiling.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost was of running the Overseas Development Administration's canteen facilities in 1996—97; and what the cost of running his Department's canteen facilities was in the latest year for which figures are available. [185568]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The costs of running DFID's canteen facilities in 1996—97, and for the last financial year, are as follows:

  £

  Amount

  1996–97

  51,214

  2003–04

  181,237

  382W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost has been of refurbishments to the fabric of buildings owned by his Department(a) in the UK and (b) overseas since May 1997. [185569]

  Hilary Benn
  Refurbishments to DFID buildings in the UK over the period in question are as follows:

  1 Palace Street, London

  (a)Refurbishment project over the period 2000–01–2001–02, total cost £27 million

  (b) Maintenance and repair works to exterior of building, in accordance with requirements of lease, 2003/04, cost £1.2 million

  (c) Refurbishment/replacement of lifts, 2003/04, cost £350,000.

  20 Victoria Street, London

  (a) Refurbishment of building over the period 2001–02, total cost £1.2 million.

  Abercrombie House, East Kilbride

  (a) Refurbishment project over the period 2002–03 to date (due for completion late 2004), total cost £16 million.

  Information on refurbishment costs in our overseas offices is not collated centrally and is not readily available. To give the figures requested would incur a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether office furniture designated for overseas offices owned by his Department is purchased(a) locally and (b) from the UK. [185570]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Responsibility for the procurement of furniture in our overseas offices is normally delegated to the head of the office concerned. In the vast majority of cases procurement is carried out locally.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost has been of replacement office furniture within buildings owned by his Department(a) in the UK and (b) overseas since May 1997. [185546]

  Hilary Benn
  The total cost of replacement furniture within buildings owned by DFID, purchased within the UK since May 1997, is £3,128,000. Information on expenditure on furniture in our overseas offices is not collated centrally; to provide the figures requested would incur a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost was of printing(a) Overseas Development Administration headed notepaper in 1996–97 and (b) Department for International Development headed notepaper in the last year for which figures are available.[185561]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID does not use pre-printed headed notepaper, and has not done so for many years, including the period in question. Headed paper is produced using templates on our internal IT systems.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent by(a) the Overseas Development Administration in 1996–97 and (b) his Department in the last year for which figures are available on academic consultants;

  383W
  and how many academic papers were published as a result of their work in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the last year for which figures are available.[185562]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's headquarters procurement group issued consultancy contracts to universities worth £15,189,439 in 1996–97 and £7,093,078 in 2003–04. Information from overseas offices is not held centrally and could only be provided by incurring a disproportionate cost.

  DFID does not maintain a record of academic papers published.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent by(a) the Overseas Development Administration in 1996–97 and (b) his Department in the last year for which figures are available on (i) advertising, (ii) public relations consultants and (iii) press officers, broken down by grade. [185563]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID does not hold a separate advertising budget, the majority of advertising relates to recruitment advertising in newspapers and journals. Expenditure figures for years prior to 2000 are not available; the figure for the last calendar year, 2003 is £871,246.

  DFID does not keep central records of all staff working on communications across the Department and this information could not be gathered without incurring a disproportionate cost for the years specified. Information on the press office and publicity staff is available from 1996–97 and is set out as follows.

  Number of officers

  Grades

  Annual cost £

  1996–97

  6(press only)

  Not available

  195,000

  2003–04

  10

  1xA1

  373,500

  4xA2

  3xB1

  2xB2

  Disaster-prone Regions
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what actions have been taken to improve the Department's strategies for disaster-prone regions since the publication of the National Audit Office's report on Responding to Humanitarian Emergencies, HC 1227 of Session 2002–03; [186056]

  (2) whether his Department systematically analyses and reduces disaster risks within its development planning and programming; [186057]

  (3) when his Department will formulate a strategy to mainstream disaster preparedness and mitigation into its development work; and if he will make a statement; [186058]

  (4) what plans his Department has to take disaster risks into account in its approach to development; and if he will make a statement. [186059]

  Hilary Benn
  A reduction in the incidence and impact of natural and man-made disasters is an essential precondition for poverty reduction in many countries.
  384W
  DFID accepts that we need to give due weight to ensuring that our development policies are risk aware and that people's vulnerability to risks is reduced. For example, DFID's Global Environmental Assets team is seeking to promote the integration of climate change risk into development planning. DFID's Central Asia, South Caucasus and Moldova team has carried out a review of disaster preparedness and response capacity in Central Asia to analyse gaps in support of disaster reduction and prevention.

  DFID has agreed to change the guidance for DFID country teams preparing Country Assistance Plans to ensure that disaster risk reduction issues are taken into consideration. DFID's guidance to country teams on environmental screening instructs country teams to examine disaster risk issues.

  DFID is in the process of reviewing how we might step up our work in this area. A scoping study, commissioned by DFID and undertaken by the Overseas Development Group, will report soon on how the development community and DFID can tackle disaster risk most effectively. It will also advise on ways to better mainstream disaster risk reduction and mitigation into development work. DFID expects to develop a forward strategy for DFID on disaster reduction in the light of the findings of this study. The findings will be disseminated to interested parties.

  The Government are commissioning a report to document UK civil society work in disaster reduction in preparation for the World Conference on disaster reduction to be held in Kobe, Japan next January, it is hoped this will enable networking and skill sharing within the disaster community.

  HIV/AIDS
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the impact on children with HIV/AIDS of the shortage of specially designed drugs. [185351]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Every day, about 1,700 children become infected with HIV. There are an estimated 2.1 million children under age 15 living with HIV in the world today. The vast majority of these are in developing countries.

  Including children with HIV in treatment and care programmes is critical. Brazil has successfully implemented antiretroviral (ARV) treatment for children and adolescents as part of its national treatment policy. A number of other countries, including Uganda, Zambia, and South Africa, are beginning to enrol large numbers of children with HIV in their programmes.

  However, the absence of specially designed drugs for children causes problems. Many ARVs are not available in paediatric formulations that can be given to small children as a liquid, and tablets are often not

  385W
  manufactured in small enough doses for a child's body weight, requiring pharmacists and doctors to guess how to break up tablets or dose according to weight.

  The UK, through its recently published strategy on HIV and AIDS and DFID's new policy on HIV and AIDS treatment and care, has committed to support research into paediatric treatments including paediatric ARVs, and future treatment options. Indeed, the new HIV and AIDS Strategy prioritises the needs of children alongside those of women and vulnerable and marginalised groups. The UK has committed £150 million over the next three years on work to respond to the needs of orphans and other children made vulnerable by HIV and AIDS. DFID has also

  UK Aid

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/03

  Nicaragua

  1,996

  3,780

  636

  613

  2,397

  Philippines

  10,220

  6,424

  2,245

  5,744

  1,177

  Romania

  4,158

  3,744

  3,439

  5,396

  6,167

  Ukraine

  8,619

  8,442

  9,331

  8,877

  7,892

  EU multilateral share

  £million

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Nicaragua

  2.6

  3.3

  3.0

  5.2

  3.6

  Philippines

  3.0

  3.9

  3.4

  3.4

  2.9

  Romania

  11.4

  19.1

  2.8

  32.2

  57.5

  Ukraine

  0.8

  11.2

  8.4

  8.8

  11.8

  There is no separate funding under trade agreements. Any funding relating to trade agreements is included in the above figures.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding the UK provided(a) directly, (b) through the EU

  UK Aid

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Honduras

  3,351

  2,097

  1,371

  1,220

  1,075

  Kazakhstan

  1,359

  1,077

  896

  699

  720

  Macedonia

  530

  12,326

  2,185

  8,066

  1,837

  Moldova

  825

  829

  1,074

  1,584

  3,354

  Mongolia

  477

  322

  1,408

  542

  395

  EU multilateral share

  £million

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Honduras

  0.7

  1.3

  1.8

  2.2

  1.7

  Kazakhstan

  1.3

  1.4

  1.9

  0.8

  0.9

  Macedonia

  1.0

  3.0

  9.7

  10.6

  6.7

  Moldova

  0.8

  0.9

  1.1

  0.7

  0.6

  Mongolia

  0.3

  0.2

  0.7

  0.7

  0.4

  386W
  endorsed UNICEF's Strategic Framework on Orphans and Vulnerable Children. We will work to ensure children have access to treatment and care.

  Overseas Aid/Funding
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding the UK provided(a) directly, (b) through the EU and (c) through trade agreements to (i) Nicaragua, (ii) the Philippines, (iii) Romania and (iv) Ukraine in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [185650]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The table shows how much funding DFID provided directly and through the EU, for the relevant countries:

  and (c) through trade agreements to (i) Honduras, (ii) Kazakhstan, (iii) Macedonia, (iv) Moldova and (v) Mongolia in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.[185652]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The following table shows how much funding DFID provided directly and through the EU for the relevant countries:
  387W
  There is no separate funding under trade agreements. Any funding relating to trade agreements is included in the figures.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding the UK provided(a) directly, (b) through the EU

  UK aid

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Albania

  643

  15,240

  2,288

  4,178

  2,582

  Azerbaijan

  498

  697

  688

  479

  269

  Dominican

  253

  35,209

  646

  11,082

  17,362

  El Salvador

  299

  318

  6,265

  4,572

  945

  Georgia

  1,272

  958

  2,789

  2,447

  2,386

  EU

  £million

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Albania

  2.2

  9.7

  13

  10.6

  7.6

  Azerbaijan

  2

  3

  2.6

  2.5

  1.6

  Dominican

  2.3

  4.1

  3.2

  1.6

  1.6

  El Salvador

  1.5

  2.4

  1–6

  1.8

  1.8

  Georgia

  2

  2.7

  3.2

  1.7

  2.9

  There is no separate source of funding for trade agreements and any such assistance is included in the figures.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) monetary aid and (b) aid in kind his Department has (i) pledged and (ii) delivered to (A) Albania, (B) Azerbaijan and (C) the Dominican Republic (1) in each financial year since 1997–98 and (2) in each month since January 2003; what new programmes his Department has (y) initiated

  Bilateral aid by country

  £

  Monetry aid

  Technical cooperation

  Aid and trade provision

  Grants and other aid in kind

  Humaintaian assistance1

  DFID debt relief2

  Total DFID programme

  Albania

  1997–98

  —

  399

  —

  64

  286

  —

  749

  1998–99

  —

  589

  —

  35

  19

  —

  643

  1999–2000

  —

  628

  —

  29

  14,583

  —

  15,240

  2000—01

  —

  850

  —

  57

  1,381

  —

  2,288

  2001—02

  —

  3,446

  —

  108

  624

  —

  4,178

  2002–03

  —

  2,360

  —

  157

  65

  —

  2,582

  2003–044

  —

  1,806

  —

  315

  200

  —

  2,321

  Azerbaijan

  1997–98

  —

  501

  —

  20

  391

  —

  912

  1998–99

  —

  448

  —

  49

  —

  —

  498

  1999–2000

  —

  643

  —

  53

  —

  —

  697

  2000–01

  —

  343

  —

  11

  334

  —

  688

  2001–02

  —

  411

  —

  5

  63

  —

  479

  2002–03

  —

  256

  —

  13

  —

  —

  269

  2003–044

  —

  113

  —

  48

  —

  —

  161

  Dominican Republic

  1997–98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1997–98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1998–99

  —

  23

  —

  —

  59

  —

  82

  1999–2000

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  —

  40

  —

  2000–01

  —

  —

  —

  48

  —

  —

  48

  2001–02

  —

  —

  —

  31

  —

  —

  31

  2002–03

  —

  —

  —

  75

  —

  —

  75

  —

  2003–044

  —

  —

  —

  72

  —

  —

  72

  1. Humanitarian Assistance comprises food aid and other humanitarian assistance.

  2. This comprises both interest and principal foregone under Retrospective Terms Adjustment. Amounts reported are repayments which would have fallen due each year.

  3. 2001–02 is a unique year in that total DFID expenditure is understated by around £140 million due to move to resource accounting.

  4. The figures for 2003–04 are still provisional.

  388W
  and (c)through trade agreements to(i)Albania, (ii)Azerbaijan,(iii) the Dominican Republic,(iv)El Salvador and (v)Georgia in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.[185653]

  Mr.Gareth Thomas
  Details of funding are as set out as follows:

  and (z) funded in each country since January 2003; and if he will make a statement. [185654]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The table as follows shows what has been delivered to Albania, Azerbaijan and Dominican Republic in terms of aid in kind and monetary aid from 1997–8 to 2003–4 (latest figures). DFID does not keep monthly records of pledges or expenditures specifically in terms of aid in kind or monetary aid; DFID also does not keep records of how much has been pledged specifically in terms of aid in kind or monetary aid.
  389W
  There are two new programmes in Albania: Support to Tax Administration Reform. The goal of this project is "To strengthen and stabilise the role of the State in order to alleviate poverty in Albania through the positive effect of economic activity and stability" at a cost of £1.2 million over two years; National Strategy for Socio—Economic Development Support Programme (NSSED): Albania, the goal of this programme is to mainstream the NSSED in public policy processes over the next three years at a cost of £;1.2 million.

  DFID does not have a bilateral programme in Azerbaijan. Direct funding to Azerbaijan is however provided through the Small Grants Scheme (SGS) administered by the British embassy. For 2004–05, the budget for the SGS is £36,450.

  Together with the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, DFID is supporting work in the South Caucasus through the Global Conflict Pool (GCPP). From September 2003, the UK has been supporting Conflict Resolution work in Nagorno Karabakh. This aims to improve understanding of the conflict among

  Bilateral aid by country

  £000

  Monetary aid

  Technical cooperation

  Aid and trade provision

  Grants and other aid in kind

  Humanitarian assistance1

  DFID debt relief2

  Total DFID programme3

  El Salvador

  1997–98

  —

  25

  —

  187

  —

  —

  211

  1998–99

  —

  8

  —

  252

  39

  —

  299

  1999–2000

  —

  3

  —

  315

  —

  —

  318

  2000–01

  —

  —

  —

  369

  1,451

  —

  431

  2001–02

  —

  —

  —

  271

  160

  —

  431

  2002–03

  —

  76

  —

  235

  27

  —

  338

  2003–044

  —

  8

  —

  99

  —

  —

  107

  Honduras

  1997–98

  —

  627

  —

  259

  —

  280

  1,166

  1998–99

  —

  444

  —

  330

  1,526

  280

  2,580

  1999–2000

  —

  579

  —

  537

  608

  373

  2,097

  2000–01

  —

  305

  —

  691

  2

  373

  1,371

  2001—02

  —

  430

  —

  465

  —

  324

  1,220

  2002–03

  —

  231

  —

  317

  434

  93

  1,075

  2003—044

  —

  453

  —

  251

  —

  93

  797

  Kazakhstan

  1997–98

  —

  1,978

  —

  118

  50

  —

  2,145

  1998—99

  —

  1,284

  —

  58

  —

  —

  1,342

  1999–2000

  —

  993

  —

  83

  —

  —

  1,077

  2000–01

  —

  821

  —

  76

  —

  —

  896

  2001–02

  —

  674

  —

  25

  —

  —

  699

  2002–03

  —

  688

  —

  32

  —

  —

  720

  2003–044

  —

  1,212

  —

  21

  —

  —

  1,233

  Nicaragua

  1997–98

  —

  414

  —

  511

  50

  36

  1,011

  1997—99

  —

  204

  —

  413

  1,379

  —

  1,996

  1999—2000

  —

  270

  —

  549

  334

  —

  1,153

  1999—01

  —

  161

  —

  464

  11

  —

  636

  2000–02

  —

  125

  —

  338

  150

  —

  613

  2001–03

  —

  626

  —

  417

  —

  —

  1,043

  2003—044

  255

  241

  —

  534

  —

  —

  1,029

  390W
  stakeholders, strengthen conflict sensitivity amongst national and international actors working in the region and implement activities that contribute to peace. DFID's contribution to this work is £2.4 million over three years.

  DFID gave support to the Dominican Republic and Haiti on the 1 May (40,000) after the flooding there.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) monetary aid and (b) aid in kind his Department has (i) pledged and (ii) delivered to (A) El Salvador, (B) Georgia, (C) Honduras, (D) Kazakhstan, (E) Macedonia, (F) Moldova, (G) Mongolia and (H) Nicaragua (1) in each financial year since 1997—98 and (2) in each month since January 2003; what new programmes his Department has (x) initiated and (y) funded in each country since January 2003; and if he will make a statement. [185715]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The following table shows how much monetary aid and aid in kind DFID has delivered in each financial year since 1997–98.
  391W

  Bilateral aid by country

  £000

  Monetary aid

  Technical cooperation

  Aid and trade provision

  Grants and other aid in kind

  Humanitarian assistance1

  DFID debt relief2

  Total DFID programme3

  Georgia

  1997–98

  —

  714

  —

  72

  317

  —

  1,103

  1998–99

  —

  739

  —

  45

  488

  —

  1,272

  1999–2000

  —

  582

  —

  36

  340

  —

  958

  2000–01

  —

  827

  —

  5

  1,956

  —

  2,789

  2001–02

  —

  1,947

  —

  86

  414

  —

  2,447

  2002–03

  —

  1,679

  —

  131

  575

  —

  2,386

  2003–044

  —

  1,701

  —

  94

  301

  —

  2,096

  Moldova

  1997–98

  —

  608

  —

  38

  —

  —

  645

  1998–99

  —

  795

  —

  30

  —

  —

  825

  1999–2000

  —

  754

  —

  75

  —

  —

  829

  2000–01

  —

  1,034

  —

  40

  —

  —

  1,074

  2001–02

  —

  1,582

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1,584

  2002–03

  —

  3,352

  —

  3

  —

  —

  3,354

  2003–044

  —

  2,383

  —

  49

  —

  —

  2,433

  Macedonia (FYR of)

  1997–98

  —

  666

  —

  58

  —

  —

  725

  1998–99

  —

  481

  —

  48

  1

  —

  530

  1999–2000

  —

  837

  —

  50

  11,409

  —

  12,296

  2000–01

  —

  1,151

  —

  98

  936

  —

  2,185

  2001–02

  3,000

  1,564

  —

  71

  3,430

  —

  8,066

  2002–03

  —

  1,620

  —

  77

  94

  —

  1,791

  2003–044

  —

  1,255

  —

  105

  80

  —

  1,440

  Mongolia

  1997–98

  —

  81

  —

  378

  —

  —

  458

  1998–99

  —

  89

  —

  380

  —

  —

  470

  1999–2000

  —

  35

  —

  255

  32

  —

  322

  2000–01

  —

  536

  —

  275

  597

  —

  1,408

  2001–02

  —

  206

  —

  247

  89

  —

  542

  2002–03

  —

  129

  —

  166

  100

  —

  395

  2003–044

  —

  14

  —

  253

  —

  —

  267

  1Humanitarian assistance comprises food aid and other humanitarian assistance.

  2This comprises both interest and principal foregone under retrospective terms adjustment. Amounts reported are repayments which would have fallen due each year.

  32001–02 is a unique year in that total DFID expenditure is understated by around £140 million due to move to resource accounting.

  4Figures for 2003–04 are provisional.

  DFID does not keep monthly records of pledges or expenditures specifically in terms of aid in kind or monetary aid.

  £

  Country

  Programme

  Commitment

  El Salvador

  Network to combat commercial sex exploitation

  223,000

  Georgia

  Poverty reduction and good governance assessment

  4,000

  Georgia

  Technical assistance to the Ministry of Health to establish a sustainable and affordable system of primary healthcare

  5,220,000

  Georgia

  Technical assistance to the Ministry of Finance to enable the Government to utilize resources effectively

  165,000

  Honduras

  Poverty reduction strategy

  1,582,000

  Honduras/Nicaragua

  HIV/AIDS programme

  1,900,000

  Central America including Honduras/Nicaragua/El Salvador

  Support to regional unit for technical assistance (RUTA) to promote rural development

  700,000

  Macedonia

  Public administration reform phase 2

  3,000,000

  392W
  The following table shows new programmes DFID has initiated and funded in each country since January 2003.
  393W

  £

  Country

  Programme

  Commitment

  Moldova

  Support for the national rural development strategy

  9,000

  Moldova

  Support to the rural investment services project

  2,680,000

  Moldova

  Poverty synthesis study to strengthen poverty reduction and improve programme effectiveness

  5,000

  Moldova

  Contribution to the population census

  200,000

  Moldova

  Continuation of support to the Ministry of Finance for the development of a medium term expenditure framework

  500,000

  Moldova

  Work through the global conflict prevention pool on a peace&-building framework project to facilitate civil society engagement in conflict reduction(with the FCO)

  440,000

  Nicaragua

  Civil society monitoring

  434,000

  Nicaragua

  DFID/Inter-American development bank (IDB) cooperation to enhance social inclusion

  1,669,250

  Nicaragua

  Maximising access to appropriate quality adolescent reproductive health services

  500,000

  Nicaragua

  Violence reduction

  720,000

  Nicaragua

  Promoting women's citizenship

  179,000

  Nicaragua

  Youth sexual and reproductive health rights

  500,000

  Nicaragua

  Promoting equity through economic growth

  2,500,000

  There have been no new programmes initiated in Kazakhstan or Mongolia since January 2003. DFID provides direct funding to these countries through the Small Grants Scheme (SGS) administered through the British Embassy. For 2004–05 the budget for the SGS is £45,000 and £200,000 respectively.

  Policies (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [185106]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Department for International Development (DFID) recognises that environmental assessment is essential to ensure that environmental sustainability is integrated into international development policy, planning and operations.

  All DFID's development initiatives with a spend of more than £1 million are subject to environmental screening, which is also advised for projects of less than £1 million where there is a likelihood of significant environmental impacts. Where appropriate, screening will initiate a more comprehensive appraisal and assessment for policies, plans and programmes. The procedures, and guidance on the screening process, are detailed in DFID's Environment Guide (2003), which is available on the Department's public website www.dfid.gov.uk.

  In the last year, the rate of application of environmental screening to projects has almost doubled (from 34 per cent. in 2002–03 to 62 per cent. in 2003–04), following a review and strengthening of the procedures. A new team has been established within DFID to monitor and strengthen these procedures.

  Public Relations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the salary costs to the Department were for employees working in public relations and publicity in each year since 1997. [183843]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Communication is integral to DFID's mission. DFID does not keep central records of all staff working on communications across the Department and this information could not be gathered without incurring a disproportionate cost for the years specified. Information on the press office is available from 1997 and is set out in the following table for all completed financial years to 2003–04.

  Number of press officers

  Annual cost

  1997–98

  6

  243,000

  1998–99

  4

  240,000

  1999–2000

  3.3

  100,000

  2000–01

  4.5

  150,000

  2001–02

  4

  148,000

  2002–03

  5

  191,000

  2003–04

  6

  230,000

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  Comptroller and Auditor General's Report
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission when the Speaker's Committee will publish the Comptroller and Auditor General's statutory value for money report to it for 2002–03 on the Electoral Commission. [186065]

  Mr. Viggers
  At its meeting on 14 July, the Speaker's Committee agreed to publish the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which deals with the Commission's expenditure on its Public Awareness Strategy in 2002–03, as an Appendix to its First Report
  395W
  2004. This report has been laid before the House and published today, 22 July, as House of Commons Paper No. 924. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what information he has as to when the Electoral Commission expects to publish its reports on the June 2004 all-postal pilot elections [186438]

  Mr. Viggers
  I understand that the Commission has advised the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs of its intention to submit its evaluation of the June 2004 all-postal pilots to him on 27 August 2004. On this date the Commission will electronically publish on its website (www.electoralcommission.org.uk) all four regional reports as well as an overarching report. This will enable its conclusions to be available before Parliament returns from its summer recess in September.
  396W
  Printed copies of all the reports will be available from 13 September and the Commission will send a copy of each of the reports to every Member of the House.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Departmental Staff (Upper Age Limits)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Advocate-General whether her Department(a) has a set retirement age which applies to all or most personnel and (b) has a maximum age beyond which applications for employment will not be considered; and what the age is in each case. [186037]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fish Stocks
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to preserve fish stocks. [185740]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are a range of national and EU measures in place to conserve fish stocks in our waters. Today I announced the Government's intention to seek a closure of the bass pair trawl fishery off South-West England.

  Off-road Motor Cycles
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to restrict the use of off-road motor cycles in(a) rural and (b) semi-rural areas. [185761]

  Alun Michael
  I recently consulted on a range of measures to tackle the problem of inappropriate use of off-road vehicles and to curtail inappropriate use of off-road motorcycles and other mechanically propelled vehicles on public rights of way. These proposals are relevant to both rural and semi rural areas. I shall respond to the consultative process and the views expressed in the near future.

  Horticulture
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on policy towards the horticultural sector. [185762]

  Alun Michael
  The Government welcome the contribution of horticulture to the UK economy. It is worth some £2 billion at the farm gate and supports substantial downstream activity in packhouses, processing and the garden industry. We will continue to work with the industry through the Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy, by funding research and development and through the England Rural Development Programme.

  Access Rules Review
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made by the European Commission in completing the review of access rules referred to in Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002; and what the latest anticipated timescale is for the completion of this review. [184159]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]The Commission has sought and secured a delay in the production of a report into the effectiveness of access restrictions, which was originally intended to be made available by 31 December 2003. During 2003 and 2004, the Commission secured agreement on the scope of the review, established a scientific expert group to agree its 398W
  terms of reference and established scientific expert subgroups to conduct reviews and draft reports for evaluation of each access rule. The Commission's scientific expert groups first met in April 2004, the subgroups are now preparing their reports. No revised timescale for the Article 19 review has been agreed, but the Commission's final report and corresponding proposals are expected before the end of 2004.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) submissions and (b) representations have been made to her by the Scottish Executive in relation to the review of access rules referred to in Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002. [184160]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]In the course of routine business the Scottish Executive has made numerous written and oral representations to Defra on several aspects of the Article 19 review, concentrating on the implications of the review for the Shetland Box access arrangements. Representations from Scottish Executive have included views on the proper scope and timetabling of the review, the membership and terms of reference for the Commission's scientific expert groups, and the UK strategy for anticipating and handling proposals arising from the Commission's report, including effective stakeholder engagement and consultation.

  The Scottish Executive provided Defra with detailed submissions on the effectiveness of the Shetland Box during the negotiations leading to the reformed framework regulation of the Common Fisheries Policy. No further submissions have been provided.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) submissions and (b) representations she has made to the European Commission in relation to the review of access rules referred to in Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002. [184161]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]UK submitted written comments on the scope of the Article 19 review, made necessary analytical data available to the Commission and offered active co-operation in the establishment and membership of necessary scientific expert working groups.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether, in relation to the review of access rules referred to in Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002, she intends to seek to justify the continued existence of the Shetland Box in terms of conservation and sustainable exploitation objectives. [184162]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]Yes, the UK agrees that the Shetland Box access conditions should be strengthened and updated but considers the Shetland Box arrangement to be a vital protection for an important ecosystem—and also believes its continuation is also justified in other terms.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether, in relation to the review of access rules referred to in
  399W
  Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002, she intends to seek to justify the continued existence of the principle of relative stability in terms of conservation and sustainable exploitation objectives. [184163]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]No. The principle of relative stability is not being reviewed. Following working group discussions in 2003–04, it was agreed that the Article 19 review shall be limited to include the Shetland Box, the Plaice Box and certain access restrictions in the outermost territories of the Community.

  Air Freight (Food)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the(a) value and (b) quantity of food airfreighted into the United Kingdom between 1999 and 2003. [185174]

  Alun Michael
  An assessment of airfreighted food is being made as part of a wider study commissioned by the Department on the impact of food transportation. The report of the study of "The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development" will be published soon. I will write to the right hon. Member to inform him when the report is published.

  Ammonium Nitrate
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how often she meets industry representatives to discuss the manufacture and safe storage of ammonium nitrate fertiliser; and whether she has held such meetings since March. [184604]

  Alun Michael
  Officials from Defra and other key Government Departments have met industry representatives on a regular basis (weekly or more frequently), both before and since March, to discuss the manufacture and safe storage of ammonium nitrate fertiliser.

  Aviation Emissions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the carbon dioxide emissions from the aviation sector in each year since 1990; and what the projected figures are for each year to 2020. [184852]

  Mr. Morley
  Table A shows the estimated emissions of carbon dioxide from domestic and international flights departing from UK airports. The estimates are expressed in million tonnes of carbon per year (MtC/yr), for the period 1990–2002 as published in the latest UK Greenhouse gas inventory, released in April 2004.
  400W

  Table A: Emissions of CO2 from aviation, 1990–2002, MtC/yr

  Domestic

  International

  Total

  1990

  0.59

  4.03

  4.62

  1991

  0.58

  3.97

  4.55

  1992

  0.61

  4.40

  5.00

  1993

  0.62

  4.70

  5.32

  1994

  0.61

  4.89

  5.50

  1995

  0.65

  5.20

  5.85

  1996

  0.68

  5.54

  6.21

  1997

  0.70

  5.90

  6.60

  1998

  0.73

  6.60

  7.33

  1999

  0.75

  7.23

  7.98

  2000

  0.76

  8.02

  8.79

  2001

  0.80

  7.53

  8.33

  2002

  0.80

  7.34

  8.14

  Projected total emissions from aviation are published in the DfT's "Aviation and Global Warming" technical paper. Table B shows these data for the UK, also in MtC/yr.

  Table B: Total (international plus domestic) projected emissions for UK aviation emissions, MtC/yr

  Total emissions

  2010

  10.8

  2020

  14.9

  These projections are based on emissions from all flights departing the UK. Emissions projections for intervening years to 2020 are not available.

  British Beef
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost to the UK of France's ban on British beef; and what steps she has taken to recover such costs. [184006]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The value of beef exports from the UK to France in 1995 was £250 million. However a large proportion of this was in the form of carcase beef from Over Thirty Month cattle. Exports of such beef are not permitted under the EU rules of the Date-based Export Scheme (DBES). Trade would also have been affected by factors such as the exchange rate, consumer confidence in France and the need for any UK slaughterhouses wishing to export to be approved under the stringent requirements of the DBES.

  Compensation for losses resulting from the ban must be sought by those directly affected. It is not for the Government to seek compensation for damages to UK interests because it is not directly involved from a legal point of view. We would provide full support in terms of information and practical assistance to those who wish to seek compensation (although, as a matter of policy, we will not provide funding or detailed legal advice).

  Cetacean By-catch
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has received the results of this year's monitoring of cetacean by-catch; and if she will make a statement. [184227]
  401W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  As I explained in the written statement that I made earlier today on this subject, I have concluded, in the light of results from this season's monitoring of the UK element of the offshore bass fishery, that current levels of bycatch in the fishery as a whole may constitute a threat to the common dolphin population. In the course of this research conducted by the Sea Mammal Research Unit on our behalf, 169 dolphin casualties were observed. It has also become clear from our research that exclusion devices which previously showed some potential in reducing bycatch are not currently sufficiently developed to reduce bycatch to more acceptable levels in the immediate future.

  Community action to address this problem is needed. We will therefore be requesting that the European Commission introduce emergency measures to close the fishery while more permanent measures are developed. If the case for emergency action is not accepted then I will consider other options, including restricting the number of vessels allowed into the fishery and seeking a ban on pair trawling within 12 miles of the UK.

  CFCs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what quantities of CFC have been collected and safely destroyed under the licensed facilities operating in the UK under EU Regulation 2037/2000 on ozone depleting substances in each year since implementation of the regulations; and what percentage of potential CFCs available for recovery this represented in each year. [184557]

  Mr. Morley
  The information on CFCs is not held in the form requested. However, the following information is provided:

  Tonnes

  Recovery of ozone depleting substances (ODS) including CFCs

  Total ODS destroyed (including halon)

  2002

  387

  979

  2003

  494

  819

  In addition, a significant number of refrigerators leave the UK for treatment—418,000 in 2002 and 377,000 in 2003—and it will fall to the receiving EU state to recover the associated ODS, and report upon it.

  It is not possible to state the percentage of potential ODS available for recovery that the destroyed amounts represented. One of the key reasons for this is ODS loss during a product's service life.

  CITES
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what Regulatory Impact Assessment she has obtained for her review of charges for Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species licences and permits. [184713]
  402W
  Mr. Morley
  The Department issued a consultation on CITES charges on 1 April 2004. At this stage, a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) has been completed and was issued with the consultation documents to stakeholders.

  A partial RIA follows on from an initial RIA carried out at the first stages of policy development, it is informed by discussion, data gathering and informal consultations and in liaison with the Small Business Service.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the(a) cost to pet retailers of selling individual Hermann's tortoises and (b) cost to wholesalers importing large numbers of Hermann's tortoises as a consequence of the proposed charges for Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species licences and permits. [184714]

  Mr. Morley
  No specific assessment has been made within the regulatory impact assessment of the effects on pet retailers selling tortoises. However, the assessments made over a range of traders in CITES protected species assume that the additional costs will be passed on to the consumer and that costs will rise by the amount of the proposed increase in the fee levels.

  As a general practice wholesale importers apply for an import permit to cover a number of specimens of the same species and their costs will therefore be lower when apportioned between individual specimens.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the cost to UK breeders of Hermann's tortoises resulting from the proposed changes to charges for Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species licences and permits. [184715]

  Mr. Morley
  The partial Regulatory Impact Assessment developed for the consultation looked at a small sample of different businesses and how they might be affected by the proposed increases. UK breeders of Hermann's tortoises were not one of the businesses sampled.

  The final Regulatory Impact Assessment, which will accompany any legislation, will be developed in the light of the information given during the consultation period and any further analysis indicated will be carried out before a final decision on how to proceed with the question of charges for CITES licences and permits.

  Civil Service Relocation
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's plans to relocate jobs from London and the South East to Yorkshire. [185756]

  Alun Michael
  The Department's Spending Review settlement includes a commitment to relocating 390 posts out of London and the South East by 2007–08. The Department is currently reviewing which posts will be relocated and exactly where these will be located.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is towards the planned change in the European Common Fisheries Policy. [184261]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In line with the UK's negotiating objectives we agreed important and wide-ranging reforms to the Common Fisheries Policy in December 2002. The reformed CFP provides a strong framework for policies and decisions which are more environmentally and economically sustainable. It provides for a stronger regional dimension, better stakeholder involvement, and better integration of environmental concerns. We remain committed to building on this reform.

  Cormorants
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 20 May 2004,Official Report, column 1084, on cormorant predation, when she expects to announce extra measures to help fishery owners and angling clubs to deal with the problem of predation by cormorants. [182312]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are currently considering the extra measures we can put in place to help inland fisheries. I expect to be able to announce these before the seasonal influx of cormorants from coastal areas which takes place during the autumn.

  Curry Commission Report
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent progress has been made by the Government in response to each of the recommendations of the 2002 Curry Commission Report. [184764]

  Alun Michael
  The Government accepted 101 of the 105 recommendations in the report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. These are being taken forward through the Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food. However, the onus is not on Government alone to deliver these changes: many of the Commission's recommendations were targeted wholly or partly at industry, which has a pivotal part to play in this process.

  We are making good progress towards delivering the Strategy's objectives, most significantly through implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy reform agreement in June 2003. The deal will provide a more sustainable basis for European agriculture and reflect the wider environmental and rural development objectives which society seeks to achieve. The decoupling of payments will break the link between subsidy and production, so the farming industry will be free to react directly to market signals, not encouraged to follow the unsustainable production patterns of the past. CAP reform is expected to deliver significant economic benefits for the UK. These are estimated at between —400 million to —550 million a year at present exchange rates. The introduction of the Single Payment means that farmers will be freed from many of the bureaucratic rules associated with production linked subsidies and will have greater opportunity to
  404W
  restructure their businesses to best meet the needs of the market. We estimate that overall there will be an increase in farm incomes up to £150 million which represents around 5 per cent. of UK Total Income From Farming in 2003.

  Enhancing our environment is central to the vision set out in the Strategy. A new agri-environment scheme, Environmental Stewardship, is being introduced in England in 2005 and this includes the new Entry Level Stewardship (ELS). The ELS will be at the heart of improving farming's environmental performance. It will be open to applications from all farmers, enabling them to deliver what society wants: the sustainable management of our countryside as a whole.

  A series of initiatives in the food chain is designed to achieve a more efficient and competitive supply chain. These include the Food Chain Centre and English Farming and Food Partnerships, two industry bodies set up with Government support to increase competitiveness and encourage co-operation.

  The Government recognise the need for smarter regulation of agriculture, focusing on outcomes rather than processes in order to minimise burdens on the industry. We are working to join up regulatory requirements into a whole farm approach which will reduce bureaucracy. The Whole Farm Appraisal is one of the key initiatives being developed to assist the farming industry in streamlining regulation; this has been successfully piloted and will be launched in autumn 2005.

  Other initiatives being taken forward to deliver the Strategy include the establishment of a Non-Food Crops Centre to provide information and advice on non-food crop production; work on animal health and welfare, including the recent launch of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy; consultation on the goals and priorities for the Food and Health Action Plan under the "Choosing Diet" strand of the Department of Health's "Choosing Health?" consultation and delivery of a Learning Skills and Knowledge programme.

  The Government announced a sum of £500 million to implement the Strategy as part of the 2002 Spending Review, in addition to existing spending by Defra and other Government Departments which is already being used to deliver aspects of the Strategy. This sum covers a number of major aspects of the Strategy. These include the new Environmental Stewardship Scheme and the IT system to underpin all the England Rural Development Programme schemes; improvements in livestock traceability and other major animal health and welfare measures, and the new food chain initiatives.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of dairy farmers have shown profits in the last financial year; and if she will make a statement. [185231]

  Alun Michael
  The latest available data on farm incomes is for the 2002–3 farm accounting year from the Farm Business Survey. This survey covers around 2200 full time farm businesses in England, of which around a fifth are classified as dairy farms. Based on this survey data, the average net farm income of dairy farms in
  405W
  2002–was £8,300 and 80 per cent. of dairy farm businesses showed a positive net farm income. Net farm income is defined as the return to the farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and on the tenant type capital of the business. It does not include the cost of farmer and spouse labour.

  Dairy farm incomes are forecast to rise slightly in 2003–4, principally due to an increase in milk prices although higher feed prices during the latter part of the year offsets some of this increase.

  Departmental Buildings (Refurbishment)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost has been of refurbishments to the fabric of buildings owned by her Department since May 1997. [185940]

  Alun Michael
  Expenditure on fabric refurbishment each year since Defra was established was:

  £

  2000ߝ2001

  2,351,000

  2001ߝ2992

  850,000

  2002ߝ2003

  3,525,000

  2003ߝ2004

  2,464,799

  Eggs
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who represented the United Kingdom at the Council of Ministers meeting that decided to remove the derogation from marking for ungraded eggs. [184191]

  Alun Michael
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons) represented the UK at the meeting in question.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the United Kingdom voted against the decision of the Council of Ministers to remove the derogation from marking for ungraded eggs; and if she will make a statement. [184192]

  Alun Michael
  Throughout the negotiations, the UK opposed the Commission's proposal. At the Council of Ministers, we abstained and gave the following statement formally to record our position;"The United Kingdom has not felt able to support the proposal to require all eggs at local public markets to be marked. The Commission has produced no evidence demonstrating that there is actually a food safety or enforcement problem that needs to be addressed. The proposal is therefore likely to lead to unnecessary additional burdens on small-scale producers. A facultative provision, allowing those member states which do have concerns about local markets to take necessary action, would have been more appropriate."

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which member states(a) supported and (b) opposed the Council of Ministers' decision to remove the derogation from ungraded eggs. [184193]

  Alun Michael
  The UK abstained from voting but all other member states voted in favour.

  Emissions Trading Scheme
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of the carbon emissions reductions from the EU emissions trading scheme. [185758]

  Margaret Beckett
  The overall emissions reductions from the scheme will depend on the price of carbon, which in turn is dependent on the total number of allowances in the EU market. The number of allowances to be allocated by the UK in the first phase of the scheme (2005–2007) is based on the UK reducing carbon dioxide emissions below our Kyoto Protocol target and towards our domestic goal.

  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 energy wasted from inefficiencies, with particular reference to the environmental costs. [184581]

  Mr. Morley
  In January 2002, a Government Economic Service working paper "Estimating the Social Cost of Carbon Emissions" was published as a joint Defra-Treasury publication. The GES paper suggested £70 per tonne of carbon (within a range of £35 to £140/tC) as an illustrative estimate for the global damage cost of carbon emissions.

  The Government's recently published Energy Efficiency Action Plan identified target annual savings of 12.1 M tonnes of carbon by 2010. The corresponding total annual value of the reduced environmental damage is therefore around £850 M/y.

  Environmental Business Growth Action Programme
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the role of the Environment Agency is in the management of the Environmental Business Growth Action Programme, with particular reference to the west Midlands. [184147]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environmental Business Growth Action Programme is designed to assist small and medium enterprises to take advantage of the market for environmental goods and services. The Environment Agency is the accountable body for the programme, managing funds provided by Advantage West Midlands and the Government office for the west Midlands. The programme only operates in the west Midlands.

  Water Leakage
  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 water leakages and inefficient use of water, with particular reference to the environmental costs. [184584]

  Mr. Morley
  Water companies produce long-term (25 year) water resource plans to balance the supply and demand for water. These plans, which are reviewed annually and revised every five years, include economic leakage appraisals that form the basis of annual leakage targets. The plans are submitted to Ofwat and the Environment Agency for scrutiny as part of the business
  407W
  planning process and contain companies assessments of the relative costs and benefits of different options for balancing the supply and demand for water. The guidance for producing water resource plans requires water companies to take account of all costs and benefits, including environmental and social ones, in their assessments. The final mix of resource schemes, leakage reduction and demand management schemes chosen to balance supply and demand will be at the least cost to both customers and the environment.

  Flooding
  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 flooding, with particular reference to the environmental costs. [184585]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has undertaken a number of estimates of the national costs associated with flooding. The impact of flooding will vary from case to case. However, the national level estimates have shown that in most cases flood damage estimates are dominated by damage to residential, commercial and industrial property and its associated contents. Work to evaluate other impacts includes:recent research by the Flood Hazard Research search Centre (FHRC) at Middlesex University which suggested that emergency response costs are probably some 11 per cent. of physical damage costs;
  the FHRC also provides guidance on assessing the benefits to recreation of flood defence and coast protection works;

  Category

  Number of applications

  Number paid

  Value paid (£)

  Number unpaid

  Percentage unpaid

  Value unpaid(£)

  Bovine schemes

  256,533

  251,620

  365,086,982

  4.913

  1.92

  3,082,749

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme (SAPS)-closing date 31 March 2004

  26,851

  26,810

  113,055,712

  41

  0.15

  175,079

  Hill Farm Allowance-closing date 31 March 2004

  11,052

  9,646

  33,987,521

  201

  2.04

  2,258,310

  Arable Area Payments(AAPS)Main claims closing date 31 January 2004

  40,535

  40,048

  954,411,819

  405

  0.9

  40,535

  Non-food-closing date 31 March 2004

  4.427

  4,346

  20,417,026

  81

  1.82

  4.427

  All 2003 scheme year payment targets were met. The excellent payment performance of previous years was maintained on AAPS (main claims and SAPS and for the first time since the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) was created, the payment target was met for AAPS non food claims and all bovine schemes

  Flood Defence Projects
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's total spending was in each of the last three years on flood defence projects. [184944]

  Mr. Morley
  In the years under consideration, Defra provided grant aid as a percentage of eligible costs to the flood and coastal defence operating authorities the Environment Agency (EA), local authorities and internal drainage boards—to assist with improvement works and studies to manage flood and coastal erosion risk. Grant aid was also made to the EA to assist towards the cost of national initiatives (such as the national flood and coastal defence database, flood warning public awareness and catchment flood 408W
  research lead by Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd. has identified the average value of health and stress due to flooding at £200 per household per year for those in high risk areas.

  There have been many studies of the value of other environmental impacts, including a current study by the University of East Anglia that will report in 2005 on the functional value of wetlands. Current Defra guidance suggests that appropriate water level management for wetlands can have a benefit of between £175 and £300 per hectare per year. In the latest national assessments these figures were used to quantify environmental benefits from increased flooding of some lower grade agricultural land.

  The above are included in current Defra guidance to operating authorities for project appraisal purposes.

  Farm Payments
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications for each category of farm payments, and of what value, were due to have been paid by 30 June but have not yet been paid; and if she will make a statement. [184939]

  Alun Michael
  The only category of farm payments due to be paid by 30 June are those for the 2003 bovine schemes. The following table shows the number of applications, the number paid, the value paid, the number unpaid and the value unpaid for each category of farm payment. For completeness the same data is also shown for the other categories of 2003 farm based schemes at the regulatory closing date for payments.

  management plans) and in 2001–02 exceptional funding was provided to the EA following the floods of autumn 2000 for repair works and feasibility and design costs for accelerated river defences.

  Grant aid (including Supplementary Credit Approval for local authorities) was £90 million in 2001–02, £120 million in 2002–03 and £127 million in 2003–04. These figures include funding for projects to protect against coastal erosion but many of these also provide significant benefits in terms of reducing risk of flooding from the sea.

  Further Government support was provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's local government funding system. This supported, among other things, levies paid by local authorities to the EA which funded the balance of the cost of EA improvement projects after Defra grant.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department is taking to ensure that all timber purchased for flood defences comes from legal and sustainable sources. [184945]
  409W
  Mr. Morley
  While Defra has overall policy responsibility for flood and coastal erosion risk in England, we do not build defences, nor do we have any power to direct the operating authorities' choice of materials for their projects. However, we have provided guidance to operating authorities since the mid-1990s.

  In 1994, the Chief Engineer of the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a predecessor of this Department, wrote to maritime district councils to encourage them to consider the use of alternative materials and to procure timber from well-managed and sustainable sources.

  In 2000, the then Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, announced that Government Departments and agencies, including the Environment Agency, must

  UK fruit production and supply

  Quantity (Thousand tonnes)

  Value (£ million)

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2001

  2002

  2003

  UK production

  330

  290

  242

  238

  253

  281

  Imports

  2,868

  2,988

  2,979

  1,482

  1,612

  1,712

  Exports1

  73

  69

  78

  41

  47

  48

  Total supply2

  3,125

  3,209

  3,143

  1,679

  1,818

  1,945

  Production as percentage of total supply

  11

  9

  8

  14

  14

  14

  1Exports includes imported fruit subsequently re-exported.

  UK production plus imports less exports.

  customs and Excise overseas trade information does not distinguish exports of fruit produced in the UK from re-exports of imported fruit. Also food consumption survey data does not distinguish UK and imported produce. This makes it difficult to provide accurate information on consumption of UK produced fruit. Therefore information has been presented to show the proportion of the total supply of fruit in the UK that is represented by UK production.

  The main fruits produced on a commercial scale in the UK include apples (where the production as a percentage of total supply was 21 per cent. by quantity in 2003), pears (20 per cent.), strawberries (53 per cent.) and raspberries (63 per cent.).

  For other fruits, for example oranges, bananas, peaches, nectarines, grapes, and pineapples, the UK is virtually entirely dependent on imports.

  Fuel Poverty
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress in eradicating fuel poverty. [185763]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's Second Annual Progress Report highlighted the progress made in tackling fuel poverty. The outlook is encouraging. In 2002 it is estimated there was a drop in the number of fuel poor households in the UK to around 2½ million, from 3 million in 2001. We remain committed to tackling the issue of fuel poverty.
  410W
  actively seek to procure timber and timber products from sources independently validated as legal and sustainably managed.

  In 2002, Mr. Meacher wrote to all English local authorities to encourage them to adopt responsible timber procurement policies.

  Fruit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the proportion by(a) value and (b) quantity of fruit consumed in the UK that was produced in the UK in each of the last three years for which records are available. [185173]

  Alun Michael
  The following table provides details of the quantity and value of UK fruit production and supply.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the activities of the Green Minister in the Department in financial year 2003–04. [185112]

  Mr. Morley
  My noble Friend, the Lord Whitty, is Defra's Green Minister and in this role is a Member of the Ministerial Sub-Committee of Green Ministers. I chair the Sub-Committee. However, it has been established practice under successive Governments not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

  Sustainable development is the overarching aim of Defra. Therefore, the work of all Defra's ministers, including the Green Minister, contributes to this aim. Consequently, it is not possible to separate the role of the Green Minister from Lord Whitty's other work in the financial year 2003–04.

  Important pieces of work that Lord Whitty has been involved with over the last year include publication of a UK Framework for Sustainable Consumption and Production in conjunction with the DTI, the Sustainable Food and Farming Strategy, the UK initiative on developing a global Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership and agreement on several chapters of the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. Lord Whitty also represented Defra on the Ministerial Group for Implementation of the Energy White Paper and covers energy efficiency and fuel poverty.

  Greenhouse Gases
  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 greenhouse gas emissions, with particular reference to the environmental costs. [184580]

  Mr. Morley
  A Government Economic Service working paper "Estimating the Social Cost of Carbon Emissions" was published as a joint Defra-Treasury publication, and this contains estimates of the external costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions. This paper is available on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/carboncost/index.htm along with other papers describing the Government's work on the social cost of carbon.

  Hazardous Waste
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the amount of hazardous waste produced in 2003–04, broken down by(a) quantity and (b) type. [183813]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 July 2004]None. Data on hazardous waste (as consigned special waste) are reported by calendar year. That for 2003 is currently being processed by the Environment Agency and is expected to be available in September.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Northampton have benefited from the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. [184840],

  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 873 households in Northampton received assistance from the Scheme.

  Departmental Housing
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for how many empty houses her Department is responsible; and if she will make a statement. 1182155]

  Alun Michael
  The Department is currently responsible for three empty houses. Our agents have been instructed to dispose of them by sale on the open market.

  Kite Flying
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance her Department issues to(a) local authorities and (b) others relating to the banning of kite flying in certain public places. [184120]

  Alun Michael
  Our guidance notes on the procedures for making byelaws explain how to ban kite flying in the countryside. There is additional guidance in "Managing Coastal Activities: A Guide for Local Authorities". Both of these documents can be found on the Defra website. Hard copies of the general guidance may be 412W
  obtained by writing to Defra's countryside recreation branch, Zone 1/03, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol, BS1 6EB. The guidance on coastal activities is available from Defra Publications, Admail 6000, London, SW1A 2XX, Tel: 08459 556000.

  There are occasions, particularly in relation to public safety, when byelaws are the only answer to managing recreational activities; we encourage local authorities and others to look first at other solutions. Schemes for self-regulation can enable the public to continue to enjoy as wide a range of activities as possible.

  Landfill
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much hazardous waste has been disposed of to landfill in each year since 1997. [183828]

  Mr. Morley
  Data for the fate of consigned special waste have been collated centrally by the Environment Agency from 1998 to 2002 and are as follows; 2003 data are in preparation.

  Special waste consigned to landfill disposal for the years:

  Million tonnes

  1998–99 (combined)

  2.3

  2000

  2.1

  2001

  2.3

  2002

  2.0

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where funds diverted to the Treasury from the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme since 2003 have been spent, broken down by(a) region and (b) project. [184643]

  Mr. Morley
  As part of the reform of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme approximately £84/92/92 million has been allocated to sustainable waste management in England £100/110/110 million to the UK as a whole) for the financial years 2003–04,2004–05 and 2005–06. A new public expenditure programme, delivered jointly by Defra and the Waste and Resources Action Programme, has been established for England. The new Waste Implementation Programme is designed to accelerate progress towards meeting the landfill directive targets.

  The Waste Implementation Programme is taking forward a package of strategic measures recommended by the Strategy Unit in "Waste Not Want Not", published in November 2002. Key areas of action so far (including indicative three-year funding allocations) include the following:

  £million

  Project

  Budget allocation

  Four programmes for waste minimisation

  40

  Kerbside taskforce to help local authorities maximise potential for kerbside collection of recyclables and to boost the recycling of organic materials

  15

  Programme for education and awareness

  30

  Two programmes for data and research

  22

  Programme of development of new technologies,

  37

  413W

  £ million

  Project

  Budget allocation

  including pilots Programmes designed to help local authorities with their recycling strategies, and ensure they are offered targeted assistance

  10

  In addition to these programmes, the Waste Implementation Programme contributed £29 million in 2003–04 and 2004–05 to boost Defra's Waste Minimisation and Recycling ("Challenge") Fund. This fund provides project-based funding to local authorities to enable them to roll out high-quality recycling and home composting schemes in their area.

  The Waste Implementation Programme has also provided £20 million in targeted grants to local authorities in 2004–05. This grant is designed to reduce the pressure faced by councils to fund services such as waste management through increases in council tax.

  Milk
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to what factors does she attributes the difference in gross payments per litre of milk produced in the UK compared with prices in(a) France (b) Germany and (c) other EU member states. [184730]

  Alun Michael
  As has been stated in response to parliamentary questions on a number of occasions, KPMG's report, "Prices and Profitablitily in the GB Supply Chain", concluded that low farmgate prices in the UK were largely due to the structure of the UK industry, the low value of the product mix and the low level of product innovation within the UK compared with some member states.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what checks are carried out on the quality of milk imported(a) from (i) new and (ii) longer-standing, members of the EU and (b) from elsewhere; and if she will make a statement. [185228]

  Alun Michael
  All milk imported into the UK from other EU member states must have been produced in accordance with the Community rules laid down in Council Directive 92/46/EEC. All milk and milk products placed on the market in the EU must conform to the requirements of that Directive irrespective of

  UK imports of liquid milk 1999–2003

  Thousand litres

  Country

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Grand Total

  Irish Republic

  60,342

  60,199

  54,835

  26,233

  19,495

  221,105

  Denmark

  30,334

  25,166

  9,421

  795

  425

  66,140

  Germany

  17,078

  19,531

  11,196

  5,629

  3,888

  57,323

  France

  13,288

  8,514

  9,667

  10,299

  8,600

  50,368

  Belgium

  6,786

  6,922

  3,811

  2,345

  3,759

  23,624

  Netherlands

  3,620

  462

  919

  2,198

  1,027

  8,227

  Austria

  2,844

  1,355

  —

  —

  —

  4,200

  414W
  whether they originate from new or existing member states. Community rules permit random spot checks at destination on milk imported into the UK from other EU member states. Plants in the new member states which could not meet the requirements of Directive 92/46/EEC on accession were granted transitional status and allowed to place products on their domestic market for a limited period as long as they bore a special health mark which identified them as being only for the domestic market.

  The above Directive lays down the hygiene rules which apply to the production wrapping, storage and transportation of milk to ensure human and animal health are protected.

  Ensuring that all member states comply with their Community obligations in properly implementing and applying the Directive is the responsibility of the European Commission, whose Food and Veterinary Office carries out regular programmes of inspection visits to all member slates. All milk imported into the UK from third countries must come from EU approved establishments in approved countries and must be accompanied by appropriate animal and public health certification signed by a veterinarian of the competent authority. The milk must enter via an approved Border Inspection Post (BIP) where it is subject to veterinary inspection to ensure that conditions of import have been complied with and to ensure that it has remained in a satisfactory condition during transport. The checks ensure that all the required documentation is correct and applies to the consignment in question. 50 per cent. of consignments of milk imported for human consumption are also given a physical check which can include taking samples for laboratory analysis.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many litres of imported milk have been rejected in the last five years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [185229]

  Alun Michael
  There are no figures available on the amount of milk imported into the UK that has been rejected.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much milk has been imported in the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by country of origin; and if she will make a statement. [185230]

  Alun Michael
  The table below show the UK imports of liquid milk in each of the last five years to 2003, broken down by country of despatch.
  415W

  UK imports of liquid milk 1999–2003

  Thousand litres

  Country

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Grand Total

  Italy

  114

  91

  101

  70

  590

  Portugal

  —

  0

  —

  —

  40

  40

  Spain

  23

  14

  —

  —

  —

  37

  Sweden

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  EU 15 Total

  134,431

  122,378

  89,940

  47,600

  37,303

  431,653

  Source:

  H M Customs and Excise.

  Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities and Food) Consultancy, Trade and IT, ESD, DEFRA.

  Note:

  2003 data one provisional and subject to amendment

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will provide figures for(a) UK imports, (b) exports, (c) production, (d) domestic use and (e) self-sufficiency of major milk products for (i) 2002, (ii) 2003 and (iii) 2004 (estimated). [184815]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested is given in the following table. Care is needed when interpreting forecasts for 2004 as only a small proportion of data for 2004 are so far available and market developments from now until the end of the year remain uncertain.

  UK milk products: Production and supplies of milk products manufactured by both dairy companies and on farm

  Thousand tonne (unless otherwise specified)

  2002

  2003(provisional)

  2004 (forecast)

  Butter (a) (b)

  Production (c)

  136

  148

  152

  Imports

  116

  118

  122

  Exports

  39

  44

  41

  Total new supply (d)

  213

  222

  233

  Increase in stocks (e)

  1

  -2

  -2

  Total domestic uses (d) (e)

  212

  224

  234

  Production as percentage of total new supply for use in UK

  64

  67

  65

  Closing stocks (e)

  19

  17

  15

  Cheese

  Production (c)

  380

  362

  370

  Imports

  285

  320

  318

  Exports

  82

  90

  100

  Total new supply

  583

  593

  588

  Increase in stocks

  -3

  -5

  4

  Total domestic uses

  585

  598

  584

  Production as percentage of total new supply for use in UK

  65

  61

  63

  Closing stocks (f)

  12

  7

  0

  Policies (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many new policy proposals or significant changes in policy were produced by her Department 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. [185108]

  Mr. Morley
  All Defra's new policy proposals or changes in policy which were likely to have a direct or indirect impact (whether benefits or cost) on business, charities and the voluntary sector were the subject of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs). In accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, these were required to 416W
  include the full range of potential impacts on all stakeholders, including environmental impacts where relevant. Separate environmental appraisals were not required. All completed RIAs were published on Defra's website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ria/ default.htm.

  In 2002–03, 26 RIAs were published on Defra's website. Of these nine included consideration of environmental impacts. However in the other 17 the policy assessed was considered not to have significant environmental impacts, indicating that environmental appraisal would not have been necessary. This is in accordance with departmental guidance. In 2003–041,41 RIAs were published on Defra's website, and 21 included consideration of environmental impacts. A further 18 were considered not to have significant environmental impacts.

  1http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/economics/appraisal/ index. htm

  Polish Fishing Fleet
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has had discussions with representatives of the Polish Government on arrangements for access to Polish fishing vessels to British waters. [184816]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No. Poland has no access to the 6–12 mile zone from the UK's shoreline. And whilst the principle of free access in the Community's Exclusive Economic Zone from 12 to 200 miles offshore applies to all member states the only access Poland has to any quota stocks where the UK has an interest is limited to 1096t of mackerel in western Community waters, out of a total allowable catch of 545,500t.

  Polish Milk Products
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate(a) the change in volumes of (a) milk and (b) milk products from Poland since its accession to the European Union on 1 May and (b) full year imports in 2005. [184720]

  Alun Michael
  Post-accession trade figures are not yet available and insufficient time has elapsed since accession to enable reliable yearly forecasts to be made. There were no imports of milk or milk products into the UK from Poland in 2003 or during the first quarter of 2004.

  Post-consumer Paper Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much post-consumer paper waste was produced in the UK in each of the last three years; what percentage of post-consumer paper waste was collected for recycling in the UK in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003; and what the projected annual percentages are for the collection of post-consumer paper waste for recycling in the UK for the next five years. [184949]

  Mr. Morley
  Estimates from the Confederation of Paper Industries give UK recovered paper usage. The results and corresponding percentages produced from total paper production are listed in the following table.

  Recovered paper usage (thousands tones)

  Percentage of UK production

  2001

  4,612

  74

  2002

  4,610

  74

  2003

  4,533

  73

  No official projections of post-consumer waste recycling for the UK are available.

  Quality Status (Yorkshire)
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) parish and (b) town councils have been awarded quality status in (i) Barnsley, (ii) Doncaster and (iii) South Yorkshire. [184110]

  Alun Michael
  There are a number of challenging criteria that town and parish councils have to pass in order to gain Quality Status. One criteria is that the clerk needs to be qualified in the Certificate in Local Council Administration. In addition there are other criteria such as democratic accountability, communications and audited accounts.

  To date nationally there are 55 town and parish councils that have gained Quality Status and there are 500 clerks registered for the Certificate in Local Council Administration.

  The Yorkshire and Humber Training Partnership has held 12 training events with 400 delegates attending. In addition the Countryside Agency has sponsored an event which was attended by a further 160 delegates.

  The Yorkshire and Humber Training Partnership have received 40 registrations from clerks that are working towards the Certificate in Local Council Administration. An additional 40 are also working towards the qualification but have not yet registered. We anticipate that there will be 80 town and parish councils in this region applying for Quality Status in the coming 12 months

  No applications for Quality status have yet been received from parish councils or town councils in Barnsley, Doncaster or South Yorkshire.

  Radiation Risks
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the 418W
  dates were of the meetings reported on the web-site of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters; [185119]

  (2) what the origin was of the dosimetric data used in investigating the radiological significance of increases in leukaemia among children aged up to one year in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1 July 1986 and 31 December 198 7 by the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters. [185118]

  Mr. Morley
  The CERRIE Secretariat has informed me that the committee held 16 meetings on the following dates

  4 December 2001;

  7 February 2002;

  20 March 2002;

  6 June 2002;

  8 August 2002;

  1 October 2002;

  11 December 2002;

  27 February 2003;

  30 April 2003;

  26 June 2003;

  22 October 2003;

  16 December 2003;

  24 February 2004;

  31 March 2004;

  19 May 2004; and

  24 June 2004.

  The Committee also convened a workshop on 21, 22 and 23 July 2003, which all Members attended.

  The Department has not yet received the final version of the CERRIE report, which is still in preparation. It would not be appropriate to comment on the report until the Committee has finalised it and presented it to its parent body, COMARE, and to Ministers. I understand the report is expected to be published in October this year.

  Ragwort
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department will ask local authorities to publish their ragwort control policies; and if she will make a statement. [186075]

  Alun Michael
  The Code of Practice on control of Ragwort that I published recently set out what needs to be done by all land managers including local authorities to prevent the spread of Ragwort. It recommends that where a medium or high risk to animal welfare from ragwort has been identified, land managers, including those with responsibility for public land, should put in place and implement a control policy.

  It is for individual local authorities to decide their control policy and to decide whether to make their control policy publicly available.

  Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what
  419W
  discussions she has had with farmers on the effects on them of a renewable transport fuel obligation; and if she will make a statement. [185213]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has had a number of discussions with farmers and farming industry representatives on the effect of the renewable transport fuel obligation on farmers. In addition, we have received a large number of letters and petitions from farmers supporting the obligation.

  The Department for Transport is currently considering the response to its consultation on the implementation of the EU Biofuels Directive, including the option of a renewable transport fuel obligation. The Government has included permissive clauses in the Energy Bill that would allow the Secretary of State to introduce such an obligation. The Government would consult extensively on the detail with all relevant stakeholders, including the farming community, if an obligation is assessed to be the best way forward.

  We recognise that transport biofuels have potential for UK agriculture and we are keen to develop new market opportunities for farmers.

  Slaughterhouses
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animal welfare personnel there are it slaughterhouses; how many animals have been slaughtered without animal welfare personnel present for each year from 1994 to date; and if she will make a statement. [184845]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Under the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, a slaughterhouse occupier must ensure that a competent person is available whenever there are live animals on the premises. This person must have the authority to take whatever action may be necessary to safeguard the welfare of the animals in accordance with the Regulations. The legislation is enforced by Official Veterinary Surgeons of the Meat Hygiene Service in licensed slaughterhouses, and by Veterinary Officers of the State Veterinary Service elsewhere.

  The Regulations do not require the competent person to be physically present at the point of slaughter when animals are being slaughtered or killed. Therefore, there is no data on the number of livestock slaughtered without animal welfare personnel present.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants in her Department announced in the comprehensive spending review will be of special advisers. [185463]

  Alun Michael
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 20 July 2004,Official Report, column 190W.

  Stewardship Applications
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many stewardship applications have been made in the last 420W
  (a) quarter, (b) half-year and (c) year for which figures are available, broken down by county; and if she will make a statement. [185211]

  Alun Michael
  There is an annual application period for the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. 2,056 applications were received during the period, which closed on 31 March 2004. This total includes applications for the renewal of agreements coming to an end in 2004. A breakdown by county is not currently available.

  Timber
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice will be given to non-departmental public bodies regarding the use of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber. [184942]

  Mr. Morley
  Central Government departments are responsible for communicating Government policy and related information to the non-departmental public bodies they sponsor. I expect whatever information on a central point of expertise on timber (CPET) is communicated to central departments to be passed on by those departments to the bodies they sponsor if those bodies purchase timber or products made from timber.

  The CPET Phase 1 contract will result in revised guidance being issued to central departments. This contract is expected to be completed in September 2004.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans there are to make the services of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber available to local authorities. [184943]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's plan is that all UK public sector bodies and their suppliers will have access to guidance published by the Central Point of Expertise on Timber Procurement (CPET). Furthermore, plans are being formulated for the CPET to operate a help line service that would be available to all UK public sector bodies. Implementation of these plans has cost implications that will be subject to resource availability and this will be reviewed in the autumn of 2004.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance will be produced by the Central Point of Expertise on Timber; how it will be distributed to Government departments; and if she will make a statement. [184951]

  Mr. Morley
  The Central Point of Expertise on Timber Phase 1 is:(a) reviewing existing guidance to establish robust contract definitions for legal and sustainable timber; (b) devising a methodology for assessing whether individual certification schemes meet UK Government requirements for identifying legal and sustainable timber and (c) undertaking such assessments for five certification schemes. This work will result in revised guidance that will be communicated by email to heads of procurement and environmental managers in central Government departments, to the devolved administrations and to the Improvement Development Agency. In addition the revised guidance will be published on a CPET web site that will be

  421W
  publicised by a press release. Future phases of the CPET service will build on this work and it is expected that a similar communication strategy will be adopted.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance will be issued to Government departments regarding the use of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber. [184952]

  Mr. Morley
  Central Government departments will be advised to apply guidance published under the name of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber (CPET) when they identify a need to procure timber or products derived from timber and to follow that guidance throughout the procurement process. When the CPET is operating a help line service departments will be advised to use that service whenever they or their suppliers encounter difficulties acquiring their timber and timber products from legal and sustainable sources or are in any doubt over claims made by suppliers in that respect. Departments will also be advised to avail themselves of any other services that the CPET may provide, including, for example, training workshops for procurement personnel.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her plans are for phase two of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber; how it will be funded; and over what time period it will run. [184953]

  Mr. Morley
  Building on the foundations laid through Phase 1 of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber (CPET), the Government plan to commission further services as follows:Assessment of certification scheme bodies not covered by CPET Phase 1;
  Development of criteria to evaluate the suitability of suppliers assurance that is not based on certification schemes and provision of guidance for procurement officers, facilities managers, estate managers, architects and suppliers;
  Consultations with certification scheme bodies and other key stakeholders on the application of the CPET service and its effect on their operations;

  Household waste Tonnes (Thousand)

  Kilogrammes (Per head)

  Landfilled (Percentage)

  Incinerated (Percentage)

  Other (Percentage)

  2001–02

  North East

  1,313

  521

  78

  16

  7

  North West

  3,846

  568

  86

  2

  11

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  2,516

  506

  84

  4

  12

  East Midlands

  2,183

  522

  77

  6

  16

  West Midlands

  2,664

  504

  57

  32

  12

  East

  2,809

  520

  80

  1

  18

  London

  3,411

  467

  73

  20

  8

  South East

  4,227

  527

  79

  0

  21

  South West

  2,584

  523

  81

  0

  19

  England

  25,554

  583

  77

  9

  14

  2002–03

  North East

  1,376

  548

  76

  14

  10

  North West

  3,935

  581

  84

  3

  14

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  2,525

  506

  79

  7

  14

  East Midlands

  2,214

  525

  77

  6

  17

  422W
  Provision of guidance, training and education for heads of procurement, buyers and specifiers, e.g. through the website, workshops, voluntary audits and a helpline;

  Raising awareness throughout the supply chain.

  Whether all the services outlined above would be covered by CPET Phase 2 has yet to be decided. That decision will depend on resource availability. The CPET is a new concept and investment has to be soundly based. The full CPET service is being created in phases so that experience gained can be applied to future development. The detailed plans and resource allocation for Phase 2 will be considered in the autumn of 2004 with a decision expected by the end of November 2004. The resource implications of expanding the CPET client base beyond central Government buyers will need careful consideration. The extent to which a CPET could generate income from fees, sponsorship and other commercial activities is one of a number of options that will be investigated.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated costs are of(a) establishing and (b) running for the first 12 months the Central Point of Expertise on Timber. [184957]

  Mr. Morley
  To establish the Central Point of Expertise on Timber Procurement to operate a wide range of services as originally envisaged and run those services for a year is estimated to cost in the region of £300,000 in total.

  Waste Disposal
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total volume of(a) domestic, (b) commercial and (c) other waste was in each region in each year since 2001–02; what this represents (i) per head of population and (ii) broken down by the proportion of waste (A) sent to landfill, (B) incinerated and (C) disposed of by other means. [184860]

  Mr. Morley
  Infonnation on domestic waste from the Defra Municipal Waste Management Survey for 2001–02 and 2002–03, split by Government region is shown as follows:
  423W

  Household waste Tonnes (Thousand)

  Kilogrammes (Per head)

  Landfilled (Percentage)

  Incinerated (Percentage)

  Other (Percentage)

  West Midlands

  2,694

  508

  54

  32

  14

  East

  2,820

  520

  79

  1

  20

  London

  3,379

  459

  71

  20

  9

  South East

  4,249

  529

  76

  0

  23

  South West

  2,625

  529

  78

  0

  22

  England

  25,819

  521

  75

  9

  16

  Notes:

  Totals and percentages might not add up due to founding.

  Household disposal methods estimated from published municipal totals.

  The latest year for which full information on industrial and commercial waste is available is 1998–99, from the Environment Agency's National Waste Production Survey, Strategic Waste Management Information for England and Wales. Results can be found at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk

  Information on construction and demolition waste is available from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Survey of Arisings and Use of Construction and Demolition Waste in England and Wales in 2001, published in October 2002. Results can be found at: www.odpm.gov.uk

  Average monthly cost in 2003–04

  £

  Company

  Water Measured

  Sewerage Unmeasured

  Total

  Measured

  Unmeasured

  Total

  Anglian

  8

  11

  10

  11

  16

  13

  Dwr Cymru

  7

  11

  10

  7

  14

  13

  United Utilities

  9

  10

  10

  9

  11

  10

  Northumbrian/Essex and Suffolk

  7

  9

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbrian

  6

  8

  8

  9

  10

  10

  Essex and Suffolk

  7

  11

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Severn Trent

  8

  10

  9

  8

  9

  8

  South West

  8

  12

  10

  13

  23

  18

  Southern

  7

  8

  8

  11

  14

  13

  Thames

  8

  9

  9

  8

  8

  8

  Wessex

  8

  11

  10

  10

  13

  12

  Yorkshire/York

  8

  10

  9

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  8

  10

  9

  8

  10

  10

  York

  6

  8

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Bournemouth and W. Hampshire

  7

  9

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Bristol

  8

  9

  9

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridge

  7

  8

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Cholderton

  15

  12

  12

  —

  —

  —

  Dee Valley

  6

  10

  9

  —

  —

  —

  Folkestone and Dover

  9

  13

  11

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Kent

  9

  11

  11

  —

  —

  —

  Portsmouth

  7

  6

  6

  —

  —

  —

  South East

  9

  11

  10

  —

  —

  —

  South Staffs

  7

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Sutton and East Surrey

  9

  11

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Tendring Hundred

  11

  16

  13

  —

  —

  —

  Three Valleys/North Surrey

  8

  10

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Three Valleys

  8

  10

  10

  —

  —

  —

  North Surrey

  8

  10

  9

  —

  —

  —

  Industry average

  8

  10

  9

  10

  11

  10

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average monthly cost to consumers is of(a) water services and (b) sewerage services in each water supply area (i) in total and (ii) broken down by those who were (A) metered and (b) unmetered in 2003–04. [184861]

  Mr. Morley
  Water bills and sewerage bills are set separately by each water and sewerage company and water company in England and Wales.

  The average monthly costs to household consumers of water and sewerage services in each supply area in total and broken down into metered and unmetered customers in 2003–04 are set out in the following table.
  425W
  Level of average bills for 2003–04 are based on estimated data provided by each company.

  Wheat
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the price of wheat. [185141]

  Alun Michael
  Wheat prices rose sharply last year as a response to the lower than expected harvest in central and southern Europe, but have since fallen to more normal levels in response to the gradual improvement in the supply situation and forecasts for the level of the harvest in 2004. In this immediate pre-harvest period, there is a certain amount of price volatility as old stocks are run down and the trade waits for more certainty about the availability and quality of the new harvest. Quotes for feed wheat currently range from £88.50-tonne spot July to £65.50-tonne at harvest.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Appeals Service (Liverpool)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for changes to the Appeals Service office in Liverpool. [185121]

  Mr. Pond
  This is a matter for Christina Townsend, Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Christina Townsend to Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, dated 22 July 2004:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question regarding planned changes to the Appeals Service in Liverpool.

  The Appeals Service is currently considering a number of proposals about its current organisation.

  No decisions have yet been made on how many operating sites the Appeals Service will have in the future. However, agreement has been reached with the Pensions Service to take over their Burnley site which it is planned will be a future operating centre.

  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Automated Payments
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how many occasions in the last year automated payments of benefits and pensions have been delayed; for how long payments were delayed; and what recompense was offered to recipients for the delay.[185673]

  Mr. Pond
  There have been four occasions in the last year when automated payments of benefits have been paid late to DWP customers. Some disability living allowance customers received their payment two banking days late on one occasion, and one banking day late on another. The other occasions delayed payments to some jobseeker's allowance customers and income support customers by one banking day. Departmental policy provides a scheme for financial redress for maladministration. This scheme is available to consider ex-gratia payments for customers who face financial inconvenience or distress because of late payments. This is dependent on the individual circumstances of the case.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average weekly amount of(a) housing benefit fraud and (b) council tax benefit fraud was (i) in total and (ii) for each local authority, detected under the Security Against Fraud and Error scheme in 2002–03. [183167]

  Mr. Pond
  For local authorities, the Weekly Benefit Saving (WBS) scheme was replaced by the Security Against Fraud and Error (SAFE) scheme on 1 April 2002. Unlike WBS which recorded fraud only, the SAFE scheme records fraud and error.

  The average weekly amount of housing benefit fraud and error detected under the SAFE scheme for 2002–03 was £52.52 and the average weekly amount of council tax benefit fraud and error detected under the SAFE scheme for 2002–03 was £11.97.

  The available information about the average weekly amount of housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud and error for local authorities has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many calls were received by the National Benefit Fraud Hotline in 2003–04; and how many(a) investigations, (b) prosecutions and (c) convictions resulted. [184683]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the table.

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline

  April 2003 to March 2004

  Total

  Number of calls received

  211,054

  Investigations

  44,127

  Prosecutions

  672

  Convictions

  619

  Note:

  Some convictions may relate to prosecutions from previous years.

  Source:

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline and Fraud Information by Sector system

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of benefit fraud were detected in 2003–04; and how many of these resulted in(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions. [184684]

  Mr. Pond
  The number of cases of benefit fraud detected is not available. The number of cases resulting in prosecution and cases resulting in conviction is in the table.

  2003–04

  DWP

  Local authorities

  Prosecution

  9,204

  4,601

  Convictions

  9,091

  3,747

  Note:

  Some convictions may nlate to prosecutions from previous years.

  Sources:

  1. DWP—Fraud Information by Sector and National Investigation Service.

  2. Local authorities—loxal authority subsidy claim forms.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the(a) operational and (b) advertising costs of the National Benefit Fraud Hotline in 2003–04. [184685]
  427W
  Mr. Pond
  The operational cost of the National Benefit Fraud Hotline in 2003–04 was £1,038,505. The cost of advertising is not separately assessed.

  Notes:

  1. Since the Targeting Benefit Fraud advenising campaign started in 2003, the NBFH has been included in the campaign advertising and has not been the subject of its own advertising.

  2. Operational costs include staffing and goods and service costs.

  3. The operational costs of administering the NBFH include the costs of administering report-a-cheat-online. These costs cannot be separated.

  Source:

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline (NBFH)

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the recorded benefit fraud savings for(a) his Department and (b) local authorities were in 2003–04. [184686]

  Mr. Pond
  The available information is in the table.

  For local authorities, the Weekly Benefit Savings (WBS) scheme was replaced by the Security against Fraud and Error (SAFE) scheme in April 2002, with some local authorities joining in April 2001. Like WBS, the SAFE scheme provides rewards for detected overpayments. However, it provides rewards for the detection of both fraud and claimant error overpayments and it is not possible to identify fraud overpayments separately.

  Monetary Value Adjustments (MVA) by DWP in 2003–04

  MVA(£)

  2003–04

  14,588,905

  Notes:

  1. MVA is the difference between the weakly amount of benefit, which would have been paid or would have continued to be paid and the benefit paid following the decision maker's decision on the information gathered. It includes both increases and decreases.

  2. The figure includes Instrument of Payment (I0P) adjustments

  3. The figure includes adjustments in addition to those attributable to fraud as it is not possible to separate them out.

  Source:

  Fraud Information by Sector and Genen,1 Matching Service.

  Benefit Payment Arrangements
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners received benefit payments by order book on the latest date for which figures are available; and by what date he expects all pensioners to have transferred to the new system. [175928]

  Mr. Pond
  There were 5,270,170 order book accounts held by pensioners, live and in payment from the latest data available at 17 April 2004. Payments due from March 2005 will be made by a different method of payment.

  Benefit Processing Centres
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list the locations, broken down by parliamentary constituencies, of all the offices identified in his announcement on 29 June relating to the centralisation of benefit processing centres; [184335]
  428W
  (2) if he will list the locations, broken down by parliamentary constituencies, of each of the proposed benefit processing centres referred to in his announcement on 29 June; and within what timescale decisions on the locations of the remaining benefit processing centres will be made; [184336]

  (3) what the proposed timescale is for carrying out the centralisation of benefit processing referred to in his announcement on 29 June. [184337]

  Maria Eagle
  The offices impacted by the announcement on 29 June were the ten pension centres referred to in the following table, together with details of the constituency in which each is located:

  Office

  Constituency

  Burnley Pension Centre

  Burnley

  Derby Pension Centre

  Derby South

  Liverpool Pension Centre

  Liverpool Walton

  Norwich (Baltic House) Pension Centre

  Norwich South

  Nottingham Pension Centre

  Nottingham South

  Plymouth Pension Centre

  Plymouth, Devonport

  Stockton Pension Centre

  Stockton South

  Wolverhampton Pension

  Wolverhampton South West Centre

  Wrexham Pension Centre

  Wrexham

  York Pension Centre

  Ryedale

  Of the 10 sites identified, six will become part of the Jobcentre Plus Network predominantly as benefit processing centres. These are Derby, Norwich (Baltic house) Nottingham, Wolverhampton, Stockton and Wrexham.

  The plans for the remaining pension centres are being developed and we are looking for opportunities to transfer estate and people to other parts of the department, other Government Departments or the private sector. I will inform the House as soon as plans are final and firm decisions are made.

  The announcement also signalled the intention of Jobcentre Plus to begin centralising their processing work—moving from a large number of dispersed sites nationally to a smaller number of larger sites.

  Detailed planning work is currently underway to determine the number and location of these sites. I will report these locations when planning is complete. The centralisation of benefit processing will be implemented in a rolling programme for completion by 2008 at the latest.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will require the Child Support Agency to copy to hon. Members' letters which it sends to constituents whose cases hon. Members have taken up with the Agency. [181991]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
  429W
  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John Lyons, dated 22 July 2004.

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

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will require the Child Support Agency to copy to hon. Members letters which it sends to constituents whose cases hon. Members have taken up with the Agency.

  The Agency wishes to understand and where possible to meet the needs of Members of Parliament. It does not automatically copy to Members letters which it sends to constituents whose cases Members have taken up with the Agency. It will carefully consider any such request on a case by case basis.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) of 7 July 2004,Official Report, column 758W, on the Child Support Agency, for what reasons cases have been moved from the old to the new computer system; and if he will make a statement. [185013]

  Mr. Pond
  Cases will move from the old to the new computer system if they are linked to a case in the new child support scheme. Some cases will subsequently convert to the new scheme. These will include, for example, cases where a non-resident parent who already has an old scheme assessment is also the non-resident parent in relation to a new scheme application.

  It would neither be fair nor workable for people to have a liability under two different schemes, so it is best to move these linked cases onto the new scheme together.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the projected costs are of closing the Basingstoke Child Support Agency office; and how long he expects it will take to recover those costs. [183285]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 22 July 2004:

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

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the projected costs are of closing the Basingstoke Child Support Agency office; and how long he expects it will take to recover those costs.

  We are currently engaging elsewhere in the Department for Work and Pensions and with other Government Departments to consider potential re-deployment opportunities. Until that work is complete we will not take a final decision on the closure of the Basingstoke site and are thus unable to finalise the business case and therefore the associated costs.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to re-deploy staff when the Basingstoke Child Support Agency office closes. [183287]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
  430W
  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 22 July 2004:

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

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what plans he has to re-deploy staff when the Basingstoke Child Support Agency office closes. The Agency developed a Redeployment Plan that is being shared with the relevant trade unions. As part of that, we are engaging elsewhere within the Department for Work and Pensions and with other Government Departments to establish potential re-deployment options. Alongside this all staff in Basingstoke have been seen to establish their preferences. Additional skilled staff have been allocated to support this activity.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what organisations he consulted and what representations he has received from(a) the local council and (b) other interested bodies on the proposal to close the Basingstoke Child Support Agency office. [183289]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter nor the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 22 July 2004:

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

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what organisations he consulted and what representations he has received from (a) the local council and (b) other interested bodies on the proposal to close the Basingstoke Child Support Agency office.

  A public consultation commencing on 19 June 2003, formed part of the Lyons Review. It created a total of 207 responses, of which, 105 came from Local Authorities and 11 from interested parties. A full list of consultation respondents can be found in the Lyons Report (appendix 2), along with details of the representations made.

  The Agency is committed to a policy of open communications with its staff. It therefore told people of its intention to cease its operations in Basingstoke at the earliest opportunity. Formal consultation is now taking place with staff and trade unions. We are currently engaging elsewhere in the Department for Work and Pensions and with other Government Departments to consider potential redeployment opportunities. Until that work is complete we will not take a final decision on the closure of the Basingstoke site. No representations have been received from the local council or any other interested body other than the Public and Commercial Services Union.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether a business case has been drawn up to support the closure of the Child Support Agency office in Basingstoke; and if he will make a statement. [183581]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 22 July 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  431W
  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether a business case has been drawn up to support the closure of the Child Support Agency office in Basingstoke; and if he will make a statement.

  Our intention is to maximise the deployment of staff elsewhere in the Department for Work and Pensions. We are currently in discussions with colleagues elsewhere in the Department and until these discussions are complete no final decision on the closure of the Basingstoke site will be taken. No business case can be finalised until we have been able to quantify those alternative opportunities.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what consultation was undertaken before the announcement of the closure of the Child Support Agency office in Basingstoke. [183582]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Join McDonnell, dated 22 July 2004:

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

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what consultation was undertaken before the announcement of the closure of the Child Support Agency office in Basingstoke.

  The Agency is committed to a policy of open communications with its staff. It therefore told people of its intention to cease its operations in Basingstoke at the earliest opportunity. Formal consultation is now taking place with staff and trade unions. Our intention is to maximise the deployment of staff elsewhere in the Department for Work and Pensions. We are currently in discussions with colleagues elsewhere in the Department. Until these discussions are complete no final decision on the closure of the Basingstoke site will be taken.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what options have been considered as alternatives to the closure of the Basingstoke Child Support Agency office. [183583]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 22 July 2004:

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

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what options have been considered as alternatives to the closure of the Basingstoke Child Support Agency office.

  We are charged with reducing the size of our estate based on an expectation of a significant reduction in headcount. Basingstoke falls within the geographic region covered by the Lyons Review and we have accepted the findings of this review. We are intending to move the Agency's operations from Basingstoke in line with the review and a direct alternative was not therefore considered.

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of families in receipt of income support and income-based jobseeker's432W
  allowance, also receiving full council tax benefit and assistance with mortgage interest payments, that will migrate to child tax credit. [185056]

  Mr. Pond
  As at February 2004, there were 54,000 families receiving income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance, and also receiving assistance with their mortgage interest payments; all of whom will migrate to child tax credit in due course.

  There is no comparable data from which to determine the number that also receive council tax benefit; however, it is likely that the majority of these families will receive council tax benefit.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to sampling variation.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate how many individuals have experienced a drop in their income as a result of migrating to the child tax credit from income support and jobseeker's allowance; [181580]

  (2) how many interviews his Department has conducted to help to secure the position of those who have been floated off income support and jobseeker's allowance as a result of their benefits being passported to the child tax credit; and if he will make a statement. [181581]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available.

  To date there have been 3,658 interviews recorded with families likely to float off income support or jobseeker's allowance.

  Civil Partnerships Bill
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what savings on income-related benefits he anticipates making once the Civil Partnerships Bill is introduced for, and the living together test extended to, same-sex couples. [184728]

  Maria Eagle
  If the Civil Partnership Bill is enacted same-sex couples, whether they have formed a civil partnership or are living together as civil partners, will be treated in the same way as opposite-sex couples in the income-related benefits. It is possible that DWP will realise some savings as a result.

  There is very little information about the number of same-sex couples in this country. The Labour Force Survey suggests that there are about 50,000 cohabiting same-sex couples in the UK, very few of whom are pensioners.

  However, there is likely to be some under-reporting, because individuals reluctance to disclose information about their personal circumstances. Further, the Department does not have any statistical information about individuals currently receiving income related benefits who are cohabiting with someone of the same sex. Savings are, therefore, difficult to assess with any degree of confidence and it has not been possible to include estimates in the Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Civil Partnership Bill.

  Sutton Disability Benefits Centre
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of how changes in civil service numbers announced by the Chancellor in his statement on the Spending Review will affect the Sutton Disability Benefit Centre. [185799]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department's contribution to Sir Michael Lyons's Review of Public Sector Relocation identified work at a number of sites in London and the South East which could be relocated subject to more detailed consideration in each case. Final decisions have yet to be taken about how the Sutton Disability Benefits Centre may be affected.

  Civil Service Redundancies
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) whether the proposed job reductions in his Department will be achieved through(a) voluntary and (b) compulsory redundancies; [186066]

  (2) what the timescale is for job reductions in his Department; [186068]

  (3) if his Department will take part in cross-departmental negotiations concerning civil servant job losses to ensure that past and future job losses do not fall disproportionately on any individual community. [186069]

  Maria Eagle
  Following the Spending Review announcement, detailed business and staffing plans continue to be developed across all parts of the Department in order to manage the overall reduction of 30,000 posts over the four years to March 2008.

  At this stage of planning it is too early to quantify the likely number of voluntary or compulsory redundancies. Compulsory redundancies, if required, will be a last resort after all other options have been considered.

  The Department is fully engaged with the Cabinet Office to ensure cross Government co-ordination of staff redeployment and surplus management activity is effectively managed.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what contingency plans are in place to ensure that his Department's staffing levels are sufficient to cope with an increase in unemployment; and whether a need for additional staff would be met from the(a) public and (h) private sectors. [186070]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department's workforce strategy and planned staffing levels take account of key economic assumptions provided by HM Treasury. The current assumptions suggest that unemployment levels will remain static over the next four years.

  The Department's workforce strategy will be kept under review to account for any changes in these economic assumptions and the potential impact on staffing requirements in particular parts of the Department.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the estimated number of Civil Service jobs expected to be lost to the Department arising from the Spending Review is; [186171]
  434W
  (2) which local offices are included in his Department's closure programme arising out of the Spending Review; and what the timetable for closures is. [186173]

  Maria Eagle
  As announced in the Spending Review, the Department proposes to realise a net reduction of 30,000 posts by March 2008.

  Detailed business and staffing plans continue to be developed across all parts of the Department in order to manage the proposed reductions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued a written statement on 29 June 2004, Official Report, columns 8–9WS, outlining the first phase of this transformation. We will inform the House as further planning decisions are made.

  Communicating Difficult Messages
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the memorandum to his. Department's offices entitled Best Practice in Communicating Difficult Messages. [185708]

  Jane Kennedy
  The document requested has been placed in the Library.

  The Best Practice in Communicating Difficult Messages document was produced in-house by Jobcentre Plus drawing on good practice from within the communication industry.

  The document was intended to provide brief, and easy to absorb information to support local managers when communicating to their staff about aspects of Jobcentre Plus business which could have an impact on people's jobs.

  Community Sentences and Benefits Pilots
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he next expects to be able to report on the results of operational improvements to the community sentences and benefits pilots. [182128]

  Mr. Pond
  We have said that the scheme would continue, with operational improvements, for a further year. We will report on the results of the improvements once they have been thoroughly evaluated.

  Departmental Accountancy Practice
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who the Finance Director of(a) the Department and (b) the Child Support Agency is; what accountancy qualifications each Director holds; and on how many occasions there has been a qualified opinion on (i) the resource accounts and (ii) other accounts of each in the last five years. [183418]

  Mr. Pond
  The Finance Director of the DWP is John Codling who is CIPFA qualified. The Finance Director of the Child Support Agency is Jim Edgar who is CIMA qualified.

  The DWP and its predecessor Department, DSS, has had its resource accounts qualified in each of the years since published resource accounts were first produced in

  435W
  1999–2000. Since the DWP was formed in 2001–02 its resource accounts have been qualified in both 2001–02 and 2002–03 due to:
  significant levels of estimated fraud and error in benefit expenditure recorded in the operating statement;
  weaknesses in the Department's audit trails relating to contributory and non-contributory benefit customer overpayments debtors and the encashment control creditor. The Department has a programme in place to address these long standing system weaknesses.

  The 2003–04 resource accounts will he available later this year.

  Prior to 1999–2000 the Department's accounts were produced on a cash basis and the DSS Vote 1 Account was qualified on the basis of fraud and error since 1990–91 along with the National Insurance Fund Account which was the responsibility y of the Department prior to its transfer to the Inland Revenue in 2001–02.

  In the past five years, all other accounts within the Department, with the exception of the Child Support client funds account, have been produced free of a qualified audit opinion.

  The Child Support Agency administration account has never been qualified. The client funds account has been qualified each year due to largely historic errors in the underlying maintenance assessments resulting in misstatements in receipts and payments, and in the maintenance balances outstanding

  The 2003ߝ04 CSA client fund account will be available later this year.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many publications his Department has issued over the past three years; and what the print run distributed was in each case; [186174]

  (2) how much the Department spent on departmental publications in the past three years. [186172]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department and its customer-facing businesses produce a wide range of publications, ranging from reports to Parliament, other official documents and research reports through to booklets and leaflets designed to inform the citizen of their rights and responsibilities.

  The detailed information requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many departmental publications are in storage; and where they are located. [183867]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Work and Pensions had 420 publication titles and a total of 7,307,933 copies in storage at its five main stores on 13 July 2004. Our main stores are a mix of departmental and contractor stores. The two main departmental stores are at Heywood and Beacon Road, Norcross. The three contractor stores are Meads at Nottingham, Belmont Press at Northampton and Astron at Chadderton. Retention and storage of materials at 436W
  commercial stores are a matter for the Publisher who may rely on the use of on-demand printing facilities to meet the Department's demand.

  In addition small buffer stocks of leaflets and guidance material for our customers are held at about 1,800 offices across our national network.

  A small number of leaflets, associated with major advertising campaigns, are also held for the duration of the campaign by companies who operate campaign response mechanisms for the public.

  Departmental Redundancies
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the(a) organisations and (b) agencies which his Department will consult before deciding upon the locations for potential job reductions. [186029]

  Maria Eagle
  The detail of where and when staff reductions will happen is still being developed.

  As more information becomes available the department will consult with appropriate public and private sector organisations in the relevant locations as well as our trade unions.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what funding has been set aside to retrain staff of his Department that are likely to lose their jobs. [186030]

  Maria Eagle
  Following the Spending Review announcement, detailed business and staffing plans continue to be developed across all parts of the Department in order to manage the reduction of 30,000 posts by March 2008. Until these plans are finalised it is too early to predict the numbers of staff requiring retraining, the exact nature of the training and the level of funding provision required.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many jobs it is proposed will be lost in his Department, broken down by pay grade in(a) percentage and (b) actual terms; [186031]

  (2) if he will express the number of proposed job cuts in his Department as a (a) total and (b) percentage of the work force in each region of the UK. [186032]

  Maria Eagle
  Following the Spending Review announcement, detailed business and staffing plans continue to be developed across all parts of the Department in order to manage the reduction of 30,000 posts by March 2008. Until these plans are finalised it is too early to say how the planned reduction in posts will affect each grade in the Department or the percentage reductions in each region.

  The first phase of the plans were announced in a written statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 29 June 2004, Official Report, columns 8–9WS. Further detailed plans are currently being developed. These plans will enable us to determine how the staffing reductions will be profiled across each Government office region.

  Departmental Staff (Wales)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were employed by his Department in Wales in each of the last 15 years, broken down by location. [186076]

  Maria Eagle
  Information on staff numbers broken down by location in Wales is not available. Information on the number of staff in Wales as a whole is not available prior to September 2001. Information at that date and each year thereafter is in the following table.

  As at 30 September

  Number

  2001

  6,581

  2002

  7,491

  2003

  7,697

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are based on headcount not Whole Time Equivalents.

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

  Numbers are point in time at the date shown.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for disability living allowance were initially(a) granted and (b) refused in the last year for which figures are available; and how many of those refused were subsequently allowed after review or appeal. [186054]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is set out in the table.

  Disability living allowance: Numbers of initial awards; claims disallowed; awards increased on review and appeals decided in favour of the appellant: From 1 March 2003 to 29 February 2004

  Number

  Initial Awards1

  217,300

  Claims Disallowed1

  220,200

  Awards increased on review2

  56,400

  Appeals in favour of appellant3

  37,200

  1.Figures taken from a 100 per cent. sample at 29 February 2004.

  1Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  2>Figures taken from 100 per cent. sample at 29 February 2004.

  2Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  3Figures include reconsiderations and supersessions.

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

  3Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Sources:

  1,212 MIS

  3 100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System.

  Fatal and Major Injury Accidents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the incidence rate of fatal and major injury incidents was in each of the last seven years. [184676]

  Jane Kennedy
  The incidence rate of fatal and major injuries (per 100,000 employed), reported to all enforcing authorities in the period 1997–98 to 2002–03 is shown in the following table:
  438W

  Fatal injury rate

  Employee Major injury rate

  Fatal injury rate

  Self-employed Major injury rate

  1996–97

  0.9

  127.5

  2.3

  38.4

  1997–98

  0.9

  127.6

  1.8

  23.3

  1998–99

  0.8

  121.7

  1.9

  20.3

  1999–2000

  0.7

  116.6

  1.7

  19.7

  2000–01

  0.9

  110.2

  2.4

  19.2

  2001-02

  0.8

  110.9

  1.3

  27.8

  2002–031

  0.7

  113.0

  1.3

  31.9

  1 Provisional.

  Notes:

  1. Incidence rates are derived from reports made to HSE and local authorities under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995.

  2. Incidence rates are expressed per hundred thousand employees or self-employed people as appropriate.

  3. The annual basis is the planning year from 1 April to 31 March.

  4. Statistics are those reported to all enforcing authorities.

  Formal Child Care (Take-up)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how he plans to increase the take-up of formal childcare by lower income families. [185061]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government are committed to helping children in low income families by providing and improving take up of good quality formal childcare. We are working to increase the availability, accessibility, affordability arid variety of formal childcare and, importantly, to ensure parents understand the choices open to them.

  We have provided substantial investment via the Sure Start Unit and its predecessors —£4.2 billion invested since 1997 and a further £4.3 billion earmarked in the Spending Review for the period up to 2008—and have broadened the range of childcare opportunities available. For example, we brave introduced Extended School Childcare Pilots to provide the childcare lone parents need to enter employment and Childcare Taster Pilots to give lone parents the opportunity to experience formal childcare.

  To further increase parents' knowledge, we have made individual and tailored advice available through the new deal and Jobcentre Plus and as part of the range of services offered by Sure Start Local Programmes and Children's Centres. Meanwhile, Jobcentre Plus has introduced dedicated Childcare Partnership Managers to coordinate Jobcentre Plus's programmes and strategies with local childcare development plans.

  Through tax credits we have made significant improvements to the financial assistance for child care available to working parents up to £140 a week can be claimed —and have made plans for a voluntary accreditation scheme, extending the types of childcare

  439W
  that parents can receive financial support for. We have also invested in the Support Childminder Scheme, to engage existing childminders in supporting new people, including informal carers, in registering with Ofsted.

  Departmental Staffing (Fylde)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list his proposed staffing reductions for each of his Department's areas of responsibility in Fylde, for each year from 2004 to 2008. [184575]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]Following the announcement in the Budget statement on future departmental staffing levels work has been taking place across the Department to develop detailed business and staffing plans. The first phase of these plans was announced in a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 29 June 2004,Official Report, columns 8–9WS. Further detailed pi; tris are currently being developed. These plans will enable us to determine how the staffing reductions will be profiled across each part and location of the Department and its businesses.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the activities of the Green Minister in the Department in financial year 2003–04. [185128]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department's Green Minister is Baroness Hollis of Heigham. Baroness Hollis is a member of ENV(G), the Ministerial Sub-Committee of Green Ministers. However, it has been established practice under successive Governments not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

  The Department actively contributes to the UK Strategy for Sustainable Development through its core objectives to combat poverty and social exclusion and to eliminate child poverty. Baroness Hollis' ministerial role on these issues is interwoven with her Green Minister role.

  During the past year, Baroness Hollis has also been involved in communications with the Treasury to further develop the integration of qualitative assessment into cost benefit analysis. This will allow analyses to better demonstrate social, economic and environmental balance.

  The Department issued its third Sustainable Development Annual Report in the autumn of 2003.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Health and Safety Executive(a) regulatory contacts and (b) investigations were carried out in each of the last seven years. [184679]

  Jane Kennedy
  The numbers of regulatory contacts and investigations carried out by the Health and Safety Executive over the last seven years are as follows.
  440W

  Report year (April to March)

  Regulatory contacts

  Investigations

  1997–98

  186,065

  33,585

  1998–99

  183,292

  32,200

  1999–2000

  185,496

  35,551

  2000–01

  192,693

  40,774

  2001–02

  195,695

  37,855

  2002–03

  218,574

  34,724

  2003–04

  206,460

  27,816

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) incidents and (b) complaints were (i) reported to and (ii) investigated by the Health and Safety Executive in each of the last seven years. [184680]

  Jane Kennedy
  Incidents and complaints, reported to and investigated by the Health and Safety Executive are as follows:

  Report year (April to March)

  Incidents reported

  Complaints reported

  Incidents investigated

  Complaints investigated

  1997–98

  n/a

  n/a

  133,585

  1998–99

  164,912

  29,610

  9,400

  22,800

  1999–2000

  160,514

  30,901

  10,844

  24,707

  2000–01

  164,287

  28,933

  15,489

  25,285

  2001–02

  156,058

  28,021

  13,421

  24,434

  2002–03

  142,418

  27,554

  11,251

  23,473

  2003–04

  2n/a

  24,404

  35,288

  22,528

  1 Total.

  2 Data will be available on 18 November 2004.

  3 In 2003–04 HSE's target was to investigate 95 per cent. of reported incidents that met its published investigation criteria. In previous years the HSE target was to investigate a percentage of reported incidents (different targets for each year). In 2003–04, HSE achieved its targets for percentage of complaints followed up (plan—90 per cent.; outturn—94.8 per cent.) and incidents investigated (plan—95 per cent.; outturn—97.66 per cent.)

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of information being laid by the Health and Safety Executive in order to support a prosecution there have been in each of the last seven years. [184682]

  Jane Kennedy
  Over the last seven years the following number of offences have been prosecuted in Great Britain, following investigation by the Health and Safety Executive. Each offence prosecuted represents one information laid or, in Scotland, charge preferred. The information given is publicly available. The 2003–04 figures will be publicly released in the Offences and Penalties Report, due for release in late October 2004.

  Year1

  Total offences prosecuted

  1996–97

  1,490

  1997–98

  1,627

  1998–99

  1,759

  1999–2000

  2,115

  2000–01

  1,973

  2001–02

  1,986

  2002–03

  1,659

  1 Year refers to operational year, which runs from 1 April to 31 March.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the 20 councils with the longest times for processing new housing benefit claims, identifying in each case the average time for processing claims. [185706]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the table.

  20 local authorities with the longest processing times for new claims for housing benefit (HB) and council tax benefit (CTB)

  Average time for processing new claims (calendar days)

  Local authority

  HB

  CTB

  HB and CTB

  Bristol

  87

  90

  88

  North Ayrshire

  79

  97

  88

  Dundee

  88

  90

  89

  Flintshire

  89

  89

  89

  York

  78

  108

  91

  Croydon

  83

  105

  95

  East Devon

  95

  96

  96

  Mid Suffolk

  92

  98

  96

  South Northamptonshire

  100

  95

  97

  Torridge

  99

  96

  97

  Chelmsford

  95

  108

  101

  Lambeth

  90

  122

  104

  Renfrewshire

  92

  115

  104

  Portsmouth

  103

  112

  107

  Leicester

  106

  122

  114

  Manchester

  137

  89

  115

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  —

  118

  Hackney

  114

  134

  123

  Liverpool

  183

  152

  167

  Swale

  182

  203

  193

  Notes:

  1. Four local authorities did not supply data for 2003–04.

  2. It is not possible to differentiate the housing benefit/council tax benefit data from Merthyr Tydfil.

  3. The data are taken from un-audited returns by local authorities to DWP, and are the most recent quarterly data they have returned for 2003–04.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many councils are(a) meeting and (b) not meeting the Government's target for handling new housing benefit claims within 14 days. [185707]

  Mr. Pond
  The Department for Work and Pensions does not set a target of 14 days for deciding new claims; the regulations require a claim to be decided within 14 days of the relevant information having been received or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter. The Department launched national Performance Standards in April 2002, which set a standard of 90 per cent. of new housing benefit claims to be decided in 14 days, but these are not mandatory. In the fourth quarter of 2003–04 (the most recent data available) the national average performance was 75 per cent. of new claims decided within 14 days with 23 per cent. of local authorities currently meeting or exceeding the 90 per cent. standard.

  In order to improve this performance the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate targets its inspections on those authorities that have the longest processing times. We also provide every local authority chief executive with information as to how they compare against national standards and performance.

  Job Centre Plus
  Chris Ruane
  . To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which towns in North Wales have Job Centre Plus offices; and when Job Centre Plus will be rolled out in Rhyl. [186025]

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

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 22 July 2004:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the rollout of Jobcentre Plus in North Wales. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.

  It may be helpful if I explain that the introduction of the Jobcentre Plus model across North Wales is being undertaken in a staged process, which should be completed by March 2006. We have already introduced the new service in our North West Wales and Powys District, and there are Jobcentre Plus Offices in Amlwch, Bangor, Caernarfon, Dolgellau, Holyhead, Llangefni. Porthmadog and Pwllheli.

  I am aware that the District Manager for Wrexham and North Wales Coast, which covers Rhyl, wrote to you on 5 April, outlining his initial service delivery plans.

  There are presently a mixture of Jobcentres and Social Security Offices in Cefn Mawr, Colwyn Bay, Conwy, Denbigh, Flint, Holywell, Llangollen, Llanrwst, Llandudno, Mold, Prestatyn, Rhyl, Shotton and Wrexham. However, plans for the rollout of the new integrated service have not yet been finalised.

  The recent announcement that Wrexham Pension Centre will transfer to Jobcentre Plus. along with our decision to centralise benefit processing into larger units to help deliver our demanding efficiency agenda, are all ractors that will need to be taken into account before plans can be finalised.

  At this stage, I am therefore unable to give a specific date for the introduction of the integrated Jobcentre Plus service in Rhyl. However, as the position becomes clearer, the District Manager for Wrexham and North Wales Coast, will keep you fully informed of developments.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants in his Department announced in the comprehensive spending review will be of special advisers. [185466]

  Maria Eagle
  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.

  New Deal
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many participants have been through(a) the New Deal for the over -50s and (b) the New Deal for Partners to date; and what percentage moved into jobs in each case [182071]

  Jane Kennedy
  To the end of March 2004, there have been a total of 7,820 starts to the New Deal for Partners and a total of 1,870 jobs (24 per cent. of total starts) have been gained through the programme.

  Figures on the number of people participating in New Deal 50-plus are not available.
  443W
  Up to March 2003, job outcomes for New Deal 50-plus were based on the number of people taking up the New Deal 50-plus Employment Credit. Between April 2000, when New Deal 50 Plus started, and March 2003, there were 98,040 employment credit starts. Figures for the number of people finding jobs through New Deal 50-plus but not receiving the employment credit are not available.

  In April 2003, the employment credit was replaced by the 50-plus return to work element of the working tax credit. We are currently working with the Inland Revenue to secure robust data on how many people have claimed this. However, between April 2003 and December 2003, 19,970 people returned to work thanks to Jobcentre Plus and the New Deal.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have participated in New Deal 50-plus in each year since it was introduced; how many have found a job as a result; and how many have received a weekly employment credit. [178873]

  Jane Kennedy
  Figures on the number of people participating in New Deal 50-plus are not available.

  Up to March 2003, job outcomes for New Deal 50-plus were based on the number of people taking up the New Deal 50-plus Employment Credit. These figures are in the table.

  New Deal 50-plus Employment Credit starts

  Number1

  April 2000 to December 2000

  24,830

  January 2001 to December 2001

  35,080

  January 2002 to December 2002

  31,830

  January 2003 to March 2003

  6,300

  1Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Note:

  ND50 + Employment Credit started in April 2000 and was replaced by the 50 plus return to work element of Working Tax Credit in April 2003.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible have been(a) established and (b) abolished since 1997. [182946]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table

  Non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions which have been (a) established and (b) abolished since 1997

  Body

  Date established

  Date abolished

  Occupational Pension Board (OPB)1

  —

  1 April 1997

  Central Adjudication Services (CAS)1

  —

  1 November 1999

  Independent Tribunal Service (ITS)2

  —

  31 March 2000

  Incorporating:

  Medical Appeal Tribunals Disability Appeal Tribunals Vaccine Damage Appeal Tribunals

  Social Security Appeal

  444W

  Non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions which have been (a) established and (b) abolished since 1997

  Body

  Date established

  Date abolished

  Tribunals Child Support Appeal Tribunals

  New Deal Task Force (NDTF)3

  July 1997

  October 2001

  Advisory Committee for Disabled People in Employment Training (ACDET)4

  1 April 1998

  31 March 2002

  Race Education and Employment Forum (REEF)4

  1 April 1998

  1 April 2003

  Disability Rights Commission (DRC)4

  1 April 2000

  —

  Appeals Service2

  3 April 2000

  —

  National Employment Panel (NEP)3

  October 2001

  —

  Disability Employment Advisory Committee(DEAC)5

  1 August 2002

  —

  1This body was originally established by the Department of Social Security, which became the Department for Work and Pensions in June 2001. The new Department was formed by bringing together the Department of Social Security and the Employment Services, which prior to this machinery of government change was part of the Department for Education and Employment (now the Department for Education and Skills).

  2Originally established by the Department of Social Security, the ITS tribunals were replaced by the Appeals Service in April 2000. The Appeals Service consists of two distinct bodies within a single organisation. The first is a tribunal non-departmental public body with responsibility for the judicial functioning of appeals tribunals. The second is an executive agency responsible for the administration of appeals.

  3Originally established by the Department for Education and Employment, the New Deal Task Force's name was changed to the National Employment Panel and its remit expanded by the Department for Work and Pensions in 2001.

  4This body was originally established by the Department for Education and Employment, but responsibility moved to the Department for Work and Pensions when the new Department was formed in 2001.

  5Established by the Department for Work and Pensions.

  Work Incentives (Homeless Households)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 28 June 2004,Official Report, column 88W, on work incentives (homeless households), what assessment his Department has made of the impact high rents in temporary accommodation have on the ability of homeless households to access employment opportunities; and if he will make a statement. [182716]

  Mr. Pond
  Recent research undertaken by the Department with Registered Social Landlords, statutory and voluntary agencies and other stakeholders in local authorities, suggested that high rents in temporary accommodation can act as a disincentive to tenants re-entering employment.

  We plan to publish this research in the autumn.

  Pensions and Benefits (Direct Payments)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 20 April 2004,
  445W
  ref 165353, and his letters to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South undated and dated 29 March, refs PQ/03/98099 and PQ/03/97277, (1) if he will explain the differences between the figures given; [168643]

  (2) when he will answer the question of 21 April from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, ref 168643, about figures provided by his Department. [185217]

  Mr. Pond
  I regret that discrepancies between the figures arose because of errors in the terminology used. A claimant can have several payment accounts, each for a separate benefit; therefore the total number of accounts in Portsmouth South will exceed the number of claimants. The answers to the earlier questions did not correctly distinguish between account numbers and claimant numbers.

  The following information is the full set of correct figures relevant to the three earlier questions. This corrects the information given in written answers on 24 February 2004, Official Report, column 197W and column 202W, and on 20 April 2004, Official Report, columns 443–44W.

  Retirement pension accounts in Portsmouth, South constituency

  As at December

  Payments direct into bank/building society accounts

  Payable order

  Payments through post office

  2002

  6,375

  110

  7,775

  2003

  6,945

  90

  6,825

  Other benefit accounts held by pensioners in Portsmouth, South constituency(excluding war pension)

  As at December

  Payments into bank/building society accounts

  Payable order

  Payments through post office

  2002

  1,490

  0

  3,275

  2003

  2,240

  0

  3,355

  Notes:

  1. Payable orders are sent to the customer's home address but must be produced for payment at a bank or building society.

  2. Included in payment through the post office are customers paid into post office card accounts and customers paid by girocheque. Girocheques are either encashable at a post office or payable into a bank or building society account.

  3. The account figures in Table One and Two above exclude war pension and child benefit customers as these accounts are the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and Inland Revenue respectively.

  4. Some customers who are paid direct into an account can also collect their payments in cash at post offices through the wider range of banking services now available at post offices. There is no data available on the umber of benefit claims collected in this way.

  5. The number of pensioners receiving one or more DWP benefits (including war pension) collectable at post offices in Portsmouth south at 28 December 2002 was –9,935.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of pension credit payments are being paid into Post Office card accounts. 186257]

  Jane Kennedy
  At 30 June the number of live pension credit accounts was 2,548,895, of which 198,230 or 7.8 per cent. were paid to a Post Office card account. Of the total, 893,835 were not previously receiving 446W
  minimum income guarantee. Of these cases, 40,110, or 4.5 per cent. were being paid to a Post Office card account.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people eligible for pension credit have not taken it up in each month since October 2003; and how much money this represents in each case. [184940]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table sets out numbers of pension credit recipients in each month between October 2003 and June 2004, with the average weekly award. We estimate that approximately 3.75 million households, corresponding to around 4.85 million individuals, are likely to be eligible for pension credit in Great Britain in 2004–05. This estimate, rounded to the nearest 50,000 households or individuals, is subject to a wide margin of error and should be used as a broad indication of the likely eligible population only.

  To help ensure that people do not lose out, entitlement to pension credit can, where appropriate, be backdated by up to 12 months.

  Pension credit recipients, Great Britain, october 2003 to june 2004

  Households

  Individuals

  Average weekly award (£)

  October 2003

  1,795,875

  2,109,200

  47.10

  November 2003

  2,056.010

  2,454,640

  46.40

  December 2003

  2,115,195

  2,533,960

  44.20

  January 2004

  2,172.280

  2,610,450

  43.50

  February 2004

  2,264.115

  2,731,480

  42.60

  March 2004

  2,401,850

  2,907,775

  41.34

  April 2004

  2,445.660

  2,961,885

  41.67

  May 2004

  2,496.970

  3,028,390

  42.42

  June 2004

  2,548.895

  3,094.870

  41.99

  Note:

  1. October 2003 figures are as at 17 October 2003. Figures from November 2003 to June 2004 are mid-monthly and have been rated up to give month end estimates.

  2. Figures are rounded 10 the nearest 5.

  3. Individual recipients include a number of partners under age 60.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many pensioners are estimated to be eligible for the pension credit in Leicester South;[186263]

  (2) how many pensioners are claiming the pension credit in Leicester South. [186264]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of people likely to be eligible for pension credit is not available at constituency level. However, we estimate that approximately 250,000 households in the East Midlands region, corresponding to approximately 350,000 individuals (rounded to the nearest 50,000), are likely to be eligible for pension credit in 2004–05. At the end of June, 5,135 pensioner households in Leicester South, comprising 6,415 individuals (rounded to the nearest five), were in receipt of pension credit. The corresponding figures for the East Midlands at the same date were 182,570 households and 224,435 individuals in receipt of pension credit.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Northampton, North have received home visits from the Pension Service to assist them with claiming pension credit. [185785]
  447W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The table shows the number of home visits undertaken by the local service of the Pension Service in the Northampton local service cluster, which includes both Northampton, North and Northampton, South, between April 2003 and June 2004. All visits undertaken since April 2003 have covered pension credit.

  Home visits by the Pension Service local service, Northampton cluster, April 2003-june 2004

  Number of visits

  2003

  April

  120

  May

  117

  June

  150

  July

  171

  August

  148

  September

  159

  October

  206

  November

  161

  December

  88

  2004

  January

  153

  February

  134

  March

  336

  April

  122

  May

  170

  June

  153

  Pension Credit Applh a Lion Line
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2004,Official Report, columns 833–34\V. if he will provide the information on calls to the pension credit application line for each month since January for which figures are available. [1857341

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Calls to pension credit application line, January-June 2004

  Calls received by application line

  Calls receiving engaged tone or recorded message

  Calls answered within 30 seconds

  Average call duration (minutes: seconds)

  January

  495,560

  120

  429,670

  08:12

  February

  433,790

  190

  372,930

  08:34

  March

  430,070

  230

  378,440

  08:38

  April

  346,890

  13,560

  250,970

  09:18

  May

  234,580

  20

  212,570

  08:48

  June

  315,200

  20

  266,040

  07:20

  Notes:

  1. Numbers of calls are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. The number of calls receiving the engaged tone or a recorded message was unusually high in April due to reduced numbers of staff as a result of industrial action. The number of lines feeding into the application line from the network was reduced to avoid people having to wait for a long time for an answer (instead they received a recorded message).

  3. The number of calls received is a measure of the total number of calls from customers made to the application line number 0800 99 1234. The number of calls answered within 30 seconds is a measure of all calls answered in application line sites and excludes any calls abandoned by the customer.

  Pension Payment Arrangements
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what percentage of 448W
  pensioners in (a) England, (b) East Sussex and(c) Lewes constituency are using pension books to collect their pensions at a post office. [1859051

  Mr. Pond
  Information available on pensioners (women over 60 and men over 65) as at 15 May 2004 in(a) England (b) East Sussex and (c) Lewes constituency receiving their retirement pension by order books, collectable at a post office, is shown in the table.

  Accounts paid by order book

  Percentage of retirement pension accounts paid by order book

  England

  2,936,800

  37

  East Sussex

  32,505

  28.40

  Lewes

  5,210

  25.60

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  2. Figures do not include retirement pension combined with pension credit in a single payment.

  Source:

  IAD information Centre, 100 per cent. sample.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been spent to date on the change of pension payment arrangements from book to bank account; and how much of that has been spent on contact with recipients. [185906]

  Mr. Pond
  We are unable to answer in the format requested.

  As at the 31 March 2004 the Department had, through its payment modernisation programme, incurred £210 million towards converting benefit and pensions customers from paper based methods of payment to payment by direct payment. Of this total around £90 million related to the cost of contacting benefit and pension customers. With the remainder being spent on project team costs, IT development, marketing and training of staff.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners who receive their pensions by giro have agreed an alternative means of payment with the Government. [159752]

  Mr. Pond
  Only a very small number of pensions customers receive their pension by giro, and in the 12 month period ending 24 January 2004 less than 50 changed to another method of payment.

  Almost nine out of ten (87 per cent) of benefit customers already have an account suitable for Direct Payment, and this rises to 90 per cent. for pensioners.

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment his Department has made of the importance of regular income in helping the elderly budget for their needs. [186253]

  Mr. Pond
  The Government acknowledge the importance of pension payment arrangements that reflect elderly people's budgeting needs. We therefore offer a range of payment frequencies for benefits. Pensioners can choose to have their state pension paid weekly, four weekly or 13 weekly; pension credit is paid weekly.
  449W
  The move to Direct Payment involves no changes to customers' existing benefit and pension payment frequencies. Pensioners who receive their pension by weekly order book will continue to receive their pension weekly when they transfer to Direct Payment.

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of pension payments paid into bank accounts since the beginning of the current financial year have not been paid seven days after the previous payment; [186249]

  (2) how many bank accounts into which pensions are directly paid have had at least one occasion where the payment has not been paid exactly seven days after the last one; [186251]

  (3) what steps he has taken to ensure that pensions paid into bank accounts are done paid every seven days. [186252]

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

  Pensioners can choose to have their state pension paid weekly, four weekly or 13 weekly; pension credit is paid weekly.

  Since the beginning of the financial year there have been no occasions when pension payments generally have been paid late into bank accounts. However there will have been individual cases where a change of circumstance has caused a review of the award, which may delay a payment. There may also be instances where banks have rejected payments because of changes to account details or similar circumstances.

  The Department ensures that payments due payment on a bank holiday are advanced so that customers can get the money before the holiday. The general rule for direct payment is that payment due on a UK bank holiday (including 2 January in Scotland) is advanced to the last banking day before the holiday.

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions into how many bank accounts pensions are directly paid. [186250]

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

  However, information is available to show that, as at 15 May 2004, 6,794,800 pensions accounts were paid by direct payment. Included in his total are 377,130 payments direct into a Post Office card account.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners have migrated from over-the-counter benefit payments to automated credit transfer in each month since May 1997. [177553]

  Mr. Pond
  The precise information is not available in the format requested. The number of pensioners (women over 60 and men over 65) that have migrated from over the counter benefit payments to direct payments each month since 15 June 2002 is shown in the table.

  Month

  Number of accounts

  15 June to 13 July 2002

  4,460

  13 July to 10 August 2002

  16,000

  450W

  Month

  Number of accounts

  10 August to 7 September 2002

  13,240

  7 September to 5 October 2002

  3,840

  5 October to 2 November 2002

  19,805

  2–30 November 2002

  4,560

  30 November to 28 December 2002

  21,445

  28 December 2002 to 25 January 2003

  3,730

  25 January to 22 February 2003

  26,065

  22 February to 22 March 2003

  20,310

  22 March to 19 April 2003

  6,620

  19 April to 17 May 2001

  19,715

  17 May to 14 June 2003

  30,075

  14 June to 12 July 2003

  7,120

  12 July to 9 August 2003

  34,130

  9 August to 6 September 2003

  69,475

  6 September to 4 October 2003

  10,255

  4 October to 1 November 2003

  128,745

  1–29 November 2003

  115,710

  29 November to 27 December 2003

  20,045

  27 December 2003 to 24 January 2004

  188,080

  24 January to 21 February 2004

  182,205

  21 February to 20 March 2004

  108,665

  20 March to 17 April 200 1

  296,865

  Notes:

  The following special points should be noted:

  1. Figures produced by comparing two snapshots of live accounts in payment on the specified dates where the method of payment variable has changed to direct payment on the second dataset.

  2. Figures produced relate to accounts not claimants, a benefit recipient may therefore have more than one account. Figures do not include any benefit payment that is made "in combination", through another benefit system, such as state pension paid through the pension credit system as a combined payment.

  3. Over the counter payments includes order books and giros.

  4. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  5. Figures refer to pensioner age benefit recipients residing in GB only.

  6. Included in these figures is payments made to customers by girocheque. Girocheques are encashable at either a bank/building society account or a post office.

  7. Some customers who are paid direct into an account can also collect their payments in cash at post offices through the wider range of banking services now available at the post office. There is no data available on the number of benefit claims collected in this way.

  Policy (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [185102]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following table gives details of recorded policy decisions and changes, together with screenings undertaken. No full environmental appraisals have been undertaken.

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Number of new policies and significant changes in policies

  21

  30

  Number of environmental screenings undertaken

  4

  9

  The Department has now incorporated sustainable development into its change processes. This requires

  451W
  all programmes and projects to undertake a sustainability assessment, including the consideration of environmental impacts, at key stages in development.

  Post Office Card Accounts (Pensions)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints he has received from pensions recipients about difficulties in accessing their funds through Post Office card accounts since the accounts were introduced. [185029]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the specific format requested. Feedback and complaints to The Pension Service are recorded under a number of categories, which include delays to or non-receipt of payments but not the method of payment involved.

  The Post Office is responsible for dealing with any problems account holders may have in accessing money already held in a Post Office card account.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department spent on press officers, broken down by grade, in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [185533]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department of Social Security. parts of the former Department for Education and Employment and the

  Advertising campaign

  Objective

  Evaluation method

  Campaign result

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  To encourage pensioners to take up their entitlement

  Measure the awareness of MIG Monitor the number in receipt of MIG

  Awareness and take up levels increased

  Winter Fuel

  To inform those eligible that payment is being made, inc70+ and 80+ payments, and to encourage those who needs to claim to do so

  Measure the awareness of the payments Monitor new claims(NB—most payments made automatically

  Awareness levels increased Number of new claims increasing

  Pensions Education Campaign

  Long term campaign to encourage people to save for their retirementand improve their understanding of the option available

  Track the take-up of informationguides Monitor the number of visitors to relevant information on website Monitor calls to call center

  Number of guides, visitors andcalls increased

  Targeting Benefit Fraud

  Long term campaign to tacklegeneral attitudes to fraud and deter fraudsters

  Monitor awareness and attitudes tofraud

  Increase in awareness and progress towards key attitude changes

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  Raise awareness of the help available to lone parents in preparing for work

  Measure awareness among target audience

  Awareness level and number of calls to helpline increased

  New Deal for Disabled People

  To raise awareness and generate response to the helpline

  Measure awareness amongst the target audience Track number of calls to helplne

  Awareness level and number of call to helpline increased

  New Deal 25 Plus

  To inform the long term unemployed of help available

  Measure awareness among target audience

  Awareness level increased

  Disability Discrimination Act

  To raise awareness of the Act and encourage service providers to ensure that disabled people can access their services

  Track awareness among target audience

  Awareness levels increased

  Pension Credit

  To encourage eligible pensioners to claim the new Pension Credit

  Measure the awareness of Pension Credit Monitor the number of eligible pensioners in receipt of Pension Credit, to ensure progress towards PSA target of 3 million by 2006.

  Awareness and take up levels increased Progress on caseload in line to meet PSA target

  State Second Pension

  To encourage carers to review their ircumstances to ensure that they are building up a Sate Second Pension

  Monitor the number of requests for copies of the guide "State Pensions for carers and parents" requested in response to advertising Monitor awareness among target

  Number of guides issued and awareness increased

  452W
  Employment Service. Information on costs for 1996–97 is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  During 2003–04 the Department spent £1,482,811 on press officer salaries. A breakdown of expenditure by grade cannot be provided, in order to protect individual confidentiality. However, information on the number of press officers employed in each grade is in the table.

  Grade

  Number of press officers employed

  Senior Civil Service

  1

  Grade 7

  2

  Senior Executive Officer/Senior Information Officer

  6

  Higher Executive Officer/Information Officer

  25

  Executive Officer/Assistant Information Officer

  6

  Note:

  Staffing figures are whole time equivalents.

  Public Awareness Campaigns
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the objectives were for each advertising campaign undertaken by his Department since 2001, what criteria were used to judge their effectiveness; and to what extent these criteria were met. [170588]

  Maria Eagle
  A summary of advertising campaigns that have been conducted by the Department since 2000-01 is in the table.
  453W

  Advertising campaign

  Objective

  Evaluation method

  Campaign result

  audience

  Inherited SERPS

  To explain the relative amount of SERPS pensions that people may be able to pass onto their spouses on death

  Monitor awareness among target audience

  Awareness level increased

  Direct Payment

  Three year campaign to support the conversion of customers from paper based methods to payment direct into an account

  Monitor awareness of Direct Payment Customers' understanding 01 the new system and key campaign messages

  Awareness and understanding increased

  Age Positive

  To communicate to employers the benefits of an age-diverse workforce

  Monitor awareness of the Code of Practise Track awareness of the website

  Awareness of Code and website increased

  The Pension Service

  To raise awareness of the services of the new Pension Service

  Track awareness of the website Track number of visitors to t he mobile exhibition unit Track attendance at Pension Service surgeries

  Number of visitors and attendance at surgeries increased

  Council Tax Benefit

  Raise awareness amongst those on low incomes -primarily pensioners

  Monitor awareness of among target audience

  Awareness level increased

  Jobseeker Direct

  To promote telephone service to those looking for work, particularly to priority customer groups of lone parents and people aged 50+

  Monitor awareness among target audience Track number of calls received

  Awareness level increased

  Jobcentre Plus Employer Marketing

  To generate vacancies delivering performance improvement.

  Measure year-on-year vacancy volumes

  Number of vacancies increased

  New Deal

  To raise awareness of the breadth of help available and encourage key target groups to respond

  Monitor awareness among target audience Track the number of responses

  Awareness and number of responses increased

  1. Information relates to advertising campaigns over the value of £250,00 for 2000–01 and over £500,000 for subsequent years.

  2. Information on advertising campaigns costing under £250,000 and details of highly localised activity by the Departments customer facing businesses have generally not been included as a disproportionate cost would be incurred in compiling these figures.

  3. Evaluation of all campaigns is a routine procedure. Methods of evaluation vary and reflect the needs of each individual campaign. Detailed information of evaluation is not held centrally nor in a standard format and so can b2 provided only at disproportionate cost.

  4. Copies of the Management summaries for the Targeting Fraud Campaigns are available in the Library.

  Public Relations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the salary costs to the Department were for employees working in public relations and publicity in each year since 1997. [183849]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department of Social Security, parts of the former Department for Education and Employment and the Employment Service. The available information is in the table.

  DWP salary costs for employees working in publicity and public relations

  £

  Publicity

  Press officers/public relations

  Total

  2001–02 (from June 2001)

  1,407,738

  816,725

  2,224,463

  2002–03

  1,667,295

  1,739,935

  3,407,230

  2003–04

  1,569,683

  1,482,811

  3,052,494

  Notes:

  1. Information on costs prior to June 2001 is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  2. The figures refer to staff in the DWP Communications Directorate and exclude staff in marketing roles in the Department's customer facing businesses, or supporting and delivering marketing activity at local level. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Students (Means-tested Benefits)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many full-time undergraduate students were in receipt of means-tested benefits when they applied for their course in each year since 2000; and how many continued to receive means-tested benefits while on their course. [184879]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available.

  Social Fund Crisis Loan Alignment Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask he Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Social Fund crisis loan alignment payments were awarded in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; what the expenditure on alignment payments was in each of those years; and if he will make a statement. [185055]

  Mr. Pond
  Crisis loan alignment payments are made to people awaiting their first payment of benefit, which is paid in arrears. Crisis loan payments made in these circumstances are intended to cover day-to-day living expenses until the first benefit pay day, following which full payments of benefit can be made. Where a claim has not been decided by the time that the first payment is due, interim payments are available.

  Alignment payments can also be made to people moving from benefit into work who need financial help until they receive their first wage.
  455W
  The information is in the table

  Number of awards

  Expenditure (£ million)

  2002–03

  510,000

  29.8

  2003–04

  513,000

  31.0

  Notes:

  1. The number of awards listed includes all crisis loans made in whole or in part for alignment purposes.

  2. Number of awards is rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.

  Social Fund Funeral Expenses Payment.
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary c f State for Work and Pensions what the level of the Social Fund funeral expenses payment was in each of the last seven years.[185059]

  Mr. Pond
  The funeral payment scheme provides people receiving qualifying benefits or tax credits with payments for simple, respectful funerals. Awards cover the reasonable cost of specified items, including necessary burial or cremation charges, plus up to £700 for other non-specified funeral expenses. This was increased from £600 in April 2003.

  The information is in the table.

  £

  Average funeral payment

  1997–98

  796

  1998–99

  836

  1999–2000

  862

  2000–01

  885

  2001–02

  909

  2002–03

  929

  2003–04

  1,019

  Source:

  DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System

  Travel Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [183899]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the tables. DWP was formed in June 2001 from the former Department of Social Security (DSS) and parts of the former Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). Travel expenditure information is not available for the former DfEE prior to March 2000, therefore expenditure figures up to and including 31/03/2000 are for the former DSS only. All travel complied with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.

  Travel costs from 1997–98 to 2000–01 for the DSS and its agencies

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Benefits Agency

  18,968,615

  18,692,979

  20,803,862

  18,382,607

  Contributions Agency

  2,420,422

  2,889,523

  —

  —

  Child Support Agency

  2,380,132

  2,244,467

  3,114,557

  3,841,188

  War Pensions Agency

  275,967

  348,711

  416.182

  445,401

  456W

  HQ

  1,535,194

  2,423,911

  2,939,166

  3,462,278

  Independent Statutory Bodies

  862,751

  828,137

  1,890,467

  1,876,481

  Employment Services

  —

  —

  —

  2,613,873

  Total

  26,443,081

  27,427,728

  29.164,243

  30,621,828

  Notes:

  1. Travel costs include vehicle rental, UK travel, foreign travel and official vehicle costs.

  2. BA costs included benefit offices, pensions, disability and careers directorate and DSS corporate centre.

  3. Contribution Agency transferred to Inland Revenue is 1999.

  Travel costs form 2001–02 to 2003–04 for DWP

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Benefits Agency

  14,311,031

  —

  —

  Employment Services

  2,730,854

  —

  —

  JobCentre Plus

  —

  6,657,293

  6,348,361

  Pensions Service

  —

  5,669,528

  10.001,472

  Child Support Agency

  3,026,276

  9,307,901

  5,769,218

  Disability and Careers Directorate

  —

  1,563,153

  1,305,638

  War Pensions Agency

  385,999

  —

  —

  Independent Statutory Bodies

  542,783

  —

  —

  Appeals Service

  —

  670,736

  797,560

  Corporate and Shared Services

  13,434,816

  11,213,697

  12,308,030

  Total

  34,431759

  35,082,308

  36,530,279

  Notes:

  1. Travel costs include vehicle rental, UK travel, foreign travel and official vehicle costs.

  2. BA costs included benefit offices, pensions, disability and carers directorate and DSS corporate centre.

  Tribunal Appeal Centres
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the tribunal appeal centres which are being considered for closure. [185626]

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

  Letter from Christina Townsend to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 22 July 2004:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question regarding appeal tribunal centres being considered for closure.

  The Appeals Service is considering a number of proposals about its current organisation. No final decisions on the number of tribunal venues or their location have yet been taken.

  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Work-related III Health
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the incidence rate was of cases of work-related ill health in each of the last seven years. [184677]

  Jane Kennedy
  No single source of information gives a complete and reliable measure of work-related ill health in Great Britain. The most inclusive and broadly based estimates come from self-reporting surveys in which individuals are asked to report any work-related ill health they have suffered in the last 12 months. In the period requested only one such measure is available, for 2001–02. For this year the estimated incidence rate was 2,200 per 100,000. A more up-to-date estimate, covering 2003–04, will be published later this year.
  457W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many members of the public have suffered ill health as a result of work activity in each of the last seven years. [184678]

  Jane Kennedy
  Comprehensive figures do not exist for the number of cases of ill health suffered as a result of work activity by members of the public, that is, by people other than workers. There are a number of issues that can contribute to ill health in the public caused by work activity. These include Healthcare Acquired Infection (HAI), pesticide-related ill health and Legionellosis. Partial information through the incidence statistics collected by various bodies, including HSE, local authorities and health agencies.

  Working Temperature
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Health and Safety Executive has to set a maximum working temperature. [186151]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will not be setting a maximum working temperature, as, due to the diversity of workplaces and work activities, it would be impractical to do so. Temperature is but one of a range of environmental and personal factors that thermal comfort in the workplace is dependant upon. Other factors include ventilation, humidity, radiant temperature, clothes worn, and the type of work involved. However, HSE do have plans to explore ways in which more guidance can be provided on the assessment and control of thermal comfort, and officials are currently considering possible approaches to a proposed dialogue on the matter with social partners.

  Workplace Health and Safety
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the new public service agreement target on improving workplace health and safety will include improving the safety of those who drive in the course of their work. [186111]

  Jane Kennedy
  The public service agreement applies only to people who drive or operate plant and vehicles on worksites.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) ordinary written and (b) named day questions his Department received in (i) the 2002–03 Session and (ii) this Session. [182718]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of today to his earlier question, 171196.

  Departmental Staff (Upper Age Limits)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department has(a) a set retirement age which applies to all or most personnel
  458W
  and (b) a maximum age beyond which applications for employment will not be considered; and what the age is in each case. [186083]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Most of the staff in the Scotland Office and the Office of the Advocate-General are on loan from the Scottish Executive. The normal retirement age for all Scottish Executive staff is 60 years and, in line with this, applications for employment are not normally considered from candidates over 60. This policy is currently wider review.

  Devolution
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what regular assessments of the balance between devolved and reserved powers are carried out. [185660]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government keeps policy and practice in relation to all aspects of the Scottish devolution settlement under review.

  Those matters reserved to the UK Parliament are set out in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Any amendments to Schedule 5, either increasing or reducing the scope of reserved matters, are considered on a caseby-case basis and are subject to scrutiny in both the UK and Scottish Parliaments.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) devolved issues and (b) other responsibilities have been transferred from the Scottish Executive to the UK Government since 1999; what return of funding each transfer involved; how many staff each transfer involved; and what legal basis was required for each transfer. [185661]

  Mrs. McGuire
  There have been no devolved issues transferred from the Scottish Executive to Ministers of the Crown since 1 July 1999.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) reserved issues and (b) other responsibilities have been transferred from the UK Government to the Scottish Executive since its creation; what additional funding each transfer involved; how many staff each transfer involved; and what legal basis was required for each transfer. [185662]

  Mrs. McGuire
  This is a complex and detailed matter, which will require the preparation of a comprehensive list of legislation that relates to any transfer of functions or legislative competence. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as this list can be prepared and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Efficiency Savings (Scottish Executive)
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the First Minister since the Comprehensive Spending Review in connection with efficiency savings in the Scottish Executive. [185352]

  Mr. Darling
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of subjects.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil
  459W
  servants in his Department announced in the comprehensive spending review, will be of special advisers. [185459]

  Mrs. McGuire
  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.

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many(a) ordinary written and (b) named day questions his Department received in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) this parliamentary Session, broken down by month; [171196]

  (2) what proportion of (a) ordinary written questions to his Department were answered within five sitting days of tabling and (b) questions for written answer on a named day received a substantive answer on that day in (i) the 2002-03 parliamentary Session and t ii) this parliamentary Session, broken down by month. [171197]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The breakdown of written questions received is as follows:

  Ordinary written

  Named day

  Session 2002–03

  November 2002

  16

  2

  December 2002

  9

  6

  January 2003

  50

  7

  February 2003

  19

  4

  March 2003

  14

  8

  April 2003

  28

  2

  Enactment

  Date Sewel motion approved

  Food Standards Act 1999, c.28

  23 June 1999

  Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, c.8

  23 June 1999

  Electronic Communications Act 2000, c.7

  23 June 1999

  Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, c.12

  23 June 1999

  Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Act 2000, c.18

  8 December 1999

  Representation of the People Act 2000, c.2

  13 January 2000

  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, c.44

  19 January 2000

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, c.41

  9 March 2000 (1) 6 July 2000 (2)

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, c.23

  6 April 2000

  Learning and Skills Act 2000, c.2 1

  18 May 2000

  Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, c.34

  25 May 2000

  Insolvency Act 2000, c.39

  1 June 2000

  Care Standards Act 2000, c.14

  22 June 2000

  Government Resources and Accounts Act:000, c.20

  6 July 2000

  Criminal Justice and Court Service Act 2000, c.43

  5 October 2000

  Health and Social Care Act 2001, c.15

  17 January 2001

  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 200?, c.36

  17 January 2001

  International Criminal Court Act 2001, c.11

  18 January 2001

  Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, c.16

  7 February 2001

  International Development Act 2002, c.l

  8 March 2001

  Armed Forces Act 2001, c.I9

  29 March 2001

  Adoption and Children Act 2002, c.38

  4 April 2001 (1)

  24 October 2001(2)

  30 January 2002 (3)

  Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, c.29

  24 October 2001

  Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. c. 14

  15 November 2001

  National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, c.I7

  22 November 2001

  Police Reform Act 2002, c.30

  30 January 2002(1)

  27 June 2002 (2)

  Enterprise Act 2002, c.40

  17 April 2002

  Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dots etc.) Act 2002, c.37

  19 June 2002

  Extradition Act 2003, c.41

  21 November 2002

  Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003, c.43

  28 November 2002

  Criminal Justice Act 2003, c.44

  5 December 2002(1)

  9 October 2003 (2)

  Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, c.32

  5 December 2002

  Local Government Act 2003, c.I I

  6 February 2003

  Sexual Offences Act 2003, c.42

  20 March 2003

  Railways and Transport Safety Act, c.20

  20 March 2003

  Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, c.43

  19 June 2003

  Fireworks Act 2003, c.22

  26 June 2003

  Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003, c.28

  11 September 2003

  460W

  Ordinary written

  Named day

  May 2003

  34

  4

  June 2003

  59

  6

  July 2003

  36

  3

  September 2003

  8

  1

  October 2003

  9

  5

  November 2003

  8

  —

  Session 2003–04 (to end June)

  November 2003

  —

  2

  December 2003

  12

  5

  January 2004

  17

  4

  February 2004

  19

  4

  March 2004

  19

  2

  April 2004

  23

  —

  May 2004

  26

  3

  June 2004

  8

  1

  While records on average processing times are not collected, approximately 65 per cent. of the ordinary written questions were answered within five sitting days. Approximately 60 per cent. of the named day questions were answered by the date specified.

  Sewel Motions
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2004,Official Report, column 709W, on Sewel motions, what Westminster legislation has been enacted in respect of each Sewel motion. [184967]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Sewel motions passed by the Scottish Parliament have been relevant to the following enactments of the UK Parliament:
  461W

  Enactment

  Date Sewel motion approved

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, c.5

  20 November 2003

  Gender Recognition Act 2004, c.I

  5 February 2004

  Higher Education Act 2004, c.8

  12 February 2004

  Justice (Northern Ireland) 2004, c.4

  18 March 2001

  * Approval of Westminster legislation by the Scottish Parliament before it assumed its full powers on 1 July 1999.

  The following Sewel motions have been passed by the Scottish Parliament in relation to Bills that have either subsequently not been enacted in the UK Parliament or have not yet completed their parliamentary consideration:

  Sewel motion/Bill

  Date approved

  Status

  Outworking

  31 January 2001

  Private Member's Bill dropped

  Culture and Recreation

  8 March 2001

  Not proceeded with after second reading in House of Lords

  Health Protection Agency

  29 January 2004

  Bill currently before Parliament

  Energy

  4 February 2004

  Bill currently before parliment

  Asylum and Immigration(Treatment for Claimants etc.)

  12 February 2004

  Bill currently before Parliament

  Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise)

  4 March 2004

  Bill currently before Parliament

  Civil Contingencies

  4 March 2004

  Bill currently before Parliament

  Civil Partnership

  3 June 2004

  Bill currently before Parliament

  Sustainable Development (Government Estate)
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes there have been in(a) road transport vehicle carbon emissions and (b) single occupancy car commuting from his Department against the baseline year in the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. [185605]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The use of vehicles by the Scotland Office is limited to official Ministerial travel. Vehicles are supplied by the Government Car and Despatch Agency, which has reduced vehicle carbon emissions from its fleet by 0.8 per cent. in the first year following the baseline year in the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate.

  Vehicles are not used by the Scotland Office on a single occupancy basis.

  Water
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department has joined the Watermark project. [185606]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office has not joined the Watermark project. The Office is now a distinct entity within the Department for Constitutional Affairs and its water usage, together with other sustainable development issues, will be reviewed in that context in the coming year.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes there have been in water consumption by his Department in each year since 1997. [185607]
  462W
  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  Information on water consumption is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Scotland Office is now a distinct entity within the Department for Constitutional Affairs and its water usage, together with other sustainable development issues, will be reviewed in that context in the coming year.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the non-office sites within his departmental estate 'which have been identified as being likely to provide opportunities for significant water savings. [185608]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office does not have any non-office sites within its estate.

PRIME MINISTER

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to publish the annual report of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and if he intends to carry out a review of the business appointment rules. [186447]

  The Prime Minister
  The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; has submitted its sixth report to me. The report provides an account of the work of the Committee in advising me on business appointment applications from Crown servants on the acceptance of outside appointment s after leaving Government. The report covers the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2004. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  I am very grateful to all the Committee members for giving their time so freely to it.

  In addition, I have asked Sir Patrick Brown to undertake a review of the Business Appointment rules taking account of the work already done by the Committee and referred to in their report. The rules were last reviewed in 1996. Since then there has been a greater emphasis on interchange with the private and other sectors. The review will have the following terms of reference:
  "To review the Business Appointment rules to ensure that they are compatible with a public service that is keen to encourage greater interchange with the private and other sectors which is essential for effective delivery in today's public service. The review will consider the operation of the system, taking account of practice overseas. It m ill also consider the current machinery for dealing with applications and the necessary resources".

  Butler Report
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement of 14 July 2004,Official Report, column 1435,

  463W
  on the Butler Report, what action he proposes to take to address the errors for which he has taken responsibility. [186097]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement in the Iraq debate on 20 July 2004,Official Report, column 195.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what advice he has received from the intelligence services about the impact of the Iraq war and subsequent occupation on the likely incidence of terrorism in(a) the Middle East, (b) the UK and (c) the rest of the world; [185693]

  (2) what advice he has received from the intelligence services about the impact of die Iraq war and subsequent occupation on public opinion on the popularity of the UK in the Middle East. [185694]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly receive intelligence assessments that address the situation in Iraq and its wider impact, including on the threat from international terrorism.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of each of the false statements or omissions in the Iraqi declarations provided pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) to which reference was made in the letter sent by his private secretary to the legal secretary of the law officers on 15 March 2003, referred to in paragraph 384 of the report of the Butler Committee on the review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. [186186]

  The Prime Minister
  As set out in the Butler Report, intelligence and information from a wide range of other sources, especially from UNMOVIC, demonstrated that there were false statements and omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was informed of the proposal made by the director of the Central Intelligence Agency's weapons, intelligence, non-proliferation and arms control centre that the statements made on Iraq's attempts to secure uranium from Niger in the British Government dossier should be removed, as set out on pages 64–65 of the United States Senate report on intelligence on Iraq. [186218]

  The Prime Minister
  As set out in paragraph 497 of the Butler Report, the Central Intelligence Agency advised caution about any suggestion that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring uranium from Africa, but agreed that there was evidence that it had been sought.

  Iraq (Statement on Mass Graves)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what the source was for the statement he made on 20 November 2003 that the remains of 400,000 people had been discovered in mass graves in Iraq [186040]

  The Prime Minister
  Human rights organisations, forensic groups and the UN have estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of people believed to be buried in mass graves. What is clear is that until a464W
  systematic investigation of Iraq's 259 reported mass gravesites is completed we are unlikely to know the complete picture.

  Kosovo
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what measures have been taken each year to advance the undertakings he gave during his first visit to Pristina, Kosovo; what further measures he proposes; and if he will make a statement. [185632]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK remains committed to building a stable, democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo, based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which set up the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to help establish an autonomous, self-governing Kosovo. Free and democratic elections were held in 2001 which resulted in the formation of a Provisional Kosovo Government (PISG). In November 2003, the UNSC set out key standards that the PISG needed to reach for a process on final status to begin. The UN Secretary General, consulting the Contact Group, will assess progress in a formal review in 2005.

  The UK continues to be a leading partner in Kosovo working closely with the UN Mission in Kosovo, the EU and the Contact Group to build a Kosovo based on the rule of law. I welcome the 14 July Joint Declaration by Kosovo Serb and Albanian leaders pledging to work together on reconciliation, return of displaced Serbs and reform of local self-government.

  Since the establishment of UNMIK in 1999, the UK has provided over £50 million and over 100 seconded staff. We have contributed over £115 million to programmes to help develop policy, strategy and operational systems in key areas such as public administration, social policy and health care reform.

  Ministerial Gifts
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list gifts received by Ministers in 2003–04 valued at more than £140. [186448]

  The Prime Minister
  I have today published a list of gifts received by Ministers. The list provides details of gifts received by Ministers valued at more than —140 for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. Copies of the list have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list a) Government expenditure on ministerial overseas visits for the financial years 1996–97 to 2003–04 and(b) all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500 between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004, including the cost, destination and purpose of each visit. [186446]

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on ministerial overseas visits for the period requested is estimated as follows.
  465W

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1996–97

  7.9

  1997–981

  6.4

  1998–99

  4.9

  1999–2000

  4.6

  2000–01

  4.7

  2001–02

  5.6

  2002–03

  5.7

  2003–042

  5.2

  12 May 1997 to 31 March 1998.

  2The figure for 2003–04 reflects payments made so far for travel undertaken in the period; a few bills have yet to be submitted to Departments for payment.

  A list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The list provides details of the date, destination, purpose and costs of individual visits made by Cabinet Minsters.

  Advisers in post

  Appointing Minister

  Special adviser in post

  Expertise

  The Prime Ministers1

  Jonathan Powell

  Chief of Staff

  Sally Morgan

  Government relations

  Policy Directorate

  Andrew Adonis

  Education

  Arnab Banerjee

  Economic

  Patrick Diamond

  Education and cross-cutting policy issues

  Matthew Elson

  Transport

  Julian Le Grand

  Health

  Roger Liddle

  Europe

  Alasdair McGowan

  Devolution, local and regional government

  John McTernan

  Social exclusion

  Geoffrey Norris

  Industry and business

  Carey Oppenheim

  Children and families

  Nicholas Rowley

  Environment

  Justin Russell

  Home and Legal Affairs

  Matthew Taylor

  Acting Head of the Policy Directorate

  Communications

  David Hill

  Hilary Coffman

  Darren Murphy

  Diary management

  Katie Kay

  Events and visits

  Jo Gibbons

  Angela Goodchild (p/t)

  Implementation Group

  Kate Garvey

  Sarah Hunter

  Liz Lloyd

  Media Monitoring Unit

  Chris McShane

  Research and Information Unit

  Joanna Nadin

  Catherine Rimmer

  Strategic Communications Unit

  David Bradshaw

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) the names of special advisers in post and their specific area of expertise if appropriate, (b) special advisers pay ranges for 2004–05,(c) the number of special advisers in each pay band by Department and (d) the total cost of special advisers for 2003–04. [186445]

  The Prime Minister
  Listed as follows are the names of special advisers in post at 19 July 2004, the special advisers' pay ranges for 2004–05, the number of special advisers in each pay hand by Department and the total cost of special advisees for 2003–04.

  All special advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the "Model Contract for Special Advisers" providing advice on the full range of their appointing Minister's departmental responsibilities. Where a special adviser has a specific expertise this is indicated.
  467W

  Adviser in post

  Appointing Minister

  Special adviser in post

  Expertise

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State

  Joan Hammel Ian McKenzie Paul Hacket (p/t)

  Chief Whip (Commons)

  Sue Jackson Fiona Gordon

  Chief Whip (Lords)

  Margaret Ounsley

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Bill Bush Nick Bent

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Michael Dugher James Connal

  Secretary of State for Education and Skills

  Robert Hill Lisa Tremble

  Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Nicci Collins Stephen Hale Hazel Phillips

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Ed Owen/Michael Williams

  Communications and the EU UN;human rights; Asia, Africa and the Balkans.

  Secretary of State for Health

  Richard Otszewski Steve Bates Paul Corrigan

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Matt Cavanagh Katharine Raymond Huw Evans Sophie Linden(p/t)

  Leader of the House of Lords, and Lords President of the Council

  Matthew Seward2 Mark Davies Joe Dancey(p/t)

  Communication

  Secretary of State for Constitutional Affair and Lord Chancellor

  Garry Hart Philip Bassett

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Alex Evans Beatrice Stern

  Communications

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Owen Smith Adam Higgett

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

  Greg Power Phil Taylor Andrew Bold

  Parliamentary procedure Parliamentary Procedure Welsh affairs

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Jim Godfrey Roger Sharp Deborach Lincoln Emily Thomas(unpaid)

  Communication Women and equality

  Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland

  Andrew Maugham Sam White Iain gray

  Scottish affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer3,4

  Ian Austin Spencer Livermore

  Communication

  Chief Secretary

  Nicola Murphy Jonathan Ashworth

  Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

  Chris Norton Tom Clark

  Minister without Portfolio

  Martin O'Donovan Blair McDougall

  1Plus Lord Birt who is appointed as the Prime Minister's unpaid strategy adviser

  2 In addition, Matthew Seward also works part-time for the Home Secretary

  3In addition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed Ed Miliband (Chairman), Paul Gregg, Shriti Vadera, Michael Jacobs and Stewart Wood to the Council of Economic Advisers on special adviser terms.

  4Plus Sue Nye appointed as an unpaid adviser

  468W 469W
  The Pay bands for 2004–05

  The pay bands and pay ranges for special advisers for 2004—05 are as follows:

  £

  Scheme maximum

  133,628

  Pay band 4

  80,178 to 96,213

  Pay band 3 and premium

  59,867 to 93,005

  Pay band

  Department

  0

  1

  2

  3

  4

  No 101

  1

  5

  5

  13

  2

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Chief Whips' Offices (Commons and Lords)

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Constitutional Affairs

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Culture, Media and Sport

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Defence

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Education and Skills

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Health

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Home Office

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  International Development

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

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

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

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

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Office

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Trade and Industry

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  HM Treasury3

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Transport

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Work and Pensions

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Minister without Portfolio

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  23

  26

  22

  4

  1 Plus two special advisers who are paid beyond pay band 4 but within the scheme maximum

  2Plus one adviser who is unpaid

  3Plus the five members of the Council of Economic Advisers who are employed on special adviser terms (one in band 4, three in band 3 and one in band 1). One of the members of the Council work part time.

  Paybill costs

  The cost of special advisers in 2003–04 is £5.3 million1

  1 This figure includes salary, severance pay and an estimate of pensions costs.

  United Healthcare
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates special advisers from his Office have met representatives of United Healthcare since 1 May; which of his special advisers took part in each meeting; and where each meeting was held. [186144]

  The Prime Minister
  My officials and I have meetings and discussions with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not

  Number of seizures

  Number of items seized

  Weight of items seized(kg)

  Live animals and birds

  89

  2,905

  —

  Parts and derivatives of endangered species

  79

  1,443

  —

  Ivory

  18

  96

  —

  Plants

  10

  2,018

  —

  Other CITES listed species

  14

  302

  —

  9

  —

  32.9

  Preparations of oriental medicines that include parts or derivatives of endangered species

  6

  4,220,807

  —

  12

  —

  467.0

  470W

  £

  Pay band 2

  47,038 to 61,785

  Pay band 1

  36,348 to 48,456

  Pay band 0

  Up to 36,347

  Advisers by Pay Band

  At 19 July 2004, the number of special advisers in each pay band by Department is as follows:

  the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings, under Exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access t. Government Information.

TREASURY

  CITES (Contravention)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instances of international trade in contravention of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) have been(a) identified and (b) apprehended by UK authorities since January 2001, broken down by (i) species and (ii) CITES category; and if he will make a statement. [185898]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise made 237 seizures of endangered species imported in air or sea freight in 2003.
  471W
  Seizures may be recorded by weight or number of seizures of items such as traditional Chinese medicines may be recorded either according to the individual count of capsules or according HD the quantity of containers.

  Equivalent breakdowns for 2001 or 2002 would only be available at disproportionate cost. Information on CITES category is not recorded against individual seizures and in some cases the species could not be covered by two or more of the annexes in EU Regulation.

  MRSA
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of deaths 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. [184410]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay dated 22 July 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many and what it percentage of deaths were caused by MRSA, or had MRSA as a contributing factor in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by hospital. (184410)

  The latest year for which figures are available is 2002. The number of deaths contributed to by MRSA, by hospital, for this year is given in the table attached. This table includes hospitals where there were five or more deaths for which MRSA was recorded as a contributory factor. Where the number of deaths was less than five the number of deaths has not been provided, to minimise the risk of disclosure of confidential information.

  I am also placing in the House of Commons library a table showing all the establishments recorded by ONS as general hospitals or multi-function sites during 2002 al which there was:
  at least one death from any cause, ind
  either no deaths where MRSA way a contributory factor, or fewer than five such deaths.

  It should be noted that it is not possible to put a firm figure to the number of people who die from MRSA because people are often very sick with a number of ether conditions so the contribution of MRSA to the outcome in any particular case is uncertain. The underlying causeof death is most often the disease or injury which led them to be admitted to hospital, rather than the MRSA which may have complicated the course of the illness. Internationally accepted guidance from the World Health Organisation on the completion of death certificates requires only those conditions that contribute directly to death to be recorded.

  Number of deaths where MRSA was a contributory factor1, by hospital2

  Hospital name

  No.of deaths where MRSA was a contributory factor

  Percentage of all deaths

  England and Wales

  721

  0.2

  Hospitals with five or more deaths where MRSA was a contributory factor

  Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge

  10

  0.6

  Alexandra Hospital, Redditch

  5

  0.7

  Arrowe Park Hospital, Birkenhead

  5

  0.3

  Ashford Hospital

  6

  0.9

  Birmingham Heartlands Hospital

  17

  0.9

  472W

  Number of deaths where MRSA was a contributory factor1 by hospital2

  Hospital name

  No.of deaths where MRSA was a contributory factor

  Percentage of all deaths

  Bristol Royal Infirmary

  6

  0.5

  Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford

  8

  0.6

  City Hospital, Winson Green

  10

  0.7

  Conquest Hospital, St. Leonards on Sea

  9

  0.7

  Derriford Hospital, Plymouth

  22

  1.1

  Freeman Hospital, Newcastle

  9

  0.9

  General Hospital, Bishop Auckland

  5

  0.8

  General Hospital, Southampton

  7

  0.3

  General Infirmary, Leeds

  11

  0.6

  George Eliot Hospital, Nuneaton

  5

  0.4

  Hull Royal Infirmary

  5

  0.3

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  9

  0.5

  King's College Hospital, London

  5

  0.4

  Lister Hospital, Stevenage

  5

  0.4

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital

  5

  0.4

  Maelor Hospital, Wrexham

  10

  0.8

  Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham

  13

  0.8

  Morriston Hospital, Swansea

  7

  0.5

  Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton

  7

  0.5

  New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton

  8

  0.4

  Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital

  7

  0.3

  North Middlesex Hospital, Edmonton

  5

  0.5

  Prince Charles Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil

  6

  0.6

  Princess Margaret Hospital, Swindon

  5

  0.4

  Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan

  Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth

  15

  0.7

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston

  5

  0.6

  Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading

  5

  0.4

  Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro

  5

  0.4

  Royal Infirmary, Doncaster

  6

  0.4

  Royal Infirmary, Huddersfield

  5

  0.5

  Royal Preston Hospital

  5

  0.4

  Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton

  6

  0.4

  Southmead Hospital. Bristol

  5

  0.5

  St. Helier Hospital, Carshalton

  5

  0.4

  St. Mary's Hospital, Westminster

  9

  1.0

  St. Thomas's Hospital, London

  9

  0.8

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury

  5

  0.7

  Torbay Hospital

  5

  0.4

  University Hospital Aintree

  7

  0.4

  University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff

  8

  0.4

  University Hospital. Nottingham

  6

  0.3

  Warwick Hospital

  5

  0.5

  Whittington Hospital St. Mary's Wing, Islington

  6

  0.7

  Wycombe General Hospital

  5

  0.6

  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.

  2Defined as general hospitals or multi-function sites using the ONS classification of establishment types.

  Note: Figures are for deaths occurring in 2002.

  Pensions Mis-selling (Compensation)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individual general pensions mis-selling cases have been settled by compensation in the last year for which figures are available. [185766]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme are independent bodies.

  I understand from the Financial Services Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme that the following pensions cases has been resolved in the last year.
  473W

  Number of cases at 31 March 2004

  Pensions review cases carried out by the financial industry

  23,600

  Pensions review cases conducted by the Financial Services Authority in conjunction with the Financial Services

  3,335

  Compensation Scheme for those firms that are unable to meet claims against them.

  Pension cases resolved by the Financial Ombudsman Service (including those cases relating to personal pensions, pensions review, free-standing additional voluntary contributions schemes, annuity contracts and all other products with a pensions elements.)

  6,265

  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what checks are carried out to ensure that compensation in cases of pension mis-selling are equivalent to reinstatement of the original pension scheme. [185767]

  Ruth Kelly
  I understand from the FSA that in the case of pension compensation cases which are part of the formal Pensions Review, recompense is not normally payable in the form of cash but by addition to the individual's pension. The term "redress" is apposite rather than the term "compensation".

  Where a loss has been caused by non-compliant advice and reinstatement into the original pension scheme is available at fair cost, then an offer of reinstatement must be made.

  Otherwise, the normal method of redress is by topping-up the individual's personal pension. The value of pension and other benefits that would have been available from the original pension scheme, is compared with that from the personal pension after allowing for any relevant differences in the individual's pension contributions. The shortfall in value is added to the personal pension as redress.

  As the level of benefits and risks differ between pension arrangements the method of working out the value of benefits needs to allow for this. Under the Pensions Review, which reviewed sales of personal pensions between 29 April 1988 and 30 June 1994, and which is now virtually complete save for relatively few difficult cases, the following method and checks applied:
  To ensure that benefits provided by the personal pensions were equivalent in value to those provided by the original pension scheme, the method of valuation was specified in regulatory provisions using actuarial methodology together with assumptions about future investment return, inflation and longevity.
  These assumptions were based on independent actuarial advice, confirmed by the actuarial profession and regularly reviewed.
  Where other assumptions were needed about the individual's particular situation, either standard amounts were specified in the regulator's provisions or sufficiently important assumptions were required to be disclosed to the individual so that he or she could question them and provide further information if available.
  Firms were required to confirm that the redress complied with the regulatory provisions for each case and also to carry out audits of their review process and results.
  In addition, firms were subject to supervisory checks by the regulators.
  If a consumer was not content with the offer made and was unable to resolve his or her concerns with the firm, he or she had the right to complain to the relevant Ombudsman, the normal time scales for complaints having been waived.

  General pensions complaints are dealt with by the Financial Ombudsman Service for solvent firms and by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme for firms that are unable to meet claims against them.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much aggregates tax has been levied in total in Argyll and Bute constituency in each year since the tax was first levied. [185854]

  John Healey
  A breakdown of Aggregates Levy receipts is not available by individual parliamentary constituency.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the income has been in each of the last three years from the payment of air passenger duty; and if he will make a statement. [185343]

  John Healey
  This revenues from air passenger duty are published online in the HMC&E Air Passenger Duty Bulletin at www.uKtradeinfo.com. In each of the last three calendar years these were:

  —million

  Revenue

  2001

  834

  2002

  809

  2003

  778

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the level of the UK deficit in the balance of traded goods in each of the last seven years. [186211]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Kenneth Clarke, dated 22 July 2004

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the United Kingdom's deficit on trade in goods. (186211)

  The following table shows the latest estimates for the UK balance of trade in goods. The figures shown are consistent with the published Balance Payment "Pink Book". The balance of trade in goods is the value of goods exported less the value of goods imported.

  Balance of trade in goods (£ million)

  1997

  -12,342

  1998

  -21,813

  1999

  -29,051

  2000

  -32,976

  2001

  -40,648

  2002

  -46,675

  2003

  -47,290

  Business Investment
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage change in the level of business investment in the United Kingdom in each of the last seven years. [186209]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Kenneth Clarke, dated 22 July 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning, the percentage change in the level of business investment in each of the last seven years. (186209)

  The information requested is shown in the table below, consistent with the Business Investment First Release published on 1 July. The table uses the Chained volume measure series, which exclude the effects of price changes

  Annual percentage change in business investment (Chained volume measures)—UK, 1997–2003

  Period

  Business investment (annual percentage change)

  1997

  +10.1

  1998

  +18.1

  1999

  +2.8

  2000

  +4.6

  2001

  +1.9

  2002

  +0.6

  2003

  -0.9

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many childcare tax credit payments have been made in respect of children aged(a) under one, two, three and four years, (b) five, six, seven and eight years and (c) who are eight years old in the latest period for which figures are available.[185701]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The following table shows the number of families benefiting from the childcare element of Working Tax Credit at 5 April 2004, with an estimated analysis by the ages of the children for whom eligible childcare costs were incurred:

  Ages of children for whom eligible childcare costs incurred, 5 April 2004

  Age combination of children for whom eligible children costs incurred

  Number of families benefiting from the childcare element of Working Tax Credit1 (Thousand)

  All aged under five

  170

  Aged under five, and five to eight

  20

  Other with aged under five

  10

  Aged five to eight only

  50

  Aged five to eight, and older

  20

  Aged over eight only

  50

  Total

  320

  1Those claiming the childcare element, and with Child Tax Credit above the family element. Rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total expenditure on the childcare tax credit in 2003–04; how many recipients there were of childcare tax credit in that year; what the average payment was; and in respect of how many children payments were made. [185709]
  476W
  Dawn Primarolo
  For the level of child care support provided through the child care element of working tax credit, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on 27 April 2004,Official Report, column 866W.

  The number of families benefiting from this element, and the average help with child care costs, appear 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.

  It is estimated that these families incurred eligible child care costs for an average of 1.3 children.

  Civil Service Recruitment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer based on the 2004 Spending Review, how many civil service jobs he estimates will be lost in the area of Coventry, South; from which Departments and agencies; and what assessment he has made of the likely effect on services to the public. [185279]

  Mr. Boateng
  There will be an overall gross reduction in posts of 84,150 by 2008 and Departments will pursue these reductions in line with business need. It is not yet possible to say where reductions will happen on a geographic or departmental basis as Departments are still developing these plans.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what controls he is proposing to ensure that Civil Service job cuts as a result of his announcements in Budget 2004 and Spending Review 2004 are not replaced by consultants hired by departments but not on departmental payrolls. [186121]

  Mr. Boateng
  The civil service job cuts are being made because new technology enables us to reduce the number of personnel required to deliver services. The 2004 Spending Review also announced that every department is required to consider and agree with the Office of Government Commerce by December 2004 how to pursue improvements in the value for money of all procurement of external professional services.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his announcement on 12 July, how many Civil Service posts he expects to be(a) abolished and (b) re-assigned to front line services in each Government Department and agency. [185367]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]With the detailed plans Departments are publishing for the years to 2008, the Chancellor announced at the Spending Review a gross reduction in civil service posts of 84,150— of which 13,550 posts will be reassigned to frontline services to release resourced from administration to invest in the front line.

  The Devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales and the Northern Ireland Office have also announced that they are engaged in Spending Review efficiency and evaluation exercises as ambitious as those in England—with reductions also in back office and

  477W
  related areas; and with the 2.5 per cent. annual efficiency savings applied to the settlement for local government in England, this allows for a reduction of a further 20,000.

  Public Servants asked to change jobs will be offered support with retraining and we are ready to work with the work force and their unions to provide that help.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition he uses of frontline for the purposes of his announcement on12 July about reductions in civil service staff; and which posts in each Department and agency fall within that definition.[185369]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]The 2004 Spending Review announced reductions of 84,150 posts by 2008. Of this, 13,550 posts will be redeployed to key frontline areas in HM Revenue and Customs, the Department for Transport or the Department for Work and Pensions. These redeployments from back office functions will enable increases in key frontline roles, for example personal advisors in Job Centre Plus.

  Cotton Oil Imports
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) value and (b) volume of cotton oil imports into the UK was in the last year for which records are available, broken down by country of origin. [186055]

  John Healey
  Provisional estimates for annual imports for 2003 were published by HM Customs and Excise in the Overseas Trade Statistics in February 2004. The final (revised) figures will be available from the HMCE www.uktradeinfo.com website in August 2004 (when final figures for 2003 are published). The value and volume of cotton oil imported into the UK in 2003, broken down by country of origin are:

  Imports of cotton seed oil and its fractions, crude and refined general trade: 20031

  Country of dispatch/origin2

  Statistical value (–1,000)

  Netmass (tonnes)

  Imports from EU countries

  France

  13.1

  2.1

  Netherlands

  139.6

  269.6

  Germany

  2.7

  1.7

  Italy

  47.7

  49.6

  Total EU

  203.1

  322.9

  Imports from non-EU countries

  Canada

  5.9

  2.7

  China

  8.1

  6.3

  USA

  170.1

  80.0

  Total non-EU

  184.0

  89.1

  All countries total

  387.2

  412.0

  1 Provisional figures, may be subject to revision.

  2 Country of origin for non-EU imports; country of dispatch for EU imports (country of origin not available for EU trade).

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics, HM Customs and Excise

  Crown Estate
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Crown Estate spent on(a) public relations and (b) corporate hospitality in the last financial year. [185970]
  478W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information for financial year 2003–04 is as follows:(a) 267,4521
  (b) 9,456.
  >1Public Relations expenditure is defined as the Communication Department's budget less staff costs and production of the Annual Report and Accounts.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of producing the Crown Estate's 2004 annual report. [185972]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Crown Estate annual report and accounts 2004 has only recently been completed and distributed. Final costs have not yet been determined.

  Departmental Agency Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total amount paid by his Department to employment agencies for the supply of temporary staff was in financial year 2003–04. [178911]

  Ruth Kelly
  The total cost incurred by HM Treasury for the supply of temporary staff by employment agencies in the financial year 2003–04 was £1,386,000.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many road vehicles are operated by the Department and its agencies; how many personal injury accidents involving road vehicles operated by the Department have occurred within each of the last five years; and what the Department's policy is for managing work-related road safety. [185925]

  Ruth Kelly
  Total number of road vehicles operated by the Chancellor's Departments and agencies is 4,785.

  The number of personal Injury Accidents in each of the last five years was:

  Number

  1999–2000

  47

  2000–01

  44

  2001–02

  31

  2002–03

  31

  2003–04

  32

  The Chancellor's Departments and agencies are committed to the delivery of their obligations under Health and Safety legislation with regard to driving on official business.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Willetts
  To a sk the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the British economy grew on average per annum(a) in total and (b) per capita in the period (i) 1993 to 1998 and (ii) 1998 to 2003. [178846]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is set out in the following table.
  479W

  Percentage

  Average GDP growth per annum

  Average GDP growth per capita per annum

  Real terms(chained-volumes)

  Nominal terms(current prices)

  Real terms(chained-volumes)

  Nominal terms(current prices)

  1997–2003

  2.8

  5.4

  2.4

  5.0

  1992–97

  2.7

  5.6

  2.4

  5.3

  1998–2003

  2.7

  5.2

  2.3

  4.9

  1993–98

  3.1

  5.9

  2.9

  5.6

  Source:

  Treasury Economic Statistics (ONS)

  Employment Tribunals
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases against his Department, and the agencies for which it is responsible have been brought to employment tribunals in each year since 1997 in relation to(a) equal pay, (b) sex discrimination, (c) race

  (A) and (B) Settling and contesting claims

  £000

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Total

  Settlement Cost

  3 000

  5,000

  0

  11,293

  47,500

  15,148

  19,800

  101,741

  Contesting Claims

  4 700

  117,374

  0

  23,185

  32,386

  19,773

  7,700

  205,118

  Total:

  7 700

  122,374

  0

  34,478

  79,886

  34,921

  27,500

  306,859

  Note:

  Settlement and contesting costs not avails ble for one case in 2000 and 2001 and 2003

  Endowment Mortgages (Compensation)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to compensate people who bought endowment mortgages before the system of regulation covering the sale of these came into existence and who cannot pursue a claim through the normal regulatory channels; and if he will make a statement. [185966]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government supports the Financial Services Authority's proposal to conduct further analysis to identify those people who were sold an endowment policy before 29 April 1988 that is forecast to shortfall. The Government also supports the efforts of the FSA and industry to explore the scope for voluntary action to help people In this situation. The Government have no plans to compensate people who bought endowment mortgages belt re 29 April 1988.

  EU Financial Regulation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the(a) proportion and (b) cost of new financial sector regulation that derives from the EU. [186175]

  Ruth Kelly
  As stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Mansion House speech of 16 June 2004, three-quarters of financial services regulation is derived from the European Union. There is no estimate available of the total cost in the UK of financial sector regulation derived from the EU.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made cf the effect on UK
  480W
  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. [181468]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested is as follows:

  Cases to ET

  Numer of cases

  Cost awards Cost awards made against made against respondents (£000)

  Cost awards made against applicants (£000)

  Equal Pay

  1

  —

  Racial

  Discrimination

  4

  5,000

  –

  Sex Discrimination

  2

  500

  –

  Disability

  Discrimination

  5

  –

  –

  Unfair Dismissal

  11

  —

  14,000

  Total

  23

  5,500

  14,000

  consumers of (a) competition and the (b) free flow of trade as a result of membership of the European single market; and if he will make a statement. [184522]

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

  The European Commission estimates that in the 10 years after 1992 the internal market created 2.5 million jobs in the EU and increased its GDP by ¬877 billion. This amounts to an average ¬5,700 of extra income per household (source: European Commission (2002) "The Internal Market—10 Years without Frontiers"). In addition to increased jobs and prosperity, the Commission report points to benefits to consumers from the increased choice, price competition, and product quality and innovation in the world's largest single market. For example, according to a Commission survey, 80 per cent. of EU citizens believed that the internal market has led to wider choice and 67 per cent. that it had led to improved quality.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects on the compliance and development costs to(a) British exporters and (b) British consumers of EU single market rules which allow products approved in one EU country to be sold across the EU. [184523]

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

  British exporters have benefited from reduced compliance and development costs, resulting from the removal of frontier controls and from rules that allow goods to be traded across the EU rather than complying with 25 different sets of national laws. The 1988 Cocchini Report ("The Cost Of non-Europe") estimated the cost saving to EU business of removal of internal
  481W
  frontier controls alone in a Union then consisting of 12 members states at €8 billion. In its report, "The Internal Market£10 Years without Frontiers" (European Commission (2002)), the European Commission notes that before the frontiers came down, the tax system alone required 60 million customs clearance documents annually: these are no longer needed. The Commission's report notes how a strong, competitive internal market has helped firms become more productive and efficient and so enhanced their ability to compete in global markets. It sets out benefits to consumers from the greater prosperity, choice, price competition and product innovation that the world's largest internal market brings.

  Government Offices (East Midlands)
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many full-time equivalent employees of Customs and Excise in the east midlands there were in each year since 1997. [185494]

  John Healey
  The figures are based on the number of staff in post at April 2001 each year. The regional distribution of permanent (including fixed term) staff in all Government Departments is published annually by the Cabinet Office in table D of Civil Service Statistics', a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The number of HMC and E permanent staff based in the east midlands region for 1997–2002 are:

  Number

  1997

  1,104

  1998

  884

  1999

  863

  2000

  850

  2001

  770

  2002

  720

  Figure for 2003 and 2004 are currently unavailable, however, the Cabinet Office are expected to publish figures for 2003 shortly.

  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what government offices have been identified for closure in the east midlands in the light of the Comprehensive Spending Review. [185497]

  Mr. Boateng
  There will be an overall gross reduction in posts of 84,150 by 2008 and Departments will pursue these reductions in line with business need. Departments continue to plan the implementation of their efficiency programmes.

  Household Savings, Liabilities and Debt
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the level of household savings expressed as a percentage of UK gross domestic product has been in each of the last seven years; [186213]

  (2) what the level of (a) household liabilities and (b) household debt expressed as a percentage of UK gross domestic product has been in each of the last seven years. [186215]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  482W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Kenneth Clarke, dated 22 July 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your two recent Parliamentary Questions on the level of household savings; the level of household liabilities and the level of household debt, each expressed as a percentage of UK gross domestic product in each of the last seven years. (186213 and 186215)

  The information requested is shown in the table below. Household debt is measured as the total of household outstanding liabilities at the end or the period and hence only the latter is shown in the table.

  The household series used for these data are for the combined household and non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH) sectors. The accounts for the household and NPISH sectors are currently combined: separate estimates are not available.

  Household1 savings and liabilities as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product(GDP)1997—2003

  Household1 savings as a percentage of GDP

  Household1 liabilities2as a percentage of GDP

  1997

  6.8

  73.0

  1998

  4.4

  73.3

  1999

  3.7

  75.4

  2000

  3.9

  78.0

  2001

  5.0

  82.4

  2002

  4.1

  89.2

  2003

  4.2

  95.7

  1Estimates are for the combined household and non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH) sectors.

  2Total outstanding liabilities at the end of each year.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the travel costs incurred by(a) his Department and (b) each Minister within his Department, for each of the last 10 years; [175658]

  (2) how many journeys were made by helicopter by each Minister in his Department in each of the last 10 years; and what the journey length was in each case. [175737]

  Ruth Kelly
  Since 1999 the Government have published annually a list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published each year since 1995–96 the total annual cost of all Ministers" visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. Information for 2003–04 will be published later today.

  In respect of total travel costs for civil servants in the department I refer the r hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 19 July 2004 (Official Report, column 43–6W) which gave the costs for the financial years 1997–98 to 2003–04. The total costs on the same basis for 1996–97 were £951,347. Information for earlier years is no longer held. It is not possible to give a breakdown of total travel costs by individual Ministers.

  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 27 February 2003 which stated that no flights by helicopter were made between 2001 and 27 February 2003. Information relating to other years is not held by the department.
  483W
  All ministerial travel is underta Ken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which a r,2 available in the Libraries of the House.

  MOD Administration Costs
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the Ministry of Defence does not have an administration costs limit. [181773]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Ministry of Defence was originally excluded from the administration cost control regime because it could have discouraged inter-changeability between Service and civilian personnel. The Ministry of Defence is not exempt from the administration costs efficiency target announced in the 2004 Budget. This target applies to all departments and MOD will be required to freeze the equivalent of its administration budget over the Spending Review years.

  Oil Reserves
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellar of the Exchequer if he will list, for each of the last 10 years,(a) the total output and (b) the total Exchequer revenue from the UK's oil reserves; and what asses merit he has made of (i) output and (ii) revenue in each of the next 10 years. [185249]

  Ruth Kelly
  Annual information on UK indigenous oil production to 2002 can be found at http://www.dti.gov.u1c/energy/inform/energy_stats/oilidukes3_1_1.xls and more recent monthly information at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_stats/oil/3_10oilproduction-ettab13.xls

  The latest available DTI forecasts of UK oil production, from 2004 to 2009, can be found at http:// www. og.dti. gov.uk/information/bb_updates/chapters/ Section4_17.htm

  And historic Inland Revenue financial year tax receipts jointly from North Sea oil and gas, together with published Budget 2004 projections for 2004–05, can be found at http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/information/ bb_updates/appendices/Appendix8.htm

  Table C9 on page 261 of Budget 2004 shows longer term projections of North Sea revenues as a percentage of GDP.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 10 December 2003,Official Report, columns 494–95W, on tax credits, if he will update the tables for each month for which figures are available. [185014]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of manual tax credits payments issued in each month between December 2003 and March 2004 is shown in the table. Manual giro payments are made particularly to deal with an immediate change in circumstance pending automatic payments being adjusted.
  484W

  1Number of manual tax credit payments

  2Number of automatic direct payments (million)

  December 2003

  14,000

  11.5

  January 2004

  16,000

  10.5

  February 2004

  17,000

  10.5

  March 2004

  22,000

  12.5

  Notes:

  1. These figures cover all manual payments—that is, giro payments issued by local offices, or issued by other Inland Revenue offices but outside the main tax credits automatic payment mechanisms. They are rounded to the nearest 1,000. The previous figures covered only same-day payments issued by local offices.

  2. The numbers of automatic direct payments are rounded to the nearest 0.5 million.

  Personal Income Tax Allowance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate(a) the gross cost and (b) the cost net of savings in social security benefits of raising the personal income tax allowance to £10,000 per annum. [185705]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of raising the personal income tax allowances to –10,000 per annum in 2004–05 is(a) £29.8 billion in gross costs and (b) £29.6 billion in costs net of savings of social security benefits. The figures exclude any estimate of behavioural response to the tax change.

  The gross costs are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes 2001–02 and are consistent with the Budget 2004. The savings from social security benefits are from the DWP Policy Simulation Model, based upon the Family Resources Survey 2002–03 and consistent with the Budget 2004.

  Population Register
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library formal privacy impact assessments relating to the population register which is being compiled by the Registrar General. [185953]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 22 July 2004:

  As Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning privacy impact assessments relating to the population register. (185953)

  Work on the Citizen Information Project is being taken forward by the General Register Office (GRO), part of the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The Project is concerned with establishing the potential of a population register for providing cost savings and improvements to the delivery of public services. It is currently in the project definition stage. A detailed business case has still to be developed and no decision has been taken yet as to whether or not the population register should proceed to implementation.

  ONS is considering, its plans for public consultation. We would anticipate that a privacy impact assessment would form part of any formal consultation process. Any consultation document would be placed in the Library of the House of Commons, in line with standard procedure.

  Spending Review (Job Reductions)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the estimated reductions in work force planned in(a) local government, (b) the Scottish Executive and (c) the Welsh Assembly. [184705]

  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the basis was for his estimate of 20,000 job reductions in the devolved Administration and in local government in England and Wales announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review; [184753]

  (2) whether he (a) requested and (b) received estimates for the number of job reductions in the devolved Administrations and in local government announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review from (i) the National Assembly for Wales, (ii) the Scottish Executive, (iii) the Northern Ireland Executive and (iv) the Local Government Association. [184754]

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what methodology was used to calculate the reduction by 20,000 of jobs in devolved Governments; [184561]

  (2) with which National Assembly for Wales Government members he agreed the civil service jobs reductions in Wales; [184562]

  (3) how many Civil Service jobs will be lost in Wales as a result of his announcement in the 2004 Spending Review; [184563]

  (4) what consultations there will be with the National Assembly for Wales before the civil service jobs reductions he has announced take place. [184564]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland Ministers have announced that they are engaged in Spending Review efficiency and evaluation exercises as ambitious as those in England with reductions also in back office and related areas; and with the 2.5 per cent. annual efficiency savings to which local government in England is committed, this would allow for a reduction of 20,000 posts across local government and the devolved Administrations.

  The devolved Administrations will be making their own announcements in the context of their spending plans in the autumn and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and other Government Departments will work in partnership with the Local Government Association to help local government drive forward the efficiency agenda.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amounts, by Department, which make up the total overlap of £5.650 million efficiencies across central and local government referred to in Table 2.1 of the 2004 Spending Review Report. [184707]

  Mr. Boateng
  The local government proposed savings of £6,450 million includes a forecast of £5,650 million of savings including, in procurement, productive time, and public finance and regulation, which are included in the proposed savings for Department for Education and Skills, Department for Transport, Department for Health, Home Office, Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and 486W
  the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer the hon. Member to chapter C of Sir Peter Gershon's report for further details of individual departmental efficiency programmes.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many civil service jobs will be lost in the Guildford constituency as a result of the cuts announced in the July Spending Review; [186045]

  (2) which (a) Departments and (b) agencies will make job cuts in the Guildford constituency as a result of the July Spending Review; [186046]

  (3) what services in the Guildford constituency will be affected by the job cuts announced in the July Spending Review. [186047]

  Mr. Boateng
  There will be an overall gross reduction in posts of 84,150 by 2008 and Departments will pursue these reductions in line with business need. Departments continue to plan the implementation of their efficiency programmes.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the cost to the Exchequer of providing stamp duty relief to residential properties under the value of £150,000 in deprived areas in each month since November 2001; [185711]

  (2) how many property transactions have taken place paying stamp duty at 0 per cent. for (a) residential properties in deprived areas and (b) non-residential properties in deprived areas in the Havant constituency in each month since November 2001; [185712]

  (3) what the total number is of property transactions which have taken place at the zero rate of stamp duty in deprived areas since it was introduced; how many have taken place in those areas bearing stamp duty; and how many property transactions bearing stamp duty have taken place in the UK in the same period; [185713]

  (4) how many property transactions have taken place paying stamp duty at 0 per cent. for (a) residential properties in deprived areas and (b) non-residential properties in deprived areas (i) in each month since November 2001 and (ii) in total. [185714]

  Ruth Kelly
  The cost to the Exchequer of stamp duty relief on residential properties in the qualifying disadvantaged areas is given in the following table for each month since November 2001. The number of residential transactions in qualifying disadvantaged areas which received the relief is also shown in the table together with the number of non residential transactions receiving the relief in these areas. The information has been given for Great Britain as information for Northern Ireland is not readily available on a monthly basis for the whole period.

  Information is not reliable enough to be given at the parliamentary constituency level for every month since inception.

  Information is only available since inception of the relief for numbers of transactions in disadvantaged areas which would otherwise pay stamp duty but do not do so because of the relief. Counts of transactions in qualifying

  487W
  disadvantaged areas since inception are not available for transactions below the liability threshold or above the threshold at which the relief ceases to apply.

  There were 3.0 million transactions between inception of the relief and June 2004 in the UK whose value was above the appropriate stamp duty threshold and which did not benefit from Disadvantaged Areas Relief.

  Number of residential transactions receiving Disadvantaged Area Relief in Great Britain (thousand)1

  Number of non transactions receiving Disadvantaged Area Relief in Great Britain (thousand)1

  Cost to the Exchequer of providing Disadvantaged Area Relief in Great Britain (£ million)1

  2001

  November

  0.7

  <0.1

  1

  December

  3.5

  <0.1

  <3

  2002

  January

  3.0

  <0.1

  3

  February

  3.1

  <0.1

  3

  March

  4.4

  <0.1

  4

  April

  4.2

  <0.1

  4

  May

  5.8

  <0.1

  5

  June

  5.0

  <0.1

  5

  July

  5.7

  <0.1

  5

  August

  5.7

  <0.1

  5

  September

  5.2

  <0.1

  5

  October

  5.5

  <0.1

  5

  November

  6.4

  <0.1

  6

  December

  5.8

  <0.1

  5

  2003

  January

  4.7

  <0.1

  4

  February

  5.0

  0.1

  5

  March

  5.8

  0.2

  5

  April

  6.2

  0.4

  6

  May

  7.0

  0.6

  7

  June

  7.4

  0.7

  7

  July

  7.6

  0.6

  7

  August

  7.9

  0.6

  7

  September

  6.2

  0.6

  6

  October

  5.2

  0.6

  5

  November

  4.8

  0.6

  5

  December2

  2.5

  0.1

  2

  2004

  January2

  8.0

  0.6

  7

  February2

  8.2

  0.5

  7

  March2

  8.5

  0.5

  7

  April2

  9.8

  0.8

  9

  May2

  10.3

  0.7

  9

  June2

  11.7

  0.7

  10

  1Counts to the end of November 2003 are based on the date of completion of the transaction. Counts from 1 December 2003 are based on the date the transaction was received at the office set up for processing the transactions.

  2Because of the change to the new data collection and processing system as a result of the introduction of Stamp Duty Land Tax, care should be taken in interpreting monthly movements since December.

  Employment (Tamworth)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people over 65 years have been in work in Tamworth constituency in each year since 1997. [185834]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  488W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated 22 July 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people over 65 years have been in work in Tamworth constituency in each year since 1997. (185834)

  The Office for National-Statistics Labour Force Survey sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of the number of people aged 65 and over in employment in the Tamworth Parliamentary Constituency in each year since 1997.

  Tax Credits (Overpayments and Underpayments)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) total and (b) average (i) number and (ii) value of additional payments made in 2003—04 was to ensure that paying back tax credits overpayments did not cause hardship to families. [185064]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As at 5 April 2004, there were six million families benefiting from tax credits. The Code of Practice sets out the circumstances in which additional payments may be made (for example as a result of their reporting changes in circumstance such as a rise in income). In 2003-04. in line with the code, around 65,000 such payments were made to tax credit recipients whose 2003–04 tax credit award had been reduced. The total value of those additional payments was around £20 million.

  Trainee Inspector of Taxes Programme
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the target number of(a) full-time and (b) part-time recruits is for the Inland Revenue's Trainee Inspector of Taxes Programme for July 2004. [185930]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are currently 234 vacancies for tax inspectors throughout the UK. The vacancies are not advertised in terms of part time or full time. Candidates may apply to work part time if they wish.

  Wind Power (Tax Avoidance)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the scope for tax avoidance in the trading of renewable obligations certificates by wind power companies registered in the UK but whose beneficial ownership is offshore. [185738]

  John Healey
  Tax rules for wind farms are no different to those applying to other kinds of UK registered business. The Government keep all taxes under review and any changes will be announced as part of the normal Budget process.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Sub Judice Resolution
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will bring forward proposals to amend the House's sub judice Resolution to allow reference to matters before coroners' courts. [185946]

  Mr. Hain
  I have no plans to do so, though I am willing to consider suggestions for change on this, as on other matters.

CABINET OFFICE

  Constable of Lancaster Castle
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office who was consulted on the most recent appointment of the Constable of Lancaster Castle. [186197]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 6 July 2004,Official Report, column 641W.

  Access to Government Services
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he will next publish a report on the achievements and progress towards targets on accessibility of government services to disabled people. [177220]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Progress against the Public Service Agreement target relating to electronic service delivery by government departments is reported in the UK online annual report and quarterly updates are posted on the e-Government Unit website. The annual report for 2003 stated that two-thirds of all central government services are now available electronically and departments continue to make progress towards getting all services online by 2005. The quarterly update for Quarter 4 2003 shows that departments had e-enabled 71 per cent. of services to citizens and businesses.

  Provision of online Government information for disabled people and unpaid carers has been greatly improved with the launch of Directgov in April 2004. The site meets World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) level A standard. Directgov presents information in a clear and structured way covering a range of areas such as rights, employment, independent living and health. The site offers links through to existing services—such as claiming carer's allowance online. As more government services become available, Directgov will expand to include them.

  Civil Service Contracts
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of civil servants are employed on a fixed contract basis. [184576]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]. The percentage of civil servants employed on a fixed term contract was 1.2 per cent., on 1 October 2003. That figure is based on those departments that supply appointment status data centrally and covers approximately three quarters of all civil servants.

  More detailed information on the Civil Service is published annually in Civil Service Statistics, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Civil Service Recruitment
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what reduction in(a) the Senior Civil Service and (b) Senior Civil Service recruitment is planned as part of concentrating civil service resources in the frontline. [185663]
  490W
  Mr. Alexander
  Departments are currently in the process of drawing up detailed plans to implement the Spending Review 2004. It is for individual Departments to determine, as part of their plans, the staffing requirements at senior level that match their business priorities.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Civil Service Fast Streamers(a) are in post and (b) will be recruited this year. [185664]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office collects figures from Departments on numbers of Fast Streamers 'In post' as at 1 April each year. The latest figures for which information is available (1 April 2003) showed 1,164 Fast Streamers recorded as being 'In Post' in the Fast Stream entry grade.

  The recruitment competitions for Fast Streamers for the current year are yet to finish, to date, 418 candidates have been recommended for appointment and it is anticipated that the final number will be around 450.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what reduction in(a) Fast Stream posts and (b) Fast Stream recruitment is planned as a part of concentrating civil service resource; in the frontline. [185665]

  Mr. Alexander
  Individual Government Departments are responsible for deciding the number of Fast Stream posts they require. and my Department recruits centrally to meet their current and anticipated business needs. The civil service will continue to need the new skills and attributes that high calibre graduates can bring to it, and we are still working to ensure that we recruit entrants to meet the new challenges.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many road vehicles are operated by the Cabinet Office; how many personal injury accidents involving road vehicles operated by the Department have occurred within each of the last five years; and what the Department's policy is for managing work-related road safety. [185911]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) provide all road vehicles for the Cabinet Office.

  The responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. 1 have asked its Chief Executive Mr. Nick Matheson to write to the hon. Member regarding the GCDA fleet. Copies of his letter will be placed in the Library.

  European Legislation
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the evidential basis was for the statement in the Cabinet Office Synthesis Report of October 2002, Improving the Way the UK handles European Legislation, page 2, that around 50 per cent. of significant legislation enacted in the UK originates from the European Union. [184992]
  491W
  Mr. Alexander
  The evidential base for this statement was an analysis of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs), which showed that about half of all measures that imposed non-negligible costs on business, charities and the voluntary sector originated from the European Union.

  Government Annual Reports
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the total cost has been of the publication of Government annual reports. in each year since 1997. [185273]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]Government annual reports were published for the years 1997–98 to 1999–2000. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Yeovil(Mr. Laws) on 18 July 2001,Official Report, column 206W.

  Sir Richard Dearlove
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if the Central Office of Information will issue a photo image of Sir Richard Dearlove upon his retirement from MI6. [184666]

  Mr. Straw: I have been asked to reply. No.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Archaeology
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government has to(a) extend planning policy guidance to require developers to publish and store archaeological finds and archives and (b) give the public access to archaeological finds and archives through outreach programmes; and if she will make a statement. [185770]

  Estelle Morris
  Planning policy guidance is coordinated by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). The ODPM recently published a list of those planning policy guidance notes it would treat as priority, and this did not include PPG 16 (Planning and Archaeology). The review of PPG 16 will therefore take place as and when is necessary in the light of its policy and strategic significance. In the interim, the current PPG will remain in place.

  Children's Sport
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what support her Department is providing for children's sporting activities in Northampton; [185789]

  (2) what support her Department has provided in 2003–04 for children's sport in the East Midlands. [185790]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are investing more than £1 billion to transform physical education (PE), school sport, and club links. The funding will help deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target, shared with the Department for Education and Skills, to increase the percentage of 5–16 year olds who spend a492W
  minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  Spearheading delivery are School Sport Partnerships, which provide for groups of schools to work together to increase sports opportunities for all young people. Each partnership receives formula funding of up to £270,000 per annum. Information regarding School Sport Partnerships going live in the East Midlands and Northampton is as follows:

  East Midlands

  Of which: in Northampton

  April 2003

  12

  2

  September 2003

  4

  1

  September 2004

  15

  3

  All maintained schools in the East Midlands will be in a partnership from September 2006.

  The East Midlands region is receiving nearly £40 million through the Big Lottery Fund's New Opportunities in PE and Sport programme, over £5 million of which is going to Northamptonshire. This funding will help improve sports facilities on school sites.

  Children and young people in the East Midlands are also benefiting from national initiatives such as the Community Club Development Fund (promoting Club Development with an emphasis on participation by young people), Sporting Playgrounds (improving primary school playgrounds in 27 local education authorities including Nottingham), and Positive Activities for Young People (aimed at 8–19 year olds at risk of social exclusion).

  Departmental Expenditure
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent by her Department on(a) advertising and (b)public relations consultants in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available. 186006]

  Estelle Morris
  There has been no spend on advertising or public relations consultants in this period.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department spent on press officers, broken down by grade, in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [186015]

  Mr. Caborn
  Spending by the Department on press officers, broken down by grade, for the latest year available, 2003–04, was as follows:

  Grade

  £

  A

  66,124

  A/TP

  56,325

  B

  315,021

  493W
  Information requested for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department spent on(a) head-hunters and recruitment consultants and (b) management consultants in 1996–97. [186061]

  Mr. Caborn
  The departmental expenditure on management consultants in 1996–97 was £65,747.99. An analysis of expenditure on head-hunters and recruitment consultants is not recorded on the Department's accounting system and can be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Departmental Staff (Upper Age Limits)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether(a) her Department and (b) agencies for which it is responsible (i) have a set retirement age which applies to all or most personnel and (ii) have a maximum age beyond which applications for employment will not be considered; and what the age is in each case. [186090]

  Mr. Caborn
  In the Department for Culture Media and Sport the minimum retirement age for all staff is 60. The maximum retirement age for permanent staff outside the senior civil service is age 65. Age retirement for the senior civil service is currently age 60 but heads of departments have the flexibility to retain staff beyond age 60 if they judge it to be in the public interest. Applications for employment will be considered up to the maximum retirement age.

  In the Royal Parks, the normal retirement age is 60. The Royal Parks do not stipulate a maximum age in their recruitment material and will consider applicants beyond the normal retirement age on an exceptional basis depending on the needs of the organisation.

  Departmental Staffing
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were employed in the Department(a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which information is available, broken down by job title; if she will list the job functions performed by those holding each job title; and for how many people the primary function was (i) human resource or personnel functions, (ii) finance and accounting functions, (iii) information technology functions and (iv) other support, back office or administrative functions (A) in 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which information is available. [183458]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 14 July 2004]: There were 338 full time equivalent staff in 1997 and 482 FTEs in 2004 in this department. A breakdown by job title and functionality is not available.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many road vehicles are operated by the Department and its agencies; how many personal 494W
  injury accidents involving road vehicles operated by the Department have occurred within each of the last five years; and what the Department's policy is for managing work-related road safety. [185913]

  Estelle Morris
  DCMS does not operate any road vehicles. The Royal Parks operates a total of 42 road vehicles in managing and policing the eight Royal Parks: 22 cars are available for use by horticultural and office staff for operational purposes; 15 cars and vans, four motor cycles and one horse box are employed on the policing side.

  No personal injury accidents involving road vehicles operated by the Agency have been reported within the last five years.

  The Royal Parks policy on managing work-related road safety is encompassed within its overall Health and Safety policy, as required by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. This commits the Agency to safeguarding the health, safety and welfare of its staff, and others affected by its activities; when a risk associated with work related road safety is identified by risk assessment it is dealt with accordingly.

  Marine Protection
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of the creation of marine parks on tourism in England. [186282]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has made no assessment of the impact specifically of marine parks on tourism in England. There are tremendous opportunities for water-based tourism in England. In 2002, the last year that full figures are available, UK residents took 26 million holiday trips to the seaside and 19 million visits to UK wildlife attractions and zoos. The Deep attraction in Hull received 750,000 visitors in its first year, and the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth received tround 380,000 visitors in 2002. Marine attractions are promoted in VisitBritain's current "Watersidt England" campaign, which promotes water-based attractions and activities.

  National Lottery
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been awarded from the National Lottery to(a) rugby union and (b) rugby league in each year since 1994. [185488]

  Estelle Morris
  The table shows details of lottery grants awarded in England to support rugby union and rugby league since ottery funding streams began in 1995. The programmes referred to are Sport England's community and world class programmes and Awards for All, the joint lottery distributors programme.
  495W

  £

  Rugby union lottery awards

  Rugby league lottery awards

  Community

  World class

  Awards for All

  Community

  World class

  Awards for All

  1995–96

  4,396,212

  0

  0

  226,201

  0

  0

  1996–97

  5,578,878

  0

  0

  701,975

  0

  0

  1997–98

  678,228

  0

  0

  185,439

  0

  0

  1998–99

  6,145,206

  305,387

  0

  1,159,428

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  3,707,869

  315,972

  253,883

  395,528

  0

  142,690

  2000–01

  2,360,269

  586,029

  348,302

  1,981,519

  731,883

  365,111

  2001–02

  2,566,082

  1,080,122

  522,587

  4,193,472

  1,295,464

  222,445

  2002–03

  5,393,585

  5,194,636

  626,073

  683,171

  1,500,000

  282,319

  2003–04

  2,191,450

  4,167,430

  464,351

  3,569,038

  1,500,000

  351,317

  Total

  33,017,779

  11,649,576

  2,215,196

  13,095,771

  5,027,347

  1,363,882

  Tourism
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by how much the Government aims to increase participation in accommodation grading schemes by 2006. [186035]

  Mr. Caborn
  The improvement of the quality of tourism products is one of the five key priority areas agreed between the DCMS and the tourism industry. These are set out in the Tomorrow's Tourism Today document, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the Tourism Alliance's Plenary Session on 19 July.

  After detailed consultation, DCMS and its key partner organisations have agreed to aim to significantly increase the rate of participation in grading schemes in England from the pre sent 43 per cent. of accommodation. Work towards this, and in respect of the other programmes outlined in Tomorrow's Tourism Today, will be guided and monitored by the Tourism Review and Implementation Group, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also announced on 19 July. The Group will be informed by the recent Alan Britten report on common accommodation quality standards across Britain, which recommended that at least 75 per cent. of known accommodation stock should be included in the schemes by 2008.

  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to encourage people living in towns to visit the countryside. [185751]

  Mr. Caborn
  In autumn last year, VisitBritain launched its 'Outdoor England' campaign which encouraged people to visit England's varied countryside. VisitBritain recently launched its 'Waterside England' campaign, which promotes England's coastline as well as its many inland waterways. 'The countryside will continue to feature strongly in VisitBritain's future campaigns. Further information can be found on the website www.visitengland.com.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Children's Commissioner
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the proposed children's commissioner will have powers which extend to Scotland. [185274]
  496W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]Under the Government's proposals, the Children's Commissioner will have powers in relation to non-devolved matters in Scotland and across the UK. We do not intend that the proposed Commissioner should have any role in devolved matters in Scotland. However we do intend that the Commissioner should carry out his or her general functions in relation to non-devolved matters across the UK—promoting awareness of the views and interests of children, and looking into and reporting on the matters which affect and concern them—as well as his or her inquiry functions.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason the recent funding uplift for England's dental schools does not cover the backdating of extra programmed activity. [181644]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Funding for the 2003–04 contractual changes for medical and dental clinical academics was agreed jointly between the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the Universities and Colleges Employers Association. The universities are now allocating the additional funds by reference to job plans prepared by individual consultants.

  Recruitment Consultants
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the Department spent on recruitment consultants in each year since 1996–97. [184359]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]The Department was established in June 2001. Information is available for the financial years of 2002–2003 and 2003–2004. In 2002–2003 the cost of recruitment consultants used to fill Departmental posts was £584,976. In 2003–2004 the cost was £335,321.

  Disabled People (Services)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements he has in place for monitoring statistics concerning the supply of services by his Department to disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [183255]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 12 July2004]: The Government is committed to improving the position of disabled people in society and believes that

  497W
  public bodies should take the lead in promoting equal opportunities. That is why my Department has in place arrangements for monitoring the position, either directly or through delivery partners.

  As part of the performance management arrangements on children's social services departments, we collect and monitor information on the number of disabled children receiving services which support them either in their families or to live independently. We also monitor statistics collected via the Department of Health, of the number of parents of disabled children and 16–17 year old disabled young people, who receive direct payments from Local Authorities.

  The numbers of pupils with SEN are collected through the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC). All maintained and non-maintained schools are asked to record pupils with statements of SEN, pupils at School Action and those at School Action Plus, using 11 categories of need.

  Connexions Partnerships record the number of young people in their area who have been identified as having learning difficulties and disabilities, and their participation in education, employment and training. Statistics are also maintained on the number of young people with learning difficulties and disabilities in their

  Attainment of five or more GCSE grades A*-C in Year 11 by parental occupation: 1988–2001 England and Wales, maintained and independent schools

  1988

  1990

  1991

  1993

  1995

  19971

  1999

  2001

  Total sample size (number)

  14,116

  14,511

  24,922

  18,020

  15,809

  14,662

  13,698

  16,707

  Socio-economic Group (SEG)2 (Percentage)

  Managerial/Profession

  52

  58

  60

  66

  68

  69

  69

  n/a

  Other non-manual

  42

  49

  51

  58

  fi8

  60

  60

  n/a

  Skilled manual

  21

  27

  29

  36

  36

  40

  45

  n/a

  Semi-skilled manual 16

  16

  20

  23

  26

  29

  32

  36

  n/a

  Unskilled manual

  12

  15

  16

  16

  24

  20

  30

  n/a

  Other/not classified3

  15

  18

  18

  20

  22

  24

  26

  n/a

  National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC)2 (Percentage)

  Higher professional

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  74

  80

  Lower professional

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  61

  65

  Intermediate

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  51

  52

  Lower supervisory

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  36

  35

  Routine n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  29

  32

  Other3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  24

  32

  1From 1998, includes equivalent GNVQ qualifications achieved in year 11.

  2 Up to 1999 the estimates are based on SEG taking that of the father where this can be specifically coded otherwise the mother's SEG is used. Following a National Statistics review SEG was replaced by NS-SEC. Parental NS-SEC shown here takes into account the occupation and status of both parents.

  For further information see SFR 02/2001 available at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DI3/SFR/s000230/index.shtml and SFR 04/2003
  available at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000382/index.shtml

  3 Iincludes a high percentage of respondents who had neither parent in a full-time job.

  Source:

  Youth Cohort Study cohorts 4–11, sweep 1

  Emmanuel Foundation
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much state support has been awarded to the Emmanuel Foundation; and what projects of the Foundation(a) have received financial backing from the Department and (b) the Government are committed to funding. [184963]
  498W
  last year of compulsory education who have received an assessment that meets the requirements of S140 of the Learning and Skills Act.

  For Learning and Skills Council (LSC) funded post-16 learning, detailed information is collected by the LSC about each learner, the learning they are undertaking and qualifications success.

  Information on HE students who are disabled is collected annually from all HE institutions in the UK by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)

  Educational Attainment
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information he collates on levels of attainment at each of the Key Stages and GCSE/GNVQ by socio-economic class. [185806]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows a time series of estimates from the Youth Cohort Study (YCS) of the proportion attaining five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C or equivalent by year 11 by Socio-Economic Group. Similar information is not available at earlier Key Stages from the YCS. Attainment data up to Key Stage 4 for pupils from English maintained schools is, however, available using Free School Meals as a proxy for Socio-Economic Class for 2002 and 2003. For this data see tables 9–12 and 25–28 of DfES Statistical First Release 04/2004 available at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ rsgatewav/DB/SFR/s000448/index. shtml.

  Mr. Miliband
  No funds are paid to the Emmanuel Schools Foundation direct in the case of the Academies programme. Capital and recurrent funding is paid to the governing body of each school. Capital funding of £21,604,359 has been awarded to King's Academy, £23,645,530 to Trinity Academy and £8,512,945 to Emmanuel College, giving a total of £53,762,834. In addition we pay recurrent funding to each school which is
  499W
  comparable to funding for other maintained schools. For 2004£05 the amount of recurrent funding for Emmanuel College is £5,472,000 and for King's Academy is £5,032,367. Apart from, as yet, undetermined recurrent costs for Trinity Academy, when it opens in 2005, we have no other funding commitment s at this time.

  Entrepreneurship Courses
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what further and higher education courses are available which assist young people who plan to start their own businesses. [185199]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are a considerable number and variety of courses available to students in both higher and further education which aid those with aspirations to start their own business. In fact there are 5,210 courses nationwide currently advertised by the University and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) which relate to Business.

  Number of 15 year old pupils achieving 5+ A* C

  Percentage of 15 year old pupils achieving 5+ A*-C

  Number of 15 year old pupils achieving no GCSEs at A*-C

  Percentage of 15 year old pupils achieving no GCSEs at A*-C

  2001–02

  Grammar

  20,711

  97.5

  92

  0.4

  Foundation

  51,745

  58.1

  16,945

  19.0

  Voluntary Aided

  45,953

  58.3

  14,601

  18.5

  Voluntary Controlled

  11,209

  57.6

  3,910

  20.1

  Community

  165,211

  45.9

  99,734

  27.7

  Special

  36

  4.0

  8,851

  93.3

  Pupil referral units

  43

  1.5

  2,485

  84.0

  2002–03

  Grammar

  21,170

  97.5

  75

  0.3

  Foundation

  54,678

  59.0

  17,413

  18.8

  Voluntary Aided

  48,665

  60.7

  14,145

  17.6

  Voluntary Controlled

  12,101

  59.7

  4,070

  20.1

  Community

  174,959

  47.6

  98,831

  26.9

  Special

  31

  0.3

  9,195

  93.8

  Pupil referral units

  17

  0.4

  3,682

  92.1

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of students gained five or more GCSEs A* to C, including both mathematics and English, in (a) grammar schools, (b) foundation schools, (c) voluntary aided schools, (d) voluntary controlled schools, (e) community schools, (f) special schools and (g) pupil referral units in (i) 2002 and (ii) 2003. [185089]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]The information requested is as follows:

  Number of 15-year-old pupils achieving 5+ A*—C including English and maths

  Percentage of 15 year old pupils achieving 5+ A *—C including English and maths

  2001/02

  Grammar

  20,460

  96.3

  Foundation

  42,613

  47.8

  Voluntary Aided

  37,988

  48.2

  Voluntary Controlled

  9,552

  49.1

  Community

  128,745

  35.8

  Special

  25

  0.3

  Pupil referral units

  35

  1.2

  500W
  Government are very committed to ensuring that all students and graduates who aspire to self employment receive the support and advice they need. To demonstrate this we have several new initiatives; for example:

  DIES and Higher Education Academy undertaking work this year to embed entrepreneurship skills into the curriculum

  Science Enterprise Centres (SECs)

  National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurs

  Enterprise Insight

  GCSEs
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of students gained(a) five or more and (b) no GCSEs at A* to C in (i) grammar schools, (ii) foundation schools, (iii) voluntary aided schools, (iv) voluntary controlled schools, (v) community schools, (vi) special schools and (vii) pupil referral units in (A) 2002 and (B) 2003. [185088]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: The information requested is as follows:

  Number of 15-year-old pupils achieving 5+ A*—C including English and maths

  Percentage of 15 year old pupils achieving 5+ A *—C including English and maths

  2002/03

  Grammar

  20,851

  96.1

  Foundation

  44,016

  47.5

  Voluntary Aided

  38,748

  48.3

  Voluntary Controlled

  9,958

  49.2

  Community

  131,554

  35.8

  Special

  17

  0.2

  Pupil referral units

  17

  0.4

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has commissioned on the numbers of children leaving primary school who have inadequate literacy and numeracy skills. [185201]
  501W
  Mr. Miliband
  The annual data received from the Key Stage 2 results enables the Department to identify the proportion of children who have not reached the expected level for their age. In 2003,75 per cent. of 11year-olds achieved a Level 4 in English and 73 per cent. achieved a Level 4 in mathematics. The national pupil database enables a detailed understanding of the progress of these pupils to Key Stage 3 and beyond.

  The Primary Strategy supports the drive to raise standards in literacy and numeracy by providing specific programmes to improve the quality of teaching and learning in primary schools so that every child can make the maximum possible progress. Through this we now have the best ever literacy and numeracy results at ages 7 and 11. Our long term aim, set out in the five year Strategy for Children and Learners published on 8 July 2004, is to maintain world class standards and to achieve both excellence and equity for all primary age children by raising standards for those from our most disadvantaged groups.

  Selection by Aptitude
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in(a) Bromsgrove, (b) Wyre Forest, (c) Redditch, (d) Worcester and (e) Worcestershire failed to get into the school of their first choice in each year since 1997; and how many of those subsequently appealed in each of those years. [184711]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on the number of pupils admitted to their first choice school is not collected centrally.

  Admission appeal data are not available at parliamentary constituency level. A table giving admission appeal information for all local education authority areas has been placed in the House of Commons Libraries. (I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), on 23 June 2004, Official Report, column 1430W). Final figures from 1997/98 to 2001/02 have been provided. Further details on the latest 2002/03 (provisional) figures on admission appeals by local education authority can be found on http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000470/index.shtml.

  School Admissions
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list, for each of the last five years, the total(a) number and (b) percentage of non-specialist schools that have declared themselves to have a specialism in which the option to select 10 per cent. of pupils by aptitude has been exercised. [185248]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect this data. Schools do not identify themselves as schools selecting by aptitude in their annual returns to the Department. The admission authority for any school which can identify itself as having a specialism may introduce 10 per cent. selection by aptitude as part of its 502W
  published admission arrangements. Such arrangements are subject to local consultation, and any objections may be referred to the Schools Adjudicator.

  Schools are not required to identify themselves as having selection by aptitude as part of their annual returns to the Department, and so we do not have an exact figure for the number of schools taking advantage of this provision. However, based on research carried out in 2001 by Anne West of the LSE, we estimate that just under 6 per cent. of schools in the specialist schools programme select an, pupils on the basis of aptitude for the specialism, arid that overall around 2 per cent. of all secondary schools do.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skils what assessment he has made of the change in costs to local education authorities and individual admission authorities arising from the administration of 11-plus tests as a result of the implementation of the workforce agreement. [185250]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer to the Written Statement I laid before the House on Tuesday 13 July on school funding for 2005–06 (column 55WS refers). The Written Statement to the House sets out how we have considered, with our partner signatories—including the local government employer organisation, the costs of implementation of the National Agreement. It announces what funds will be available to schools to implement the Agreement in 2005–06.

  We believe that the minimum guarantee set out will cover the cost pressures associated with workforce reform and implementation of the contractual changes. We will of course continue to monitor implementation on the ground. One of the areas that we have promised to return to with our partners in the autumn will be to look at the support involved in the transfer of exam invigilation work from teachers in secondary schools. We will also look at any issues around administration of the 11-plus examination also at that time.

  School Design
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the implications for carbon dioxide emissions of the Building Schools for he Future exemplar designs; what guidance he intends to issue in respect of the use of best practice in energy efficiency; and if he will make a statement. [185252]

  Mr. Miliband
  All new schools including those built under the Building Schools for the Future initiative must comply with Part L2 "Conservation of Fuel and Power" of the Building Regulations as revised in 2002. Approved Document L2 in support of the Building Regulations quotes Building Bulletin 87 (BB87) "Guidelines for Environmental Design In schools" as the relevant compliance document for schools. The current May 2003 edition is available for download from the DfES website www.teachernet.gov.uk/energy. The maximum annual energy consumption target allowed under BB87 is 5 kg of carbon per square metre of floor area for all new school buildings. BB87 also
  503W
  gives guidance on energy efficient design of new buildings. For best practice guidance on energy efficiency for both new and existing schools see the DIES energy portal www.teachernet.gov.uk/sdenergy.

  Secondary Schools (Pupil Numbers)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the future numbers of pupils of secondary school age in(a) 2004, (b) 2005, (c) 2006 and (d) 2007 in (i) Newcastle, (ii) North Tyneside and (iii) Northumberland: and what the figures were for 2003. [185575]

  Mr. Miliband
  The number of pupils of secondary school age in 2003, including pupils over compulsory school age, and provisional estimates for 2004 are as follows:

  At January

  20031

  20042

  Newcastle

  20,317.5

  20,143.5

  North Tyneside

  13,897.5

  13,866.5

  Northumberland

  23,780.5

  23,850.0

  1actual

  2provisional

  Note:

  Full-time equivalents, counting each part-time pupil as 0.5

  Projections1 are only availably for England as a whole:

  At January

  Pupils of secondary age in all schools (000)

  20032

  3,656

  20043

  3,662

  UK Exports of goods to Turkey

  £000

  SITC

  Description

  2001

  2002

  2003

  00

  Live animals other than animals of division 03

  4,621

  3,199

  1,451

  01

  Meat and meat preparations

  41

  5

  38

  02

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  897

  1,863

  2,435

  03

  Fish (not marine mammals), crustaceans, molluscs and and invertebrates etc

  159

  66

  167

  04

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  1,574

  774

  891

  05

  Vegetables and fruit

  1,005

  712

  782

  06

  Sugar, sugar preparations and honey

  211

  148

  202

  07

  Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices and manufactures thereof

  1,622

  1,758

  2,944

  08

  Feeding stuff for animals (not including unmilled cereals)

  2,423

  2,370

  3,425

  09

  Miscellaneous edible products and preparations

  3,041

  631

  1,049

  11

  Beverages

  15,524

  18,504

  17,766

  12

  Tobacco and tobacco manufactures

  6,745

  7,592

  6,279

  21

  Hides, skins and furskins, raw

  19,554

  43,699

  55,495

  22

  Oil seeds and oleaginous fruit

  61

  0

  34

  23

  Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed)

  7,268

  8,368

  10,208

  24

  Cork and Wood

  123

  44

  177

  25

  Pulp and waste paper

  21

  44

  441

  26

  Textile fibres (and their wastes)

  11,671

  10,454

  8,815

  27

  Crude fertilisers other than those of division 56, and crude minerals

  7,988

  6,197

  12,325

  28

  Metalliferous ores and metal scrap

  12,596

  45,005

  93,906

  29

  Crude animal, vegetable materials nes

  352

  228

  278

  32

  Coal, coke and briquettes

  8

  21

  0

  33

  Petroleum, petroleum products and related materials

  18,172

  12,558

  5,606

  34

  Gas, natural and manufactured

  8,580

  8,804

  17,748

  35

  Electric current

  0

  0

  0

  41

  Animal oils and fats

  134

  160

  168

  42

  Fixed vegetable oils and fats, crude, refined or fractioned

  16

  22

  109

  43

  Processed animal and veg oils and fats; waxes

  1,244

  1,525

  1,095

  51

  Organic chemicals

  47,562

  50,330

  72,402

  52

  Inorganic chemicals

  3,503

  3,299

  3,609

  53

  Dying, tanning, and colouring materials

  19,309

  28,649

  30,070

  504W

  At January

  Pupils of secondary age in all schools (000)

  20054

  3,686

  20064

  3,684

  1full-time equivalents, counting each part-time pupil as 0.5

  2 actual

  3provisional

  4 projected

  Travel Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [183896]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The detailed information requested is not held centrally and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  All travel is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Exports to Turkey
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what British goods have been exported to Turkey in each of the last three years. [185337]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The value of exports from the UK to Turkey, as published by HM Customs and Excise, were as follows:
  505W

  UK Exports of goods to Turkey

  £000

  SITC

  Description

  2001

  2002

  2003

  54

  Medical and pharmaceutical products

  145,017

  157,061

  163,937

  55

  Essential oils and resinoids and perfume materials

  29,925

  30,136

  28,119

  56

  Fertilisers (other than those of group 272)

  151

  226

  408

  57

  Plastics in primary forms

  28,769

  41,786

  52,503

  58

  Plastics in non-primary forms

  11,401

  14,200

  13,915

  59

  Chemical materials and products nes

  25,883

  23,829

  29,676

  61

  Leather, leather manufactures nes and dressed furskins

  1,822

  792

  1,050

  62

  Rubber manufactures nes

  6,289

  6,978

  9,278

  63

  Cork and wood manufactures (excluding furniture)

  319

  457

  1,431

  64

  Paper, paperboard and articles of paper pulp, of paper or of paperboard

  16,770

  10,188

  8,643

  65

  Textile yarn, fabrics, made-up articles nes and related products

  32,928

  44,326

  45,582

  66

  Non-metallic mineral manufactures nes

  9,639

  11,364

  10,890

  67

  Iron and steel

  73,103

  29,381

  44,763

  68

  Non-ferrous metals

  7,217

  6,987

  17,733

  69

  Manufactures of metal nes

  25,588

  21,443

  25,159

  71

  Power generating machinery and equipment

  78,959

  69,836

  102,324

  72

  Machinery specialised for particular industries

  29,821

  50,782

  80,641

  73

  Metalworking machinery

  8,405

  15,895

  15,713

  74

  General industrial machinery and machine parts nes

  50,268

  58,895

  68,200

  75

  Office machines and ADP machines

  51,582

  60,077

  53,695

  76

  Telecommunications and sound recording and reproducing equipment

  106,415

  48,134

  51,237

  77

  Electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances nes

  49,882

  78,662

  87,759

  78

  Road vehicles (including air-cushion vehicles)

  54,496

  146,597

  240,612

  79

  Other transport equipment

  17,332

  14,681

  14,337

  81

  Prefabricated buildings; plumbing, heating and lighting fixtures and fitting

  931

  1,520

  1,920

  82

  Furniture and parts thereof

  5,818

  2,982

  2,962

  83

  Travel goods, handbags and similar containers

  474

  640

  551

  84

  Articles of apparel and clothing accessories

  38,083

  30,981

  31,652

  85

  Footwear

  1,123

  726

  1,584

  87

  Professional, scientific and controlling instruments nes

  39,585

  41,596

  43,224

  88

  Photographic and optical equipment; watches and clocks

  12,914

  13,173

  15,255

  89

  Miscellaneous manufactured articles nes

  35,472

  51,682

  45,832

  9

  Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere in the SITC

  9,617

  35,904

  44,132

  Total:

  1,202,022

  1,378,944

  1,704,635

  Note:

  nes = not elsewhere specified

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to make it easier to open a Post Office Card Account. [184888]

  Mr. Timms
  The design and management of the Post Office card account is an operational matter for the Post Office. I understand from the company that the application process is as simple as possible within the legal and regulatory requirements for the banking industry. I also understand that the account opening process is no more onerous than that for a bank account with a financial institution. We have not seen any real evidence that the process for opening a Post Office card account is difficult. Already, over 2.8 million card accounts have been opened.

  While there has been no problem with the opening of the account, the Government have identified a problem that too many customers were failing to pass on their Post Office card account details to DWP or the Inland Revenue, so making it impossible for those Departments to pay money into the new account. Having identified the problem, solutions are being put in place, including the creation of a pre-populated bank account details form (with the account number, sort code and mandate for the spending Department to credit the account) which will be given to customers at
  506W
  their local post office when they collect their card. By signing the forms there and then customers can start receiving benefits into their card account much quicker.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many applications for Post Office card accounts have been completed and returned, but not yet processed and approved; [186255]

  (2) how many applications for Post Office card accounts have been rejected owing to errors on the application form. [186256]

  Mr. Timms
  The operation and management of the Post Office card account is a matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Biomass Energy Industry
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what specific fuel will be used by the biomass energy industry to produce electricity or heat for domestic consumption [185843]

  Mr. Timms
  The biomass industry will use a range of fuels for production of energy—including all of those eligible for the Renewables Obligation such as straw, willow, miscanthus and forestry residues.
  507W
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the expected percentage of renewable energy to be derived from wood biomass is in(a) 2010, (b) 2015 and (c) 2020. [185844]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have set a target that 10 per cent. of electricity supply in the UK will come from renewables by 2010 and an aspiration to double this by 2020. The Government does not set targets for contributions from individual renewable resources.

  However the Renewables Innovation Review indicated a practical potential for biomass of some six per cent. of electricity supply by 2020 based on a range of assumptions

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her assessment of the(a) resource implications and (b) environmental impacts of the movement of biomass over to fuel large power stations is. [185846]

  Mr. Timms
  Assessments of biomass resource have been published in the course of the Renewables Innovation Review and the Statuiory Consultation on Amendments to the Renewables Obligation Order.

  The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution made an assessment of the carbon dioxide associated with biomass production and transport in their recent report on Biomass as a Renewable Energy Source. Total life cycle emissions from biomass remain low compared to fossil-fuel fired power plant.

  Individual projects will make their own assessments of environmental impact as part of their application for planning consent.

  Brazil
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of imports into the UK were from Brazil in 2003–04. [184183]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In 2003 Brazil accounted for 0.62 per cent. of the UK's total imports of goods. In the first five months of 2004, Brazil accounted for 0.63 per cent.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the UK policy is on the Brazilian production of generic AIDS drugs to prevent the spread of AIDS; and what assessment has been made of their use in Africa. [184187]

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Company Insolvencies

  12,610

  13,203

  14,280

  14,317

  14,972

  16,305

  14,184

  Individual Insolvencies

  24,441

  24,549

  28,806

  29,528

  29,775

  30,587

  36,328

  Bankruptcies—Total

  19,892

  19,647

  21,611

  21,550

  23,477

  24,292

  28,021

  Of which:

  Self-employed

  11,269

  10,420

  10,723

  9,952

  9,839

  8,854

  9,139

  Individual Voluntary Arrangements

  4,549

  4,902

  7,195

  7,978

  6,298

  6,295

  8,307

  Total known business Insolvencies

  23,579

  23,623

  25,003

  24,269

  24,811

  25,159

  23,323

  508W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK Government are committed to increasing access to medicines—through affordable pricing, sustainable financing, reliable health and supply systems and the rational selection and use of drugs—in the developing world. Our policy paper, "Increasing access to essential medicines in the developing world: UK Government policy and plans", was published on 30 June and copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Brazil is one of a number of developing countries whose generic drug manufacturing capacity is sufficient to allow manufacture of their own HIV/AIDS drugs. Brazil has close links with a number of countries in Africa. The UK Government have made no specific assessment of the use of Brazilian AIDS drugs Africa.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the level of trade in the industrial sector between Brazil and the UK. [184189]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In 2003, UK exports to Brazil and UK imports from Brazil of manufactured goods (defined as Divisions 5 to 8 of the Standard International Trade Classification) were worth £784 million and £669 million respectively. The two most important sectors by value for UK exports were medicinal and pharmaceutical products and power generating machinery and equipment. For Brazilian exports to the UK, the two most important sectors were power generating equipment and machinery and cork and wood manufactures (excluding furniture).

  Business Failures
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many business failures there have been in each year since 1997. [185511]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following table shows the number of company and individual insolvencies in each year from 1997 to 2003. While company insolvencies are all known to be business failures, individual insolvencies also include consumer insolvencies. For bankruptcies, a breakdown into "self-employed" (small businesses) and "other individuals" is available, although a similar breakdown is not available for individual voluntary arrangements (IVA's). For this reason it is not possible to separate all business failures from the total individual insolvencies.

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department has made an assessment of the cost to small businesses of changes to employment legislation introduced since 1997. [185543]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The DTI estimates the potential impact on small businesses of changes to employment legislation in its Regulatory Impact Assessments. Summing these estimated costs to all businesses of employment legislation introduced since 1997, produces a figure of £5.1 to £5.6 billion a year of policy costs (such as the cost to employers of paying the national minimum wage), but just £32 to £39 million per year of on-going 'implementation' costs (the administrative or 'red-tape' costs). Small firms might account for £1.5 to £1.6 billion of the policy costs and £9 to £11 million of implementation costs. At the same time, it should be remembered that there are very significant benefits to small firms associated with these changes to employment legislation.

  The DTI has also commissioned research into what the effects on small firms of changes to employment legislation have been. The impact of employment legislation on small firms: a case study analysis, by Paul Edwards, Monder Ram and John Black, 2003 for the DTI, found that "the impact on firms appears generally to remain relatively small."

  Car Batteries
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of end-of-life car batteries were recycled in each of the last two years. [185742]

  Mr. Timms
  No precise data for the recycling of end of life automotive batteries are currently collected. However, discussions with the battery manufacturing and distributing sector, and the lead recycling industry, suggest that in 2002 the UK recycled 94 per cent. of spent automotive batteries and that this figure rose to 99 per cent. in 2003. In each year, an estimated 7.5 million automotive batteries entered the waste stream.

  Chronic Diseases (Compensation Claims)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many compensation claims received for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vibration white finger damages are waiting to be processed; and what the average time taken to process a claim is. [183247]

  Nigel Griffiths
  There are around 428,000 respiratory disease claims waiting to be settled. 380,000 were submitted in the last six months alone. The time taken to process a claim is dependent on the time it takes the claimants' representatives and the Department's contractors to provide all the required information for the full Medical Assessment Process (MAP) to take place. The average is two years for a live claim and one year for a deceased claim from registration to MAP.
  510W
  There are some 79,000 Vibration White Finger (VWF) claims waiting to be settled. The average time taken from registration of claim to settlement is around 2.5 years and is defendant on the factors mentioned above.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many chest disease coal-related compensation claim remain outstanding; how many have been settled in the last 12 months; and when the Government expect to settle all chest disease coal-related compensation claims. [185765]

  Nigel Griffiths
  There are over 428,000 claims still to settle. 280,000 came in during the last six months before the cut off date. In the last 12 months some 54,000 claims have been settled.

  With regard to the timetable for settling outstanding claims, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and industry in the House of Lords on 21 April 2004, Official Report, column WA49.

  Company Insolvencies
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate her Department has made of the number of company insolvencies in 2003; [185452]

  (2) what estimates her Department has made of the number of company insolvencies in 2003. [185544]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  There were 14,184 company insolvencies in 2003. These comprised of 5,234 creditors voluntary liquidation s and 8,950 company compulsory liquidations.

  Defence Equipment (Exports)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to extend the UK regulations on the licensing of exports of defence equipment to the UK dependent territories; and if she will estimate the yak e of those exports in the last year for which figures are available. [185172]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are working with the Overseas Territories to implement the Export Control Act by the end of the year. In the absence of centrally kept records, an estimate of the exports of defence equipment from the Overseas Territories would be meaningless, and liable to be misconstrued as an official figure. However, the Government believe the level of such exports to be very small, since the Overseas Territories neither manufacture defence equipment on a large scale, nor have large stocks of such equipment.

  DIY Accidents
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate her Department has made of the prevalence of accidents relating to DIY; and what measures her Department is taking to reduce the number of such accidents. [185982]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  DTI no longer provides a service on accident statistics.
  511W
  During 2002, the final year for which statistics were collected, the UK national estimate for the number of home accident victims where the patient's activity at the time was DIY/maintenance was 218,510 (24th HASS report, page 124); and a further 15,785 whilst at leisure outside the home and its surround (24th HASS report, page 133).

  The 24th HASS report can be ordered or downloaded from www.dti.gov.uk/homesafetynetwork/gh_stats.htm.

  More detail can be obtained by contacting the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents: www.rospa.com tel. 0870 777 2171.

  As regards policy, the General Product Safety Regulations require products to be safe in normal or reasonably foreseeable use and that consumers are provided with the relevant information to enable them

  Table: Percentages of employees who answer 'no' when asked about provisions for part-time staff, by UK region

  Does your employer provide part-time workers with the following?

  NE

  Yorks and Humb

  E Mids

  Eastern

  Gtr London

  SE

  The same hourly rate of pay as full-time workers

  18

  9

  11

  12

  15

  11

  The same entitlements to annual leave and maternity/paternity leave on a pro rata basis as full-time workers

  9

  3

  4

  8

  11

  7

  The same entitlement to contractual sick pay as full-time workers

  12

  6

  8

  12

  13

  8

  Does your employer provide part-time workers with the following?

  SW

  W Mids

  NW

  Wales

  Scotland

  UK

  The same hourly rate of pay as full-time workers

  9

  13

  12

  14

  15

  12

  The same entitlements to annual leave and maternity/paternity leave on a pro rata basis as full-time workers

  6

  10

  10

  17

  9

  8

  The same entitlement to contractual sick pay as full-time workers

  10

  11

  14

  18

  12

  11

  Note:

  Base = 1823. Other response categories not reported here were 'yes' and 'don' t know'

  According to the Second Work-Life Balance Study—Employers' Survey, carried out between December 2002 and April 2003, less than 1 per cent. of part-time employees were ineligible for maternity/paternity, parental or special paid leave entitlements available to full-time employees. Employers reported that none of their part-time staff were ineligible for employer-provided childcare facilities or help where they were available. Employers reported that between 0.1 and 1.9 per cent. of their part-time staff were ineligible for various flexible working practices depending on which particular practice was being considered. Because the number of corresponding cases very small, it is not possible to provide a regional breakdown. It is recognised that it is likely that employers will under report any ineligibility for part tine staff.

  The DTI has not collected any statistics on pensions, access to training or other company benefits (other than access to flexible working practices and child care).

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of St ate for Trade and Industry in what proportion of employment tribunal judgments in the last five years the debt owed by the employer was not wholly recovered. [185450]
  512W
  to assess the risks inherent in a product and where these are not obvious for warnings to be provided.

  Employment Benefits
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect on part-time workers in(a) the UK and (b) each region of measures agreed at EU level to ensure pro rata rights to (i) paid leave, (ii) pensions, (iii) access to training and (iv) other company benefits. [185324]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Second Work-Life Balance Study—Employees' Survey, carried out during January and February 2003, asked employees if their employer provided part-time workers with(a) the same hourly rate of pay as full-time workers; (b) the same entitlements to annual leave and maternity/parental leave on a pro rata basis as full-time workers; and (c) the same entitlement to contractual sick pay as full-time workers. A significant minority answered 'no', as shown in the following table.

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Employment Tribunals Service does not hold information on the number of employment tribunal judgments where the debt owed by the employer was not wholly recovered.

  Environmental Business Growth Action Programme
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding(a) is budgeted to be spent, (b) has been spent and (c) is forecast to be spent by regional development agencies in 2004–05 on the Environmental Business Growth Action Programme in (i) England and (ii) the west Midlands. [184138]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Environmental Business Growth Action Plan operates in the west Midlands only. The expenditure by Advantage West Midlands on this plan is as follows:

  £

  Expenditure already made in 2004–05

  22,000

  Expenditure budgeted for the balance of 2004–05

  424,798

  Expenditure forecast for the balance of 2004–05

  1915,994

  1This figure is subject to approval of a project currently being considered by AWM.

  The Plan is also in receipt of funding from European and other UK sources, both public and private sector.
  513W
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the role of regional development agencies is in the management of the Environmental Business Growth Action Programme, with particular reference to Advantage West Midlands. [184145]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Environmental Business Growth Action Plan is a west Midlands' region only initiative led by the Environmental Agency. The initiative is supported by funding from Advantage West Midlands which also participates in the Management Board of the Action Plan together with other regional partner organisations.

  Exports/Imports
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the export and import figures to and from(a) European Union states and (b) non-European Union states for the last year for which figures are available.[184258]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  According to figures published by the Office for National Statistics the information is as follows:

  UK trade in goods and services with European Union (EU15) and Non-European countries—2003

  £ million

  European Union

  Non-European Union

  UK exports

  139,739

  137,800

  UK imports

  168,544

  141,668

  Source:

  National Statistics, Balance of Payments, First Release

  Furniture Regulations
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) actual and (b) withdrawn prosecutions there have been of businesses failing the furniture regulations since 1993. [185853]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 are enforced by local trading standards departments. This Department collates statistics on prosecutions under the regulations every five years and publishes them in a statutory report on consumer safety. For the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1998 the report records 404 prosecutions of which 398 resulted in convictions. Between 1 April 1998 and 31 March 2003, there were 101 prosecutions resulting in 98 convictions. These statistics are obtained from enforcement authorities under Section 70 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985. Data for the period from 1 April 2003 is not yet available.

  Mercosur
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is on the expansion of Mercosur. [184190]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Mercosur, the Common Market of the South, was created by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay in March 1991. In 1996 association agreements were signed with Bolivia and Chile establishing free trade areas with these countries; Mexico and Venezuela have recently expressed interest in joining the group. Expansion of Mercosur would be 514W
  a decision for the full members. The UK favours the process of deeper regional integration since we believe this creates greater possibilities for economic growth and poverty reduction.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will require all employers to print the national minimum wage at any given point in time on all wage slips; and if she will make a statement. [185512]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  We have no plans to require all employers to print the national minimum wage on wage slips.

  However, every output worker, including homeworkers, paid under the piece rate system introduced by the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2004 from October 2004 must be given a written notice making it clear what the fair piece rate is, how it was set by the employer, and give the national minimum wage helpline number, which the worker may contact if they have a query or wish to make a complaint.

  Civil Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the reasons were for the revocation of security clearance by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security of an individual in the past two years; and what consultations have taken place with the Cabinet Office over the decision of the Security Vetting Appeals Panel. [184399]

  Mr. Timms
  I am not able to comment on individual cases.

  Post Offices
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many main post offices in county towns have teen franchised by the Post Office(a) before and (b) since 1997. [185649]

  Mr. Timms
  These are operational matters for Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry bow many post offices have closed in Dumfries and Galloway region since 1997. [186303]

  Mr. Timms
  I am advised by Post Office Ltd. that data on post office closures by constituency is not available in the form requested, as the company does not require this data for operational purposes. However it has produced quarterly statistics on post office closures by Government region/country since March 2000 and the net closure figures for Scotland are:

  Number

  Year to end March 2001

  63

  Year to end March 2002

  26

  Year to end March 2003

  20

  Year to end March 2004

  77

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what public service agreements and targets set by central Government regional development agencies are subject. [184982]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have been set a frame work of challenging targets which they must demonstrate their contribution to. Under the three-tier target framework, tier 1 targets restate their statutory purposes. Tier 2 are regional outcomes of interest to the funding Departments. Tier 3 are targets for direct outputs, achieved through RDA programme spend. These are listed as follows.

  Tier 3 outputs:

  Employment Opportunities;

  Support the creation or safeguarding of x net jobs;

  (ii) Brownfield Land:

  Reclaim or remediate x hectares of previously developed land and buildings;

  (iii) Education and Skills:

  Support the creation of learning opportunities for x individuals;

  (iv) Business Performance:

  Support the creation and/or attract ion of x new businesses;

  (v) Investment benefiting deprived areas:

  Leverage through RDA funding and activity x pounds private sector investment benefiting residents of the most deprived wards

  Each RDA has the same core targets, though the numbers differ region by region, and activities aimed at meeting them and addressing regional needs are described in the Regional Economic Strategy developed with regional stakeholders.

  As set out in the Devolved Decision Making Review (March 2004), the DTI, working in partnership with other Government Departments is coordinating the implementation of a new approach to tasking the RDAs in time to come into effect from April 2005.

  The new framework will help the RDAs and Departments to work on regional priorities in a way that also serves national interests more effectively. It will provide clearer direction by simplifying targets and making them more relevant to vs hat the Agencies are trying to do.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the distinction is between regulatory impact assessments where(a) the benefits justify the costs and (b) the benefits outweigh the costs. [183217]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Cabinet Office guidance "Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment" requires the responsible Minister to certify that he or she is satisfied that the benefits of the proposed measure justify its costs. The Minister will consider the full range of benefits arising from the measure, including social, environmental and economic.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the capital grants demonstration projects for renewable energy technologies that are not yet economic with support from the renewable obligation alone. [185397]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has supported with capital grants the following number of demonstrations of renewable energy technologies not yet economic with support from the Renewables Obligation alone. This includes funding for Capital Grants which has been allocated from the Big Lottery Fund.

  The total number of projects in each sector that the Department is aware of is:

  Photovoltaic—653, under the major demonstration programme.

  Biomass—21, under the Bioenergy Capital Grants Scheme

  Offshore wind—12, under the Offshore Wind Capital Grants Scheme.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidelines she has issued on the percentage of energy which should come from renewable sources in relation to the proposed development at Clyst Vale in Devon. [185764]

  Mr. Timms
  Our overall target is that by 2010, 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity should come from renewable sources. ODPM are currently reviewing their national guidelines which help set out planning guidance for local authorities on renewable energy development. Responses to their consultation and the new planning guidance, PPS 22, are being analysed and final publication of PPS 22 is due in the summer.

  At a regional level the Southwest Government Office have planning guidance in the shape of RPG 10—produced in 2001 and informed by PPS 22's predecessor. This sets an indicative target of 11–15 per cent. of electricity from renewables by 2010—just under 600MW of capacity. The regional office then worked with individual counties to agree indicative targets at the county level and incorporate them into individual renewable energy strategies; for example, Devon has a 151 MW indicative target. These were based upon detailed resource and character assessments of the landscape but the indicative targets are not split by technology. RPG 10 is due to be updated by the Regional Spatial Strategy in 2005—which will be informed by PPS 22. No guidelines have been issued in respect of renewable energy provision for any individual development.

  Renewable Obligations Certificate
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent the renewable obligations certificate can be traded with wind power generating companies registered in the UK but whose beneficial ownership lies in offshore tax havens. [185739]

  Mr. Timms
  Renewables obligation certificates or ROCs are issued in relation to eligible renewables output from generating stations in the United Kingdom. ROCs can be traded within Great Britain and in future this will be extended to include Northern Ireland. The renewables obligation is placed upon licensed electricity suppliers supplying customers in Great Britain,
  517W
  irrespective of where those suppliers may be based, and ROCs can be expected to be of value to such companies, to those selling renewables electricity to them and to traders in ROCs.

  Renewables Obligations Order
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects the Renewables Obligation Order review's findings will be published; what the parameters of the review are; and from whom it will take evidence. [185841]

  Mr. Timms
  We plan to publish our proposals on the scope and terms of reference of the review later this summer. We aim to complete the review itself by the end of 2005—this will include a statutory consultation on any proposed changes to the Obligation.

  The Utilities Act requires us to consult a wide range of statutory consultees before any changes are made to the Order. Such consultees include the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. The Gas and Electricity Consumer Council, electricity suppliers to whom the Order would apply and generators of electricity from renewable sources. Gauging the opinion of this range of consultees will enable us to seek views from a wide base.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support has been offered to small businesses in (a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) south Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) England in each year since 1997. [184517]
  Nigel Griffiths
  A number of steps have been introduced to help small businesses including an increase of capital allowances to 50 per cent. and raising VAT registration threshold to 58 per cent., all of which helps small businesses in south Tyneside.

  The Employer Training Pilot, run in Tyne and Wear for the last 15 months, is being made available to businesses throughout the north east. This helps businesses to improve workforce skills by providing training tailored to their needs. The main source of publicly funded business support is Business Link Tyne and Wear (BLTW).

  Core funding of £2.2459 million provided to Business Link Tyne and Wear (BLTW), laid the foundation on which they are planning to source additional funding projected at £14.5 million for the benefit of businesses in Tyne and Wear, for the year 2004–5. Such funding and the creation of partnership working allowed the following to be delivered within Tyne and Wear.

  Around £7.5 million was made available to SMEs based in the sub-region in 2003–04 as part of projects managed by BLTW.

  Businesses benefited from a range of Workforce Development services to help SMEs achieve the Investors in People Standard (liP) and develop their workforce.

  Financial subsidies up to 45 per cent. towards consultancy can be accessed by businesses of any age or size issue. Around £4 million is available for this purpose.
  518W
  SMEs benefit from up to 45 per cent. funding towards the cost of exhibition space, and design, build and dressing of stands. BLTW have held three 'Meet the Buyer' events over the last two years as a means for local SMEs to meet buyers from both within and beyond the region, offering them the opportunity to become integral cogs in supply chains. BLTW also recently hosted an 'Access to Finance' event, where SMEs met Hinders. This was attended by 30 funders and over 100 SMEs.

  Unsecured loans of up to £15,000 are available to SMEs in the NE that have difficulty accessing finance elsewhere. The SMEs must work with a mentor and repay the loan within five years.

  A Business Link adviser is currently based at TEDCO's premises in Jarrow providing advice and support to south Tyneside businesses. Business adviser will soon be based in south Tyneside metropolitan borough council premises, and in south Tyneside College two days a week.

  In addition a Tyne and Wear Small Business Fund, through ONE NE's Single Programme Funding, of a 50 per cent. Capital Equipment Grant of between £500 and £2,500 available to pre-start and new businesses—up to 12 months old.

  Supplementing the support available from BLTW, south Tyneside metropolitan borough council and south Tyneside Enterprise Agency, TEDCO run a number of their own initiatives to support SMEs in the south Tyneside borough. These initiatives are outlined as follows:

  South Tyneside metropolitan borough council:

  Tyne and Wear Small Business Grant;

  50 per cent. of eligible costs up to £5,000;

  New businesses up to 36 months old;

  Supports projects from a wide range of sectors with a capital spend of at least £2,000.

  Major Business Grant Fund:

  £20,000-£ 100,000;

  New and established businesses in most sectors;

  Encourages major investments into the borough which support the attraction, creation retention and rescue of significant jobs and businesses.

  Youth Employment Grant:

  Up to £3,000 on 30 per cent. basis over first year;

  Established businesses in all sectors;

  30 per cent. of the first years basic wage costs in a new, full-time, permanent post, for a person of south Tyneside, under 25 years of age.

  TEDCO:

  Business Start-up

  Access is available to the Tyne and Wear Business Start-up service, for individuals to access advice and support on all aspects of starting and running a business. The trend for business start-up is an upward one, in 2001, 50 start-ups were recorded for south Tyneside rising to 83 or 2003.

  There is close partnership working with South Tyneside Credit Union's STRIDE and the citizen's advice bureau on ant-poverty and projects focused on

  519W
  wealth creation and retention. Total funding for these activities in Jarrow since 1997 has been in the region of £311,000.

  Business Development.

  Business Development support activities include Outreach counselling, E-commerce, Marketing Support, Business Planning, Cluster Development, Workforce Development, graduate and under graduate placement programmes and support with grant applications for expansion and growth. Total funding for the counselling and consultancy aspects of this work has been in the region of £230,000.

  Grant Funding:

  Grants for local businesses have been accessed through south Tyneside to promote growth, competitiveness, support expansion and inward investment. There have been two sources of this funding, a Major Grants Fund, and the south Tyneside Development Fund. It is not possible to ascertain an exact split of funds, but in broad terms, since 1997 Jarrow businesses have received £200,000 from the Major Grants Fund and £100,000 per annum from the Development Fund.

  Other Sources of Funding.

  Further financial support has also been available through The Department for Work and Pensions, e.g. InBiz and also through DTI Regional Selective Assistance although it has not been possible to establish how much.

  Solar Photovoltaics
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's estimate is of the total amount of grid-connect solar photovoltaics which will be installed in the UK in 2004. [185791]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department does not have an estimate of grid-connected PV installed in the UK in 2004.

  The cumulative installed grid-connected PV in the UK was 5.189 MWe at the end of 2003, of this 1.623 MWe was installed in 2003.

  Stream 2 Funding
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total value is of large-scale grant applications for funding received in stream 2 of the Government's solar PV Major Demonstration Programme since its launch; and what the total value is of applications approved. [186110]

  Mr. Timms
  Under Stream 2 of the PV Major Demonstration Programme, 240 grant applications have been received with a total grant value of £32,552,100. Of these, 137 applications have been approved and offered grants with a total value of £16,612, 695.

  Technological Innovation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason applicants for the Grant for Research and Development have been asked to confirm in writing that they are withdrawing their bids; and what assessment she has of the impact this will 520W
  have on encouraging small businesses to carry out research and development that leads to technologically innovative products and processes. [185513]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I am advised that applicants for the Grant for Research and Development have not been asked to withdraw their applications. However, if any choose to do so they should inform the office dealing with their application.

  UK Trade and Investment
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) recruitment and (b) total cumulative salary costs of the Chief Executive of UK Trade and Investment are. [185253]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information is as follows.

  (a) The recruitment costs associated with the last recruitment exercise for the Chief Executive of UK Trade and Investment totalled approximately £74,000. This is in line with the costs associated with other open competitions held for the recruitment of Permanent Secretaries.

  (b) The Chief Executive's current salary falls within the salary range £120,000 to £124,999.

  UK/EU Trade
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the number of businesses in each region of the UK which trade with the EU; what percentage of(a) small businesses, (b) medium sized businesses and (c) large companies this represents in each region; and what the value of such trade in each region was for each business sector in the last year for which figures are available. [184524]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The latest available information on UK trade in goods, by UK regions, was published by HM Customs and Excise on 17 June 2004. The Press Release (NAT 27/04) and accompanying tables of statistics are available from the Customs' website: www.uktradeinfo.com which may be accessed from the Libraries of the House.

  Customs do not collect information on numbers of employees so it is not possible to distinguish between small, medium sized and large businesses.

  Wool Industry
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the current(a) state and (b) competitiveness of the British wool industry. [184050]

  Alun Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  Sales of new season's British wool have begun well, with strong demand and prices firm compared to those achieved at the end of last season's selling in June. But the volatility of the world market and the influence of currency fluctuations and world events may lead to some slowing of the market.

  The Government/Industry Forum on the Non-Food uses of Crops has considered ways to improve the competitiveness of the wool industry and included three recommendations in its second Annual Report. The

  521W
  Government will respond to those recommendations soon. A copy of this report and the recommendations made can be found at: http://148.252.1.12/gifnfc/ index.asp.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the annual cost to small businesses of the Working Time Directive. [185474]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department of Trade and Industry estimates in its Regulatory Impact Assessments that the total annual cost to business of the Working Time Regulations is £2.7 billion, of which up to £800 million might apply to small firms. There are also benefits to firms through improved health and safety and a more committed workforce, which may have led to productivity gains.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has commissioned research into the impact of the Working Time Regulations. One such report was "Implementation of the Working Time Regulations: follow-up study", Fiona Neathey, July 2003. The report finds that: "In most cases the WTR were not seen as a major business issue. However, the interviews produced some evidence of working time reduction arising from the Regulations and examples were given of operational benefits including more efficient ways of working and the positive impact on worker flexibility and efficiency of reduced working hours. Where a negative impact was cited it was most commonly in relation to increased labour costs, however only one company identified substantial costs which were directly associated with the WTR." (page 9).

  Workplace Discrimination
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list current UK legislation on discrimination in the workplace which resulted from(a) agreements reached at an EU level and (b) judgments of the European Court; what estimates she has made of the number of cases brought in each region of the UK under each piece of legislation in each of the last five years; how many cases were successful in each case; and what the total value of awards made in each of the last five years was for each region. [185323]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The current UK (excluding Northern Ireland) legislation on discrimination in the workplace which resulted from agreements at an EU level is as follows:

  Disability

  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003

  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Pensions) Regulations 2003

  Sexual orientation

  The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003

  The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) (Amendment) Regulations 2003
  522W
  Religion or belief

  The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003

  The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) (Amendment) Regulations 2003

  The Independent Schools (Employment of Teachers in Schools with a Religious Character) Regulations 2003

  The School Standards and Framework Act 1998

  The Education (Scotland) Act 1980

  Tribunals

  The Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases Regulations 1996

  Race

  The Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003

  Gender

  The primary gender legislation which has been affected by European Court legislation is the Equal Pay Act 1970, as amended and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, as amended. However, a full legislative list has been provided in the following table.

  Number of cases

  The Employment Tribunals Service is not able to provide a regional breakdown of the number of cases brought before the tribunal and of those that were successful. Given the short length of time that the Employment Equality Regulations have been in force, the number of cases reaching an Employment Tribunal is currently very small.

  Disability

  The Disability regulations come into force on 1 October 2004 and is yet there are no cases to report. The following table shows the number of cases that were brought before the tribunal on the grounds of disability in the last five years.

  Sexual orientation

  Only one case so far has been decided upon in the Employment Tribunal under the Employment Equality Sexual Orientation Regulations. The discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was not upheld by the tribunal.

  In the period December 2003 to June 2004 there have been 83 Employment Tribunal applications registered by the Employment Tribunals Service relating to sexual orientation.

  Religion or belief

  To date, no cases have been decided upon in the Employment Tribunal under the Employment Equality Religion or Belief Regulations.

  In the period December 2003 to June 2004 there have been 44 application registered by the Employment Tribunals Service relating to religion or belief.

  Race

  The Race Regulations have now been in force for a year and there are no cases to report that have come before the Employment Tribunal. The table shows the number of cases that were brought before the tribunal on the grounds of racial discrimination in the last five years.
  523W
  Sex

  The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 has been amended by European Court legislation. The table shows the number of cases that were brought before the tribunal on the grounds of sex discrimination in the last five years.

  Equal pay

  The Equal Pay Act 1970 has been amended by European Court legislation. The table below shows the number of cases that were brought before the tribunal on the grounds of discrimination arising from equal pay issues in the last five years.

  The Employment Tribunals Service is unable to provide information on the total value of awards made in the last five years on a regional basis.

  Applications registered

  Number of cases disposed of at hearing

  Number successful at heating

  Equal pay—main jurisdiction cases

  1999–2000

  2,391

  110

  9

  2000—01

  6,586

  55

  11

  2001–02

  5,314

  185

  149

  2002–03

  3,077

  92

  47

  2003–04

  3,217

  77

  51

  Disability—main jurisdiction cases

  1999–2000

  1,743

  292

  67

  2000–01

  2,100

  457

  105

  2001—02

  2,624

  345

  77

  2002—03

  2,716

  408

  90

  2003–04

  2,764

  396

  99

  Sex—main jurisdiction cases

  1999–2000

  4,926

  866

  233

  2000–01

  17,200

  967

  322

  2001–02

  10,092

  838

  239

  2002–03

  8,128

  904

  289

  2003–04

  14,284

  711

  265

  Race—main jurisdiction cases

  1999–2000

  3,246

  632

  170

  2000–01

  3,429

  975

  204

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  RN

  4

  2

  22

  21

  31

  Army

  41

  51

  19

  67

  64

  Single Living Accommodation Modernisation(SLAM)

  14

  19

  4

  27

  13

  Other

  7

  13

  72

  86

  92

  Totals

  66

  85

  162

  316

  277

  The entry on 'OTHER' expenditure relates to projects delivered by the Defence Estates agency, on tri-Service projects including within the Defence Logistics Organisation, Permanent Joint Headquarters, and in Northern Ireland.

  Expenditure on SLAM (the project to modernise single living accommodation for the Services) assumes some 17 per cent. to RN, 54 per cent. to Army and 26 per cent. to RAF (3 per cent. other) but these figures are indicative as the work is likely to be tackled on a 'worst first' rather than Service basis.

  Cadet Forces
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions have been made for cadet recruitment and training by his Department. [184158]
  524W

  Applications registered

  Number of cases disposed of at hearing

  Number successful at hearing

  2001–02

  3,183

  722

  122

  2002–03

  3,039

  655

  104

  2003–04

  2,830

  687

  155

  soruce:

  Employment Tribunals Service

DEFENCE

  Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent upgrading and building accommodation for the junior ranks of the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force, in each of the last three years; how much is provided in the forward programme; and if he will make a statement. [146166]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence has embarked on a programme to upgrade the Services' single living accommodation. However, because the costings include whole blocks, or others areas such as non-commissioned officer accommodation or ancillary areas, it is not possible to separate out expenditure for Junior Ranks, although much of the programme involves the upgrade of this type of accommodation.

  The following table shows past and planned expenditure on single living accommodation. This is the best information which can be provided without disproportionate cost and effort. It should be noted that the forecast spend in years 2004–05 and 2005–06, may be subject to change as in-year planning issues arise, and the figures represent an indicative allocation of funds.

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]: The provision made for recruitment and training for the Cadet Forces can be shown by the latest budget/expenditure for all of the Cadet Forces (including CCF), which were as follows:

  Recruitment and Training for Cadet Forces—2003–04

  £million

  £million

  Cadets affiliated to the Royal Air Force

  21

  Cadets affiliated to the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  10

  Cadets affiliated to the Army

  60

  The Army is responsible for providing many items for use by all Cadet Forces, such as Medical Modules for use on adventure training and Cadet camps.

  Civilian Deaths (Amargh)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has examined in relation to civilian deaths allegedly caused by British forces in the city of Amargh between 8 and 10 May. [179057]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: Ministers were briefed on operations that occurred in al-Amarah on 8-9 May 2004, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence referred to them in his statement on 10 May 2004, Official Report, column 21.

  Combat/Operational Clothing
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria were used in awarding the contract for combat and operational clothing DC4BESL/1002. [184361]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]: Under European Union Public Procurement Regulations we may only consider factors directly relevant to the nature of the items or services to be supplied in order to apply the principles of Most Economically Advantageous Tender.

  The published award criteria were Technical Compliance, Cost of Acquisition, Soft Issues (to determine partnering capability), and Delivery. This is in accordance with the Public Procurement Regulations.

  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what experience of supplying battledresses the winner of the contract for combat and operational clothing DC4BESL/1002 has. [184362]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]: The selected contractor has not previously supplied Combat Soldier (CS) 95, the main combat ensemble worn by the United Kingdom Armed Forces, however, they have supplied RN Improved Action Working Dress, Anti-Flash Clothing and elements of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle ensemble over a number of years, some of which are more complex and technically difficult to manufacture than CS 95 items. This contract was let to a prime contractor who is required to supply a range of nearly 200 products, including combat clothing, barrack/workwear and sportswear and the specific combat clothing element comprises only 20 different products.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officials from his Department visited China before awarding the contract for combat and operational clothing DC4BESL/1002. [184349]

  Mr. Ingram
  No officials have visited China in respect of this contract. It is not normal MOD practice to visit sub-contractors in advance of an award unless a significant risk has been identified during the assessment phase and this was not the case with this contract.

  Correspondence
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central dated 6 May regarding Mr. QH, reference 02245/2004. [185487]

  Mr. Ingram
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 19 July.

  Defence Research and Development
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) defence technology centres, (b) defence and aerospace research partnerships and (c) towers of excellence have been set up; which universities are involved in each case; and what activities have taken place in each case. [182015]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am placing the requested information in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Accountancy Practice
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who the Finance Director of the Department is; what accountancy qualifications the Director holds; and on how many occasion there has been a qualified opinion on(a) the resource accounts and (b) other accounts of the Department in the last five years. [183428]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence's Finance and Planning Director is Trevor Woolley. Mr. Woolley was appointed following a Whitehall wide competition and took up post on 13 October 2003. He has substantial financial management experience in MOD at senior level across a range of posts within Head Office and in managing the finances of one of our largest budget areas. Although Mr. Woolley does not himself have an accountancy qualification, his staff includes a senior team of experienced accountants and other professional specialists.

  The MOD's first Departmental Resource Accounts were published in 2000 and were disclaimed by the National Audit Office. Significant progress has been made since then and, although the accounts have been qualified in each year, those for 2002–03 received just one qualification.

  Trading Fund organisations and non-departmental public bodies associated with the MOD also publish accounts, but these fall outside the departmental accounting boundary and the organisations' Chief Executives and Finance Directors are separately accountable for them.

  Departmental Publications (Storage)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many departmental publications are in storage; and where they are located. [183868]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence's main storage depot for publications is in Llangennech in South Wales. This site currently holds copies of over 170,000 different forms and publications. However, many other publications are issued by, and stored at, unit level and information about these is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Iraq
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether at any point children have been detained in the Coalition-run detention centres in Umm Qasr; and if he will make a statement. [182929]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 July 2004]: During decisive operations to 1 May 2003 and subsequently, UK forces have detained individuals who have been a

  527W
  threat to them and a number believed to be criminals. Some of these people were detained in the facility at Umm Qasr and some were discovered to be under 18 years of age. Those internees and detainees still held by UK forces in the Umm Qasr facility were transferred to the UK Divisional Temporary Detention Facility at Shaibah on or about 15 December 2003.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 15 July 2004,Official Report, column 1235W, on Iraq, whether hooding was a contributory factor in any harm suffered by individuals in the incident mentioned.

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 15 July 2004,Official Report, column 1235W, on Iraq, on what basis military commanders concluded that hooding detainees could be harmful. [185974]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 15 July 2004,Official Report, column 1235W, on Iraq, whether military commanders concluded following the incident concerned that the potentially harmful effects of hooding could be fatal. [185975]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Lloyd Inquiry
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has given his Department's employees permission to give evidence to the inquiry into Gulf war illness being held under the chairmanship of Lord Lloyd of Berwick. [184822]

  Mr. Caplin
  I wrote to Lord Lloyd of Berwick on 12 July 2004 and explained that it would not be appropriate for Ministers, officials or serving military personnel to attend his investigation. However, in the interests of openness, I intend to provide Lord Lloyd with a pack of all appropriate documents by the end of July.

  Major Ian Hill
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2004,Official Report, column 822W, on Major Ian Hill, if he is now in a position to give his assessment of the findings of the Cheshire Coroner regarding the death of Major Ian Hill. [185161]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]: The Ministry of Defence has completed its assessment of the findings of the Cheshire Coroner in the inquest of Edward lan Hill and has noted the observations, comments and findings.

  Nimrod
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Nimrod MR4A aircraft are required to provide the same operational capability as the current Nimrod fleet.[186067]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State Defence what plans he has to use(a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership mechanisms to decommission nuclear submarines. [184663]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans to use either the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) or Public Private Partnership (PPP) to defuel and decommission nuclear powered submarines when they leave operational service. Since 1990 this work has been contracted out to Devonport Management Limited in Plymouth. As part of this process, the submarine's reactor is defuelled at the earliest practicable opportunity and the fuel—High Level Waste (HLW)—is removed for long term storage at British Nuclear Fuels plc at Sellafield.

  We are undertaking Project ISOLUS, to determine storage arrangements for the Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) from the decommissioned submarines, pending a decision on a national waste management solution, and are currently considering industry outline proposals. PFI, partnering and prime contracting are the procurement options being considered. PFI will only be pursued if it can be demonstrated that it offers the most effective procurement strategy.

  Prisons (Iraq)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) male and (b) female prison officers are employed in the running of British military and civilian prisons in Iraq; how many have been prison officers employed in prisons in the UK; and if he will make a statement; [177244]

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women prison officers employed in British-run military/civilian prisons in Iraq have been removed from their role as prison officers because of concern as to their suitability to be a prison officer; and if he will make a statement. [184119]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no British military or civilian prisons in Iraq, and no prison officers are employed. As at 21 July 2004, around 65 personnel are based at the Divisional Temporary Detention Facility (DTDF) at Shaibah. This is the only British detention facility in Iraq. All custody officers are currently male, although one female custody officer was employed previously. None is known to have been removed from duty.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants in his Department announced in the comprehensive spending review will be of special advisers. [185465]
  529W
  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Boateng) on 20 July 2004,Official Report, column 190W.

  Staffordshire Regiment
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Staffordshire Regiment. [185603]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Claiming Asylum Leaflet (Welsh Version)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he made of the demand for a version of the Community Legal Services leaflet Claiming Asylum to be printed in Welsh, before the leaflet was printed. [185938]

  Mr. Lammy
  Section 5(1)(a) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 provides that English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales. In accordance with these obligations, the Legal Services Commission has produced the 'Claiming Asylum' leaflet in Welsh and all the Community Legal Service (CLS) Direct leaflets will be available in Welsh by autumn 2004.

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) which legal suppliers have over-billed for services provided on behalf of the Community Legal Service in each year since 1997; and what the total cost was of over-billing in each year; [185647]

  (2) how many of those legal suppliers that over-billed for services provided on behalf of the Community Legal Service had their contracts terminated in each year since 1997; and on what date each termination took place. [185648]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Legal Services Commission (LSC) monitors whether costs claimed by suppliers are reasonable, either by individual bill submitted (for civil representation) or by auditing a sample of files (for controlled work under an LSC contract). At some stage, virtually all suppliers in receipt of public funding will have had their bills reduced, either by the LSC or by the court through its assessment process.

  The LSC does not record costs in a way which enables them to identify the total cost for over-toiling in each year. Neither does it distinguish between those firms that have stopped doing work because the LSC has actively terminated contracts, and those firms that have withdrawn voluntarily. The LSC may terminate contracts for a range of reasons including over-toiling.

  The LSC carries out cost compliance audits on all firms who are contracted with them to measure whether the suppliers are claiming correctly on their files. This is an
  530W
  objective audit where LSC compares what is claimed by the suppliers against what is actually evidenced in those files. Where a supplier is confirmed as 'category 3'—the lowest rating under the LSC's cost assessment audit— the Commission recovers the amounts claimed from the supplier. In 2003–04, the LSC recovered in excess of £7 million from 711 suppliers as a result of these audits.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what issues will be covered by the recorded message relating to education on the new Community Legal Service Direct advice line. [185260]

  Mr. Leslie
  Issues covered by recorded messages on the Community Legal Service (CLS) Direct advice line relating to education are as follows: parents rights relating to school exclusion, advice for parents unable to obtain a place for their child at their preferred school, rights and responsibilities of a parent whose child is truanting and advice for students facing difficulties with their university.

  The Legal Services Commission plans to introduce further messages as other commonly experienced education-related problems are determined. Further topics are covered in leaflet number 20 of the CLS Direct Leaflet Series, entitled "Education: Parents' and Children's Rights at School." The leaflet is widely available in hard copy and also through the CLS Direct website.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) visitors to the Community Legal Services website and (b) callers to the Community Legal Services direct telephone line were received each day in the last month for which figures are available; and how many (i) website visits and (ii) calls he expects in the next year. [185261]

  Mr. Lammy
  The website of the Community Legal Service (CLS) was known as 'JustAsk!' prior to 14 July 2004, and 'CLS Direct' from this date. Figures for daily visits to the website, in June, are detailed in table 1.

  The Community Legal Service Direct telephone line was launched on 14 July 2004 (although the line had been operational from 2 July 2004). Figures for calls to CLS Direct, in July, are detailed in table 2.

  The increased publicity generated by the launch of CLS Direct is expected to increase significantly visits to the website and phone calls made. No precise estimates of total calls, or website visits, next year can yet be made.

  Table 1: Legal Services Commission breakdown of visitors to the 'Just Ask!' website

  Visits

  Date

  Number

  Percentage of monthly total

  June 2004

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  2,271

  5.14

  4

  2,404

  5.44

  5

  1,492

  3.38

  6

  1,429

  3.24

  7

  2,907

  6.58

  8

  2,836

  6.42

  9

  3,073

  6.96

  531W

  Table 1: Legal Services Commission breakdown of visitors to the 'Just Ask!' website

  Visits

  Date

  Number

  Percentage of monthly total

  10

  2,839

  6.43

  11

  100

  0.23

  12

  1,346

  3.05

  13

  1,449

  3.28

  14

  66

  0.15

  15

  2

  0.00

  16

  5

  0.01

  17

  9

  0.02

  18

  9

  0.02

  19

  0

  0.00

  20

  0

  0.00

  21

  3

  0.01

  22

  2,613

  5.92

  23

  2,866

  6.49

  24

  2,728

  6.18

  25

  2,501

  5.66

  26

  1,558

  3.53

  27

  926

  2.10

  28

  2,774

  6.28

  29

  3,010

  6.82

  30

  2,940

  6.66

  Total

  44,156

  100.00

  Note:

  The server was down for periods of time while essential work was being carried out in preparation for the launch of CIS Direct. A substantial number of visitors to the website to are likely not to have been captured during this time. Average monthly website visits number around 60,000. Figures for July will be available in August 2004.

  Table 2: Calls to Community Legal Service Direct

  Date

  Number of calls

  July 2004

  2

  140

  3

  1

  5

  218

  6

  169

  7

  144

  8

  117

  9

  136

  10

  2

  11

  1

  12

  204

  13

  167

  14

  158

  15

  175

  16

  222

  17

  6

  18

  1

  19

  178

  20

  212

  21

  218

  Departmental Publicity
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much was spent by his Department on(a) advertising and (b) public relations consultants in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the last year for which figures are available. [185824]

  Mr. Lammy
  In 2003—04 the Department for Constitutional Affairs did not spend anything on advertising and public relations consultants. Figures for 1996–97 are not available since my Department only came into existence on 12 June 2003.

  Departmental Staff (Upper Age Limits)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether(a) his Department and (b) agencies for which it is responsible (i) have a set retirement age which applies to all or most personnel and (ii) have a maximum age beyond which applications for employment will not be considered; and what the age is in each case. [186084]

  Mr. Lammy
  In the Department for Constitutional Affairs including its agencies, (i) at present all staff at Span 3 (formerly AO) and below have a normal retirement age of 65. Staff at Spans 4 and 5 (formerly EO) normally retire at age 62. Staff may stay on under the "short service concession" rule, that is if they have not completed 20 years reckonable service. The normal retirement age for all other staff is 60, although even then all staff may stay on beyond 60 if there are sound business reasons. The DCA board has recently agreed that the normal retirement age should be increased to 65 for all staff with effect from 1 April 2005, subject to consultation with the departmental trade unions. (ii) There is no set maximum age beyond which applications for employment will not be considered. Business managers compare the cost and time of training a new entrant against the length of service available.

  Ineffective Trials
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much has been spent on ineffective trials in(a) magistrates courts and (b) Crown courts in each year since 1997; and for what main reasons trials prove to be ineffective. [185374]

  Mr. Leslie
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: It is not possible to provide information in the form requested. The costs of an ineffective trial separately accrue to a number of agencies (the CPS, the police, the court, defence solicitors).

  However, the Crown court over the last year has cut the Ineffective Trial Performance from 23.5 per cent. to 17.3 per cent. and the magistrates court Ineffective Trial Performance has reduced from 29.5 per cent. to 26.9 per cent.

  There are 15 different categories recorded for a case being ineffective in the Crown court and 13 in the magistrates court.

  The most used categories have remained the same since 1997, although the order and number fluctuates. The reasons below were taken from the most recent data set (rolling quarter ending May 2004) and have been listed in numerical order (highest first).

  Crown

  Prosecution witness fails to attend

  Defendant failed to attend—Bench Warrant Issued

  Defendant not ready for trial—Further preparation needed

  Prosecution not ready for trial

  Defendant ill trial stood out (did not proceed)

  Floater/backer not reached (the trial fails to go ahead on the day, a substitute trial may be available replace it)

  Magistrates

  Prosecution witness absent

  533W

  Defendant absent—Did not attend

  Other

  Lack of court/magistrate availability

  Defence not ready

  Prosecution witness absent (police officer)

  Judicial Appointments Commission
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the qualifications for serving on the Judicial Appointments Commission will be. [185883]

  Mr. Leslie
  Schedule 12 of the Constitutional Reform Bill provides that the Commission will consist of a lay chairman, five further lay members, five judicial members, two professional members (a barrister and a solicitor), a tribunal member and a lay justice.

  Of the Commissioners appointed as judicial members, one must be a Lord Justice of Appeal; one a High Court judge; one either a Lord Justice of Appeal or a High Court judge; one a circuit judge and one a district judge.

  Of the others: the professional members must be a practising barrister and a practising solicitor; the lay members must never have held a listed judicial office or been a practising lawyer; the tribunal member must be the holder of an office listed in Part 3 of Schedule 14 of the Bill; and the lay justice must be a justice of the peace.

  None of the members may be a member of either the House of Lords or the House of Commons, or a civil servant.

  Legal Services Commission
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what money is owed to the Legal Services Commission; and what the reasons are for the Commission not having collected this debt. [185046]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Legal Services Commission (LSC) had debts due to it at the end of the financial year 2003–04 of £262 million. Much of this debt (around 72 per cent.) is secured by the registration of a statutory charge against property and is not, generally, immediately collectable. The LSC allows the funded client to postpone the operation of the charge, subject to certain conditions, and the debt is not repayable until the property is sold or upon the death of the client.

  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.

  Other debts due to the LSC are normally immediately repayable and are pursued by a dedicated debt recovery team. In 2003—04, the LSC successfully recovered £28 million worth of debt. Some of these debts may be owed by funded clients (e.g. unpaid contributions towards funding legal aid) and are difficult to recover given the limited financial circumstances of the clients.

  November 9th Society
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will raise with the Electoral Commission the plans of the November 9th Society to use the election freepost to distribute its material; and if he will make a statement. [186292]

  Mr. Leslie
  Any candidate at a parliamentary election, and any individual candidate or registered political party at a European parliamentary election has a statutory right to send election material to electors in the constituency or region in which they are standing. Any material must relate solely to that election and must also comply with the general law (for instance, the Malicious Communications Act, the Public Order Acts and Postal Services Act).

  I understand that an organisation calling itself the November 9th Society has applied to the Electoral Commission for registration as a political party and that this is under consideration.

  Partnership Initiative Budget
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the current projects that receives funding from the Partnership Initiative Budget. [185645]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since its implementation in 2001, there have been two rounds of the Partnership Initiative Budget (PIB), each with a different focus, funding a total of 143 projects. Currently there are 136 projects receiving funding, 66 from round one and 70 from round two. A list of current projects with references to their lead organisation and region has been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what factors are taken into consideration when deciding how funding is allocated to projects from the Partnership Initiative Fund. [185646]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Partnership Initiative Budget aims to provide flexible funding within the Community Legal Service Partnership (CLSP) framework to support initiatives which will have a direct impact on individuals' access to advice and information in priority categories of law, as identified locally.

  In order to receive funding project bids had to meet certain criteria. They had to: further a local/regional strategy for provision of legal advice services; be either local (involving a single CLSP, or part thereof) or regional (involving more than one CLSP); relate to priority need identified in a specific CLSP needs assessment or strategic plan; relate to priority areas identified by either (i) all CLSPs covered or (ii) if covering a Legal Services Commission (LSC region, the relevant Regional Legal Services Committee; encourage partnership working particularly between previously distinct advice providers or organisations; link with other public initiatives or add value to existing schemes or provision; either hold the LSC Quality Mark (QM) or be capable of gaining the QM within a year of the project being awareded funding; have a minimum of 25 per cent. match funding (cash and in kind—excluding

  535W
  unpaid staff time); ensure that a significant number of those who will ultimately benefit from a project should be financially eligible; provide value for money; be for a maximum of three years worth of funding; normally be for running costs; have an exit strategy; and demonstrate a commitment to Equal Opportunities.

  Postal Ballots
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many people have been registered for a permanent postal vote in each constituency in the UK in e ich of the last three years. [185644]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not collected centrally. Individual Electoral Registration Officers may keep historical records of the number of postal voters in their registration area, though separate records are not kept of long-term postal voters and those for one election only. It is possible to apply for a postal vote at any time, and figures are not maintained on a yearly basis. Available statistics show that at the 2001 general election, 1,758,055 postal votes were issued in total (3.9 per cent. of the electorate) compared to 937,205 (2.1 per cent. of the electorate) at the 1997 general election.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much his Department spent on press officers, broken down by grade, in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the last year for which figures are available.[185823]

  Mr. Lammy
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Public Records
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many files that have passed the normal 30-year closure period laid down by the Public Record Act 1958 have not been published. [184358]

  Mr. Leslie
  121,923 files more than 30-years-old have been identified by the National Archives as being either closed or retained by Departments. 97,446 of these files are closed, the majority of them in order to protect personally sensitive information.

  Public Relations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the salary costs to the Department were for employees working in public relations and publicity in each year since 1997. [183844]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since 12 June 2003, when the Department for Constitutional Affairs came into existence, until end March 2004 salary costs to my Department for employing public relations (all press officers) and publicity staff was £736,626.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Asia and Europe Meeting
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to the decision by the EU to cancel forthcoming Asia and Europe Meeting (ASEM) meetings due to the proposed participation of the Burmese regime. [185550]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agreed with EU colleagues that the two ASEM meetings which were due to be held in July and in September would have to be postponed, as the EU could not participate without the 10 new EU member states, who are not yet members of ASEM.

  The 10 new EU member states have applied to join ASEM at the Hanoi Summit in October, along with Cambodia, Laos and Burma. The Foreign Secretary and EU colleagues recently endorsed the appointment of Mr. Hans van den Broek as Special Envoy of the Presidency, to consult ASEM partners on an acceptable and feasible solution to handling Burma in the context of ASEM enlargement.

  Burma
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the ongoing State Peace and Development (SPDC) offensives in Karen and Karenni states in recent weeks; and if he will now make urgent representations to the SPDC regime in Burma concerning those offensives. [185571]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We welcome the oral ceasefire agreement between the SPDC and the Karen National Union (KNU) and hope that this will lead to a lasting peace settlement. But we remain concerned that offensives continue.

  We regularly raise our concerns on human rights in Burma with the Burmese regime including the suffering of ethnic groups such as the Karen and Karenni, most recently when I met the Burmese ambassador on 1 June.

  Human rights violations have been highlighted by successive highly critical UK and EU co-sponsored UN Resolutions, most recently at the UN Commission on Human Rights on 21 April. This referred to the violations of human rights suffered in particular by persons belonging to ethnic minorities, women and children, especially in non-ceasefire areas and the situation of the large number of internally displaced persons as well as the flow of refugees to neighbouring countries. It emphasised the obligations of Burma under international law to pursue through dialogue and peaceful means the immediate suspension and permanent end of conflict with all ethnic groups in the country and to conclude a ceasefire agreement with the KNU.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will strengthen sanctions against the Burmese regime. [185597]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our policy remains as set out in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 24 May 2004,Official Report, column 1357W.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the arrest of BBC staff by the Cameroon authorities. [185668]

  Mr. Mullin
  Two BBC journalists were arrested in the Bakassi peninsula earlier this month. One was South African, the other Cameroonian. At the request of the BBC, the British High Commission in Yaounde made enquiries of the Cameroonian authorities on 12 July. The Cameroonian authorities had given the journalists permission to travel in Cameroon, but it was unclear whether their permits included the Bakassi peninsula. Partly as a result of our intervention, both journalists were released on 16 July.

  Chagos Islands
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 24 June 2004,Official Report, column 1528W, whether persons detained by the US armed forces arriving in the Chagos islands require entry permits.[185658]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United States authorities have repeatedly assured us that no detainees have at any time passed in transit through Diego Garcia or its territorial waters, or have disembarked there. The Government are satisfied that these assurances are correct. The issue of entry permits for detainees arriving in the Chagos islands does not therefore arise.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes there have been in the commitment by the UK Government to the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo in(a) monetary terms, (b) assistance in kind and (c) manpower under UN Security Council Resolution 1493 compared to UN Security Council Resolution 1279; what changes have taken place since 28 July 2003; and if he will make a statement. [185680]

  Mr. Rammell
  UK assistance to the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) has increased since UN Security Council Resolution 1279 of November 1999, as exigencies have dictated. Figures for 1999 are not readily available, but available figures from 2001 to UN Security Council Resolution 1493 of July 2003 show that UK commitment to MONUC has:

  In monetary terms, increased from £10.7 million in 2001–02 to £18.5 million in 2002–03. In the period after Resolution 1493, i.e. in 2003–04, the UK's monetary contribution amounted to £33.8 million. It is expected to total approximately 28.7 million in 2004–05. These figures are for the UK's assessed contribution to MONUC through the UN only.

  In addition to the UK's assessed contribution to MONUC through the UN, the UK also gives additional and voluntary assistance to MONUC's peacekeeping activities. In 2001–02, the UK contributed £588,000 in additional assistance to MONUC, and £669,000 in 2002–03. In the period after Resolution 1493, i.e. in 2003–04, the UK contributed £1.8 million (including
  538W
  £1.1 million to an EU peace support operation). The UK will likely contribute an additional £1 million to the peacekeeping effort in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2004—05.

  In terms of manpower, the UK had six officers in MONUC from 2000 to 2003, now reduced to five. The UK currently has live troops serving with MONUC. The UK also contributed a Royal Engineer squadron and two aircraft to the EU peace support operation to DRC (an interim measure lasting from June-September 2003). Also as part of the EU operation, the UK deployed staff to as list in the operation's headquarters in Paris and Entebbe. In total, the UK contributed 120 staff to the operation.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many personnel are authorised to be deployed with the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo under UN Security Council Resolution 1493; how many are deployed; and if he will make a statement. [185681]

  Mr. Rammell
  UN Security Council Resolution 1493 (2003), of 28 July 2003, authorised an increase of the military strength of the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) to 10,800 personnel. As of 31 May 2004 (the most up-to-date figures available), MONUC's military strength stood at 10,715 uniformed personnel.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals(a) he, (b) members of his Department and (c) other members and representatives of the UK Government have made for a UN Security Council Resolution (i) to extend and (ii) to modify the mandate of the United Nations Mission in t he Democratic Republic of Congo; when he expects such a resolution to be passed; and if he will make a statement. [185682]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are in regular discussion with the Secretariat of the United Nations about the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC). We await the UN Secretary-General's report and recommendations for the future of MONUC, due on 15 August. We will consider these carefully. We expect a Security Council resolution on MONUC to be passed before the end of September.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has(a) sought and (b) had with (i) his EU member state counterparts, (ii) EU officials, (iii) his US counterpart, (iv) his African Union member state counterparts, (v) UN officials, (vi) other Foreign Ministers and (vii) members of non-governmental organisations concerning the mandate of the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo; what suggestions for change of the mandate were put forward during these meetings; and if he will make a statement. [185684]

  Mr. Mullin
  I discussed ways to improve the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo's (MONUC) effectiveness with African leaders and other members of the international community at the African Union Summit on 6 July and also during my visits to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda in June. UK officials have also discussed this with EU
  539W
  partners, US and UN officials. We have received recommendations from NGOs on modifying MONUC's mandate. Possible options include increased troop numbers and a clarification of M ONUC's mandate under Chapter VII. We await the Secretary-General's report and recommendations for the future of MONUC, due on 15 August. We will consider these carefully.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who the five main contributors to the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo are in terms of(a) military observers, (b) military contingent, (c) monetary contribution and (d) contribution in kind; and if he will make a statement. [185685]

  r. Rammell
  The five main contributors of Military Observers to the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC), as of 31 May 2004 are:

  Country

  Numbers contributed

  India

  33

  Kenya and Nigeria

  128

  Romania, Russia, Tunisia, Uruguay and Mali

  127

  Pakistan

  26

  Malawi

  24

  1Per country.

  The five main contributors to the MONUC military contingent, as of 31 May 2004 are:

  Country

  Numbers contributed

  Uruguay

  1,800

  Bangladesh

  1,309

  South Africa

  1,269

  Nepal

  1,226

  Pakistan

  1,066

  The five main monetary contributors to MONUC, based on the UN's scale of assessment for July 2004 are:

  Country

  Percentage of costs contributed

  USA

  26.7

  Japan

  19.5

  Germany

  8.6

  UK

  7.4

  France

  7.3

  The information as to amounts of contribution in kind is not readily available. But the main five contributors of civilian police to MONUC, as of 31 May 2004 are:

  Country

  Number contributed

  Niger

  19

  Turkey

  13

  Benin

  12

  Cote d'Ivoire, France and Serbia and Montenegro

  111

  Burkina Faso and Mali

  110

  1 Per country.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made concerning the impact of the 540W
  United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo on the security situation for civilians in (a) the Democratic Republic of Congo and (b) the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement. [185686]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) has contributed significantly to an improved security situation throughout the country, including in the east, where it has increased its presence. But there is still work needed to further improve humanitarian agencies' access to vulnerable populations and to help secure the safe return of internally displaced persons (IDPs). MONUC is also working with international donors to establish a functioning police and judicial system.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of(a) the impact of and (b) which parties are participating in resource exploitation and smuggling to support the conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo; and if he will make a statement. [185692]

  Mr. Mullin
  Resource exploitation has been a significant contributing factor to conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The UN Expert Panel reports on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the DRC, published in 2002 and 2003, provided information linking exploitation and conflict, and named several countries and companies alleged to be involved.

  The UK supports initiatives to combat illegal resource extraction such as the Kimberley process and supports international efforts to help the Transitional National Government in the DRC rebuild its capacity to manage its natural resources in an efficient and transparent manner.

  EU/US Summit
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters in respect of joint work on the clean up and disposition of surplus military nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union countries were discussed at the EU-US summit in Ireland on 26 June. [185516]

  Mr. Rammell
  These matters were not discussed at the EU-US Summit in Ireland.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the activities of the Green Minister in the Department in financial year 2003–04. [185129]

  Mr. Rammell
  As the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) Green Minister, during the financial year 2003–04 I participated fully in the cabinet committee of Green Ministers (ENV(G)) and in the Sustainable Development Task Force which first met in May 2003.

  I have encouraged implementation in the FCO of the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate, including agreeing waste, procurement, and renewable energy and energy

  541W
  efficiency targets. In August 2003 I inaugurated our contract with 'Greenworks', responsible for re-using and re-cycling the FCO's surplus furniture. The media were invited to attend the event to publicise the inauguration and the wider sustainability agenda. I agreed the FCO contribution to the Government response to the Environmental Audit Committee report 'Greening Government 2003', providing information on our progress towards integrating sustainable development into our policy-making, and the performance of our UK estate.

  I also agreed the FCO contribution to the Government response to the House of Commons Audit Committee (EAC) October 2003 report 'World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002—from Rhetoric to Reality' on our progress towards meeting the commitments made at WSSD.

  I am actively involved in the review of the 1999 UK Sustainable Development Strategy 'A better quality of life' and took part in the launch of the consultation on the new strategy earlier this year. The FCO is working with Defra, DFID and DTI to ensure that international issues are integrated into the new UK Sustainable Development Strategy.

  I have also been working closely on the drafting of the FCO Sustainable Development Strategy, which we aim to launch later this year.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to share with the United Kingdom the primary source documentation it holds on Iraq's interest in procuring uranium from Niger. [184385]

  Mr. Rammell
  No. Copies of the documentation were made available to the UK at the time that they were passed to the International Atomic Energy Agency in February 2003.

  Iraq
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions and guidance have been given to members of the armed forces and other United Kingdom personnel and contractors in Iraq as to the obligations imposed by(a) the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and (b) the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and if he will make a statement. [183941]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: The UK armed forces are fully aware of their obligations under international law. They are given thorough mandatory training, which includes specific guidance on handling prisoners of war. All personnel must attend refresher training every year. Other UK personnel going to Iraq who are likely to be involved in activities that require an understanding of these international obligations are also given appropriate guidance.
  542W
  UK staff seconded from HM Prison Service are deployed to Iraq solely to act as monitors and mentors within civil prisons run by the Iraqi Correctional Service, where all prisoners are held on remand or following conviction of criminal charges in civil courts. All HM Prison Service staff receive in-depth training on their roles and responsibilities and act at all times in accordance with international statutes and conventions.

  There are no contractors employed by the UK in Iraq who have duties in detention facilities or who are involved in activities that may require an understanding of these international obligations.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken since the occupation of Iraq to ensure that(a) members of the armed forces and other United Kingdom personnel and persons employed by contractors there comply with international human rights and humanitarian law, (b) there are effective safeguards and sanctions against abuse by contractors and (c) there are effective remedies for any victims of such abuse. [183942]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to him today (UIN 183941).

  UK armed forces personnel are subject to UK law as they would be in the UK. As in the UK or in other operational theatres, the responsibility for enforcing the law lies with the Royal Military Police. Anyone found to have broken the law is dealt with appropriately, but of course it is important to establish the facts first. This is what we are now doing with regard to allegations against UK military personnel in Iraq.

  The Coalition Provisional Authority put in place a number of regulations that apply to foreign contractors in Iraq. These regulations are set out in CPA Order 17 and CPA Memorandum 17, which can be found on the CPA website at www.cpa-iraq.org.

  Any claims arising from actions attributable to UK military personnel will be considered against UK national law.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the security contractors his Department uses for operations in Iraq about them(a) being subject to Iraqi law and (b) being recipients of immunities subsequent to the transfer of sovereignty; and if he will make a statement. [184712]

  Mr. Rammell
  The only security contractors that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office uses in Iraq are those involved in protecting the premises and staff of our missions there. The staff provided by those contractors are accredited to our embassy in Baghdad and our embassy of ices in Basra and Kirkuk and thus benefit from diplomatic status and immunities.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether the signals intelligence from GCHQ concerning a visit by an Iraqi official to Niger, referred to in Paragraph 89 of Cm 5972, relates to the UK Government claim that Iraq sought to procure uranium from Africa; [185176]
  543W
  (2) pursuant to the answer of 19 May 2004, Official Report, column 1085W, and 30 January 2004, Official Report, column 581W, on Iraq, whet her the source upon which it based its claim in the September 2002 dossier, that Iraq sought to procure uranium from Africa, is the same information that it understands was discussed with the International Atomic Energy Authority before 7 March 2003; [185220]

  (3) pursuant to the answer of 26 May 2004, Official Report, columns 1638—39W, on Iraq, between what dates the September 2002 source upon which the Government based its claim that Iraq sought to procure uranium from Africa indicated that the attempted procurement took place; [185221]

  (4) pursuant to the answer of 26 May 2004, Official Report, column 1639W, on Iraq, whether the documentary evidence reported in June 2002, referred to in Paragraph 89 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Report, Cm 5972, upon which the Government did not rely to back up its claim that Iraq sought to procure uranium from Africa was found to be (a) forged and (b) the same as any of the documents described as forged by the International Atomic Energy Agency on 7 March 2003; [185222]

  (5) pursuant to the answer of 26 May 2004, Official Report, column 1639W, on Iraq, whether the Government have established the origin and history of the documents referred to as under consideration in Paragraph 4 of the Further Supplementary Memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Iraqi Attempts to Procure Uranium, of July 2003, Written Evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ninth Report, HC 813 -II; [185223]

  (6) pursuant to the answer of 26 April 2004, Official Report, column 774W and 6 May 2004, Official Report, column 1733W, on Iraq, what form the second intelligence source reported in September 2002 took; [185226]

  (7) pursuant to the answer of 26 April 2004, Official Report, columns 1733—34W, on Iraq, whether his reference to the intelligence that the Government understand was discussed with the International Atomic Energy Authority is to the second source referred to in paragraph 93 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's report, Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction. [185227]

  Mr. Straw
  I have nothing further to add. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that Lord Butler's Inquiry reviewed the intelligence relating t o this matter in detail and concluded at paragraph 503 that:"From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

  a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

  b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

  c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.

  544W

  d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it."

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the source was of the intelligence received by the United Kingdom in 2002 in respect of alleged attempts by Iraq to purchase uranium from Niger to which reference is made at paragraph 495 of the Butler Committee report on intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. [185189]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) today in response to series of questions on the issue of this intelligence (UINs 185176, 185220, 185221, 185222, 185223, 185226, 185227).

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department was the source of the statement at paragraph 501 of the Butler Committee Report on intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in respect of the date on which the British Government first learned of the United States' and other states' receipt of documents alleging Iraqi attempts to secure uranium from Niger. [185190]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Butler Review carried out its work independently of the Government. It would not be appropriate therefore for the Government to comment on who gave what evidence to the Review. However, the hon. Member may wish to consult the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessments, paras 87–93 which also deals with this issue.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which members of the security services briefed the Leader of the Opposition prior to the vote in the House on 18 March regarding the invasion of Iraq. [185224]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Wood Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) in the House on 9 July 2003,Official Report, column 1151.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 8 July 2004,Official Report, column 846W, on Iraq, whether Iraq's oil production was metered during Coalition Provision Authority rule; and how much oil was produced by Iraq during the Coalition's tenure. [185499]

  Mr. Rammell
  When the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) took office there were no functioning meters in the Iraqi oil system. The CPA oil team had been pressing for meters to be installed as a matter of urgency, but as of 28 June—when the CPA dissolved—the issue remained outstanding. However oil exports, either by pipeline to Ceyhan in Turkey or by tanker through the Arabian Gulf, were metered as they passed into the receiving tanks.

  Oil production during the CPA's tenure for each month from June 2003 to April 2004 is shown in table 1. Weekly data from May to the beginning of July 2004 is shown in table 2.
  545W

  Table I: Iraq—average daily crude oil production

  Barrels per day (million)

  2003

  June

  0.453

  July

  0.573

  August

  1.053

  September

  1.403

  October

  1.753

  November

  1.853

  December

  1.952

  2004

  January

  2.103

  February

  2.003

  March

  2.203

  April

  2.303

  Table 2: Iraq—average daily crude oil production

  Barrels per day (million)

  2004

  30 April to 6 May

  2.4

  7–13 May

  1.9

  14–20 May

  1.8

  21–27 May

  2.25

  28 May to 3 June

  2.4

  4—10 June

  2.3

  11–17 June

  2.1

  18–24 June

  1.15

  25 June to 1 July

  1.3

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether members of his departmental 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. [185786]

  Mr. Straw
  We have nothing further to add to the remarks that were made in last Tuesday's debate on Iraq.

  Kashmir
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to(a) the Indian Government and (b) the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir concerning the decision to expel Mr. Jim Borst from Kashmir. [184989]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We believe Father Jim Borst is a Dutch citizen. It would be therefore for the Dutch authorities to act. We have alerted the Netherlands embassy in New Delhi, which is looking into his case.

  Kenya
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library evidence provided by Her Majesty's High Commissioner in Kenya to the Kenyan Government in support of his speech to Kenyan businessmen; and which company it was whose name was omitted from published versions of his remarks. [185477]
  546W
  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: We are responding to requests for information from the competent Kenyan authorities. They have asked us not to divulge details in order to avoid prejudicing ongoing anti-corruption investigations.

  No company names were omitted from the published version of the High Commissioner's speech.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current state of relations with Kenya. [185667]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK currently enjoys excellent bilateral relations with Kenya.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Department's assessment of the level of corruption within the Kenyan Government is. [185839]

  Mr. Mullin
  In its 2003 report, Transparency International judged Kenya to be the eleventh most corrupt country globally. There are certainly frequent allegations of unsatisfactory tendering and contracting procedures in which senior members of the Kenyan Government are allegedly involved. We have been pressing strongly for these to be fully investigated and firm action taken against any individual shown to have been involved in any corrupt practice. The British Government are co-operating fully with investigations.

  Maldives
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received concerning the first sitting on 19 July of the special Majlis in the Republic of Maldives; and if he will make a statement. [185800]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We welcome the start of the Special Majlis and the opportunity this provides for the people of the Maldives and their elected representatives to consider constitutional reform. We welcome the proposals made in President Gayoom's speech of 9 June and his commitment to a free and transparent debate. The opening session was temporarily suspended after disagreement on the voting procedure for a speaker. We look to all concerned to resolve this matter as soon as possible to allow the session to begin. We will continue to follow events in the Maldives closely.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Maldives. [185827]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We welcomed President Gayoom's speech of 9 June, which proposed wide ranging constitutional reforms to develop and strengthen democracy in the Maldives, including the right to establish political parties, the full separation of powers, establishing the office of Prime Minister and limiting the terms of President. We welcome President Gayoom's commitment to free and open debate, and look to the Maldivian authorities to ensure this. The Special Majlis on constitutional reform will be key. We will continue to follow events in the Maldives closely.

  Middle East
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with other Middle East partners and states concerning stability in the region. [185278]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer of 21 July 2004]My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has in the last three months spoken to the Foreign Ministers of Egypt, the Palestinian Authority and Israel, as well as EU counterparts and the US Secretary of State.

  My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean has recently visited Syria (8–9 June) and Israel (28–30 June). Regional issues were discussed during both of these visits.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning the crushing to death of Ibrahim Mahmoud Khalafallah during the demolition of homes in Gaza. [185443]

  Mr. Rammell
  The demolition of homes is a form of collective punishment and harms innocent civilians. It fuels anger among Palestinians and makes a peaceful settlement more difficult to achieve. We continue to raise our concerns with the Government of Israel about such actions. We recognise Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism, but it must act within the parameters of international law.

  We have not made specific representations to the Government of Israel concerning the death of Ibrahim Mahmoud Khalafallah.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning the targeting of British hon. Members and Peers by soldiers of the Israeli Defence Force in June; and if he will make a statement. [185446]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have raised our concerns with the Israeli Government and the Israeli ambassador about the shots that were reportedly fired at a group of British Parliamentarians during their visit to Rafah on 18 June. We have asked the Israelis for an explanation.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his colleagues in the Quartet concerning Israel's retention of settlements in the West Bank following the withdrawal from Gaza. [185447]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK is represented in the Quartet (UN, US. EU, Russia) through the EU. We, EU partners and other Quartet members have made clear that Prime Minister Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza and part of the West Bank would provide a rare moment of opportunity in the search for peace in the Middle East. At the same time they have said that all final settlement issues, including borders, are to be decided through negotiations between the parties. The UK fully supports this position.
  548W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning freedom of movement of Palestinians in and out of the Gaza Strip after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. [185448]

  Mr. Rammell
  As the Quartet (UN, US, Russia, EU) set out on 4 May, securing freedom of movement for the Palestinian population will be an important element in ensuring that withdrawals bring about an improved quality of life for the Palestinian people. The World Bank report of 24 June also cited improved freedom of movement as essential to development of the Palestinian economy.

  We have discussed withdrawal and its implications with the parties and will continue to do so. My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean discussed withdrawal with several Israeli Ministers during her visit to the region on 28 to 30 June, and made clear the importance of maximum freedom of movement for Palestinians following Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Israeli Government concerning the route of the security barrier. [185492]

  Mr. Rammell
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House on 13 July 2004,Official Report, columns 1240–41, he and my noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean have discussed the issue of the barrier with Israeli Ministers on many occasions. We have consistently made it clear to the Israeli Government that the barrier built on occupied territory is illegal. Most recently the Foreign Secretary discussed the issue of the barrier and the ICJ ruling with Israeli Foreign Minister Shalom on 15 July.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to reply substantively to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, ref 182518. [185976]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. MacShane) replied substantively on 14 July 2004,Official Report, column 1187W.

  Policies (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [185101]

  Mr. Rammell
  In considering new policy proposals we take into account all relevant factors including the environmental impact where appropriate.

  Business cases, design studies and specifications for major estate developments and contracts include an assessment of environmental impact and measures to achieve good environmental performance.
  549W
  The information requested on the total number of new policy proposals and significant changes in policy proposals for the years in question is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Rwanda
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Rwandan Government concerning the parliamentary commission in Rwanda requesting the dissolution of four civil society human rights organisations. [185442]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are concerned by the content and methodology of the Parliamentary Commission's report on Genocidal Ideology. We have registered our concerns with the Rwandan Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) raised this with the Rwandan ambassador on 5 July. Our Ambassador to Rwanda also discussed this report with the Minister for Good Governance on 16 July. We will continue to encourage Rwanda to open up space for the operation of civil society.

  Seal Culls
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to(a) his Canadian counterpart and (b) the Canadian Government in respect of the use of independent monitoring of seal culls. [185669]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I spoke to the Canadian High Commissioner in April about the seal cull in Canada. I encouraged the Canadian Government in an adjournment debate on seal hunting to ensure that their monitoring regulations are implemented in practice and do not just lie on the statute book—Official Report, columns 219WH to 222WH. On both occasions, I also made clear this Government's view that we do not accept the need for any seal cull, but if one does take place it should be sustainable and based on a precautionary principle. The Canadian Government monitors the operation of their seal culling regulations.

  Sudan
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government is taking to resolve the situation in Darfur. [183334]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are urging the Government of Sudan to honour the commitments it has given to rein in the Janjaweed, remove the obstacles to humanitarian access, and facilitate deployment of the African Union-led Ceasefire Commission (AU CFC). We are urging the UN Security Council to keep the situation under review, and consider further steps if there is no significant progress soon.

  The priority is to improve the security situation and to respond to the humanitarian crisis, Since September 2003, we have provisionally allocated £62.5 million to the humanitarian response, including £2 million we have contributed to the AU CFC, This makes the UK the second largest bilateral donor in Darfur.
  550W
  We continue to urge all sides to meet soon to discuss a political solution.

  Sustainable Energy
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the US Department of State on sustainable energy consumption. [185361]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not had any recent discussions with the US Department of St ate on Sustainable Energy.

  Ministerial colleagues have had extensive discussions on sustainable energy with a range of US contacts including Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Paula Dobriansky. There are a host of on-going discussions with the US on sustainable energy. For example the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), through its Embassy in Washington, works closely with contacts in the US and Whitehall Departments on various US-led international technology partnerships. One example is the International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy. We are also working to engage with the US on sustainable energy through the Commission on Sustainable development (CSD).

  The FCO has also, in co-operation with other government departments, secured US sign-up to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP). I launched the REEEP in London in October 2003 with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry (Patricia Hewitt) and Environment (Margaret Beckett) and had a bilateral discussion with US Department of Energy Assistant Secretary David Garman. In April this year Paula Dobriansky (Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs) formally signed the US government up as a partner of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership and agreed to contribute $50,000 a year to help fund the REEEP's International Secretariat in Vienna. Larisa Dobriansky (US Department of Energy) is also a representative on the REEEP Governing Board.

  Turkey
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the issue of violence against women in Turkey was raised in the UK/Turkey Human Rights Dialogue meeting on 15 July; and if he will make a statement. [185987]

  Mr. MacShane
  The issue of violence against women in Turkey was raised at the fourth UK/Turkey Human Rights Dialogue on 15 July. The UK side welcomed the recent progress made by Turkey on women's rights, including on revisions made to the draft Turkish Penal Code, and the constitutional amendment asserting gender equality signed by the President in May. We encouraged them to lake further steps to improve the situation of women in Turkey including through the provision of shelters, further training of the judiciary in adopting sentences commensurate with the gravity of the offence, and training of the police and gendarme in how to respond immediately and effectively to violence against women. The Turkish delegation undertook to consider the points raised.

  Turkmenistan
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whit assessment he has made of freedom of religion in Turkmenistan; and what representations he has made to the Government of Turkmenistan in respect of(a) freedom of Christian worship, (b) raids on houses and premises used by Christians and (c) the imprisonment of Christians for religious activities. [185659]

  Mr. Rammell
  We remain seriously concerned by reports of religious intolerance and human rights abuses against Christian and other religions in Turkmenistan. Religious freedom is guaranteed under the Turkmen constitution, but the requirement for religious groups to register remains a major obstacle. Religious activity in Turkmenistan remains tightly controlled and even registered religions are at best tolerated by the state.

  The UK actively supports the promotion of human rights including freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. We remain in close touch with representatives of religious groups and NGOs in Turkmenistan to promote freedom of religion. We are aware of a number of prominent human rights cases, including allegations of religious persecution and imprisonment. We are also aware of raids on premises used by Christians, in particular, prior to autumn 2003, although none have so far been reported to our embassy in 2004. We condemn all instances where religious groups are persecuted because of their faith or belief, wherever they happen and whatever the religion of the individual or group concerned. Our ambassador in Turkmenistan together with EU and US colleagues, regularly raises specific cases of religious persecution with the Turkmen Government, and takes every opportunity to urge the pursuit of laws and practices that foster tolerance and mutual respect.

  The recent decision by the Turk men Government to decriminalise unregistered religious activity is a positive development and we welcome the registration of two religious minorities: the Baha'is and the Seventh Day Adventists.

  We will continue to monitor the situation closely and push for further progress on this issue.

  UN Relief and Works Agency
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning the incident involving Peter Hansen, Director General of the UN Relief and Works Agency, when he was delivering food supplies to Beit Hanoun. [185440]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are concerned at the continuing levels of violence in the Occupied Territories and the resulting humanitarian impact. We have urged the Israeli Government to ensure aid agencies are able to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian population. We have made clear our concern at actions which constitute excessive use of force and result in the injury and death of civilians. We have made no specific representations about the incident involving Peter Hansen.

  US Senate Intelligence Committee Report
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to evaluate the content and conclusions of the United States Senate Intelligence Committee report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, published on 9 July, in so far as they are relevant to the United Kingdom policies on intelligence. [184384]

  Mr. Straw
  This is a matter for the US authorities.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Vietnam concerning the arrests of(a) Nguyen Hieu Nghia, Nguyen Thanh Nhan, Pham Ngoc Thach and Nguyen Van Phuong on 2 March in Ho Chi Minh City, (b) Le Thi Hong Lien on 3 July in Ho Chi Minh City, (c) Ly Chin Sang, Ly Sin Quang, Vang Chin Sang and Vang My Ly in late 2003 and now in prison and (d) Father Nguyen Van Ly in 2001 and serving a five year sentence; and what representations he has made concerning (i) the treatment of Nguyen Thanh Nhan and Pham Ngoc Thach when they were detained in police stations and (ii) the conditions in prison for Christians. [185065]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  With EU partners, we participate in a regular EU-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue with Vietnam. The last meeting, attended by our ambassador in Hanoi, was held on 22 June. Freedom of religion and the plight of unlicensed Christian groups were among the issues raised by the EU. We also raised our concerns regarding fair trials and prison conditions in Vietnam.

  The EU maintains a list of prisoners/detainees of concern in Vietnam, which currently includes Father Nguyen Van Ly.

  We are currently investigating, with EU partners, events surrounding the reported arrest of Rev. Nguyen Hong Quang and some of his followers in Ho Chi Minh City earlier this year including Nguyen Hieu Nghia, Nguyen Thanh Nhan, Pham Ngoc Thach and Nguyen Van Phuong.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government offer to UK citizens living in Zimbabwe who wish to return to the UK. [184113]

  Mr. Mullin
  We offer UK nationals living in Zimbabwe the same assistance as we would to UK nationals living in any other country. If requested, we can contact relatives or friends in the UK to ask for financial or other assistance. We may also be able to help with travel documents. We can provide information on such things as state benefits, health and education services, citizenship and employment, and inform returning UK nationals about the options available to them on return to the UK.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Additional Households
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many additional households he estimates will be created in the South East region including London and the South, South West and Eastern regions between(a) 2001 to 2011 and (b) 2021 to 2031 as a result of (i) the reduction in the average number of people per household, (ii) the excess of births over deaths among those residents in 2001, (iii) net immigration from the rest of the UK including subsequent births less deaths and (iv) net immigration from outside the UK including subsequent births less deaths; [185814]

  (2) how many additional households he estimates were created in the South East region including London and the South, South West and Eastern regions in each of the last two decades as a result of (a) the reduction in the average number of people per household, (b) excess of births over deaths among the initially resident population, (c) net immigration from other parts of the UK including subsequent births less deaths and (d) net immigration from outside the UK including subsequent births less deaths; [185815]

  (3) how many additional households he estimates were created in the UK in each of the last two decades as a result of (a) the reduction in the average number of people per household, (b) the excess of births over deaths and (c) the excess of immigration over emigration including subsequent births less deaths; [185816]

  (4) what change in the number of households created in the UK between (a) 2001 to 2011 and (b) 2021 to 2031 he estimates will result in (i) changes in the average number of people per household, (ii) the difference between births and deaths from the population resident in 2001 and (iii) the difference between immigration over emigration including subsequent births less deaths. [185817]

  Keith Hill
  The information is not available at present. We will write our reply when we are able to produce the required statistics.

  Postal Ballots
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government intends to publish a consultation on the roll-out of all postal ballots this year. [186122]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government intend to make a decision on this matter once it has the benefit of the Electoral Commission's evaluation of the all-postal pilots held in June 2004 in the north-east, north-west, east midlands, and Yorkshire and the Humber regions under the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Act 2004.

  Accessibility Planning Projects
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made since January 2004 with accessibility planning pilot projects and the development of accessibility indicators; and what plans he has to produce further guidance on how to incorporate community infrastructure projects,554W
  including schools, hospitals and open space, into masterplans and other spatial plans for the Thames Gateway.

  Keith Hill
  The Department for Transport completed the eight accessibility planning pilots in April 2004. Six core accessibility indicators have been agreed, which include access to education and health care (two indicators each) and access to jobs and major retail centres. Each English Local Transport Authority outside London will report against these indicators as part of their next Local Transport Plan. The indicators and the findings of the pilots will also inform the development of planning policy guidance. In addition the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is developing an accessibility indicator for local planning authorities, as part of their annual monitor reporting requirements under section 35 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

  The Government will shortly be publishing policy guidance in respect to Regional Spatial Strategies (Planning Policy Statement 11) and Local Development Frameworks (Planning Policy Statement 12) which will apply in Thames Gateway as elsewhere. In particular, the latter will set out guidance in respect to masterplans and other forms of area action plan, explaining how local planning authorities should adopt a spatial approach to development which incorporates the need for community infrastructure including schools and hospitals.

  In the Thames Gateway the Government will also be issuing guidance to local delivery vehicles that are currently being established in priority development areas. This guidance will focus on the development of sustainable communities in line with the principles set out in "Sustainable Communities: building for the future", including the need to work with relevant local service providers to plan for the delivery of schools, healthcare provision and good quality public spaces alongside housing growth.

  Brent Council Properties
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many previously non-Brent tenants moved into Brent Council properties in each year since 1997; and how many of these were families with children. [186297]

  Keith Hill
  Information on the number of Local Authority dwellings let through mobility arrangements since 1997—98 in Brent is tabled.

  Lettings under mobility arrangements include the Housing Organisation Mobility Exchange Service (HOMES) and other similar schemes. The majority of households transferring under these schemes will come from outside the local authority boundary, but may include Registered Social Landlord tenants moving to Local Authority dwellings within Brent. Information on the number of families with children cannot be distinguished in the data.

  Both mutual exchanges. and lettings made directly from the housing waiting list may also include households from outside the Brent area, but these households and those that are families with children cannot be distinguished.
  555W

  LA dwellings let through mobility arrangements in Brent

  1997–98

  19

  1998–99

  16

  1999–00

  10

  2000–01

  20

  2001–02

  3

  2002–03

  11

  Source:

  ODPM's Housing Investment Programme Return

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authority-owned properties in Brent do not meet the Government's decent homes standard; and what the estimated cost is of bringing them up to this standard. [186298]

  Keith Hill
  In their Business Plan Statistical Appendix Brent reported that 5,211 local authority-owned properties did not meet the Government's decent homes standard at April 2003. Based on an assessment of their costs presented at the time of their bid their Arms Length Management Organisations have been allocated £33.8 million to date to bring properties up to decent homes.

  Departmental Advertising
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money was spent on advertising and promotional literature for his Department's initiatives, broken down by year since 1997. [183809]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002.

  In the financial year 2002–03 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister spent £3,347,000 on advertising, the majority on the Fire Safety campaign, and approximately £700,000 on promotional literature.

  In the financial year 2003–04 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister spent £3,411,000 on advertising, the majority on the Fire Safety campaign, and approximately £650,000 on promotional literature.

  Figures for the Department's agencies and non-departmental bodies are not held centrally and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Mobile Phones
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) capital and (b) running cost of mobile phones to his Department was in each year since 2001. [185775]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. Mobile phone costs are funded from budgets held within divisions, and they cannot be disaggregated from other communications costs.

  Departmental Publicity Staff
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the salary costs to the Department were for employees working in public relations and publicity in each year since 1997. [183857]
  556W
  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) was created following the machinery of government changes on 29 May 2002.

  The salary costs for employees working in the Office's Directorate of Communication were £2.627 million in 2002–03 and £2.751 million in 2003–04.

  Departmental Spending (Utilities)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much(a) his Department and (b) agencies of the Department have spent on (i) electricity use and (ii) water and sewerage services for each year since 1997. [182899]

  Phil Hope
  Since the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created in May 2002, the costs of electricity and water and sewerage services for the Office-and its agencies is tabled as follows:

  £

  (a) ODPM (including Government Offices)

  (b) Agencies

  Total cost

  Electricity 2002–03

  606,809

  562,590

  1,169,399

  Electricity 2003–04

  740,191

  782,454

  1,522,645

  Water and sewerage 2002–03

  110,570

  106,883

  217,453

  Water and sewerage 2003–04

  74,923

  120,758

  195,681

  The figures for 2003–04 are indicative as they have yet to be independently verified by the Building Research Establishment. The agreed figures will be included in the forthcoming Sustainable Development in Government Report 2003–04 to be published by Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Although the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has overall responsibility for the buildings occupied by Government Offices, they carry out functions on behalf of 10 Government Departments.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many road vehicles are operated by the Department and its agencies; how many personal injury accidents involving road vehicles operated by the Department have occurred within each of the last five years; and what the Department's policy is for managing work-related road safety. [185918]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its agencies operate six road vehicles. The Government offices for the regions operate a further 57 vehicles.

  There have been no personal injury accidents involving road vehicles operated by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, its agencies or the Government offices since the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created in May 2002.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, its agencies and the Government offices provide training in road safety to all staff who operate road vehicles. In addition guidance and advice, based on current best practice, is made available and disseminated in printed and electronic form to all staff.
  557W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has overall responsibility for Government offices they carry out functions on behalf of 10 Departments.

  English Partnerships
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) change and (b) percentage change there has been in English Partnerships' allowance for remediation costs in its 2004–05 budget, to meet anticipated additional costs arising from the implementation of the next phase of the Landfill Directive. [184947]

  Keith Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 21 July 2004,Official Report, column 321W.

  Government Office for London
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the percentage change in the Government Office for London's(a) running costs and (b) projected expenditure has been in each year since 1999 to 2000. [185325]

  Phil Hope
  Government Office for London (GOL) Running Cost (admin) expenditure and percentage change is as follows:

  £ million

  Percentage change

  2004–05

  Sponsor department

  Programme budgets

  Allocation (£)

  ODPM

  Community Chest

  5,313,331

  ODPM

  Community Empowerment Fund

  2,654,485

  ODPM

  Community Learning Chest

  1,287,209

  ODPM

  Public Order and Community Cohesion

  92,077

  ODPM

  Disabled Facilities Grant

  15,282,000

  ODPM

  Estate Action

  2,600,000

  ODPM

  Greater London Authority General Grant

  36,328,000

  ODPM

  Housing Action Trusts

  30,500,000

  ODPM

  Single Regional Housing Pot

  1,078,000,000

  ODPM

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  105,145,902

  ODPM

  Neighbourhood Renewal—Skills and Knowledge

  124,000

  ODPM

  New Deal for Communities

  62,165,548

  ODPM

  Neighbourhood Management Pathfinders

  2,426,943

  ODPM

  Street Wardens

  1,586,951

  ODPM

  Street Crime Wardens

  4,403,993

  ODPM

  European Regional Development Fund (Objective 2)

  20,240,909

  DfT

  Greater London Authority Transport Grant

  2,225,111,000

  DEFRA

  Sustainable Development Publicity Budget

  40,000

  DEFRA

  Sustainable Farming and Food

  10,000

  DFES

  Community Champions

  533,915

  DFES

  Pathfinder Young Community Champions

  40,000

  DFES

  Connexions Partnership Grant Funding

  70,655,842

  DFES

  Positive Activities For Young People

  7,371,088

  DFES

  Transforming Youth Work (Development Funding)

  1,340,874

  DFES

  Special Educational Needs/Disability Act

  736,828

  DFES

  Millennium Volunteers

  1,494,353

  DFES

  Vocational and Work Related Learning

  100,000

  DFES

  Connexions Key Workers

  5,040,000

  DFES

  Training and Development of Connexions Key Workers

  270,312

  DFES

  Regional Networking

  25,000

  DFES

  PAYP—GO Secondees

  50,000

  DTI

  London Development Agency Grants

  327,149,000

  DTI

  New and Renewable Sources of Energy

  142,434

  DWP

  European Structural Fund (ESF) Objective 2

  4,310,000

  DWP

  European Structural Fund (ESF) Objective 3

  54,721,164

  Home Office

  Antisocial Behaviour Fund

  —

  Home Office

  Basic Command Unit Fund

  9,995,862

  Home Office

  Building Safer Communities Fund

  11,880,385

  Home Office

  Communication Funding

  —

  Home Office

  Gun Crime

  —

  Home Office

  Home Office Directors' Allocation Fund

  1,243,300

  —

  Home Office

  Neighbourhood Renewal Capacity Building Fund

  250,000

  Home Office

  Drugs Team Strategic Grant

  —

  Home Office

  Recovered Assets Fund

  —

  558W

  1999–2000

  16.0

  n/a

  2000–01

  13.2

  –17.5

  2001–02

  13.2

  0.0

  2002–03

  14.1

  6.8

  2003–04

  16.7

  18.4

  2004–05

  18.1

  8.4

  Note:

  The expenditure figure for 2004–05 reflects the anticipated end–year outturn.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list programmes managed by the Government Office for London in 2004–05, indicating in each case(a) the total funding and (b) the anticipated end date of the programme. [185327]

  Phil Hope
  The following table shows the Programmes managed by Government Office for London in 2004–05. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is still waiting confirmation of some of the Home Office allocations (allocation field'—'). The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has only been informed of one end date (for New and Renewable Sources of Energy, which will end in September 2004). It is anticipated that the others will continue in 2004–05 and we will be notified closer to the new financial year (2005–06) as to whether or not the Programmes will cease.
  559W

  2004–05

  Sponsor department

  Programme budgets

  Allocation (£)

  Home Office

  Capacity Building and Infrastructure Early Spend

  650,000

  Home Office

  Time Limited Development Fund

  802,706

  Home Office

  Connecting Communities

  1,363,343

  Home Office

  Regional Networks

  87,000

  Home Office

  Vehicle Crime

  —

  Home Office

  Domestic Violence

  300,000

  Total

  4,093,865,754

  Homeless Persons
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homeless people are estimated to be living in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement. [185350]

  Phil Hope
  Information collected about local authorities' actions under homelessness legislation is in respect of households, rather than persons. Estimates of the number of households accepted as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, by London boroughs during 2003–04, and the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation in London as at the end of March 2004, is tabled as follows.

  Homeless households in London: 2003–04

  Date

  Number

  Households accepted as homeless1

  2003–04

  31,530

  Households in temporary accommodation2

  31 March 2004

  59,170

  1Households eligible under homelessness legislation and found to be unintentionally homeless and in a priority need category.

  2Households in temporary accommodation arranged by London boroughs pending inquiries, or after being accepted, under homelessness legislation

  Source:

  ODPM PIE homelessness returns (quarterly)

  Housing Improvement
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the latest figure is for the average cost per unit of(a) improving a local authorit3 -owned home to the Government's Decent Homes Standard and (b) the equivalent cost for a former local authority home that has been transferred into alternative management and/ or ownership through (i) the private finance initiative, (ii) an arm's length management organisation and (iii) large scale voluntary transfer. [184107]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold comparative information for the cost of making homes decent under the different forms of management. As the data were derived from different sources and in some cases covers more than the cost of making homes decent as they include costs to prevent deterioration as well as costs associated with work which falls outside the decent homes standard. Costs also depend on the condition of the homes owned.

  (a) £6,100 is the average need to spend per dwelling to make homes decent reported by local authorities.

  (b) (i) £1,370 is the average unit cost per year for 30 years for properties in a PFI scheme. PFI is used by local authorities to tackle a small number of their most challenging stock and as such unit costs are higher than the national average.

  560W

  (ii) £6,889 per dwelling is the average bid for by ALMOs on rounds 1 to 4 to make homes decent.

  (iii) £8,200 per dwelling for improvements is the average amount levered in from the private sector under LSVT.

  Housing Investment
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funding made available in each year since their inception for(a) the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund for the London Borough of Islington and (b) the ECI New Deal for Communities; and what projected funding is in future years for each. [184726]

  Phil Hope
  The information is as follows:

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund resources

  £

  2001–02

  3,136,000

  2002–03

  4,703,000

  2003–04

  6,270,000

  2004–05

  8,052,735

  2005–06

  10,726,788

  ECI New Deal for Communities partnership

  £

  Phase 1

  1999–2000

  10,000

  Phase 2

  2000–01

  400,000

  Phase 3—Delivery

  2001–02

  910,000

  2002–03

  2,280,000

  2003–04

  6,289,800

  2004–05

  5,795,500

  2005–06 to 2009–10

  36,624,700

  Mr. Mole
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Government investment in housing in the next financial year. [185386]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister currently plans to provide £5.4 billion for capital investment to housing, including the growth areas, in 2005–06. This includes an estimated £1.4 billion for the Major Repairs Allowance for undertaking on-going capital works to council housing and £4 billion for investment programmes set out in the Sustainable Communities Plan. The bulk of the latter funding is provided through the Regional Housing pots to the Housing Corporation's main investment programme and to local authorities, following recommendations made by the Regional Housing Boards. Other large programmes include resources for local authorities which have set up Arms Length Management
  561W
  Organisations, Market Renewal Pathfinders and Thames Gateway and other growth areas. The day to day costs of maintaining and managing social housing, which are largely met from rents, are not included in the figures, nor are the non capital housing programmes.

  Housing Quality Forum
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will set out the work programme of the Housing Quality Forum; and if he will make a statement on the role of the Forum in delivering the policies set out in the Sustainable Communities Plan. [185818]

  Keith Hill
  The Housing Quality Forum, which is a partnership between ourselves the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation, exists to facilitate a continuing debate about approaches to creating sustainable communities in the Housing Growth Areas, to champion new solutions to improving design quality and to build consensus among the private and public sector partners charged with delivery. The Forum meets twice a year and is attended by representatives from local authorities, housing associations, housing developers, regional agencies and local delivery vehicles.

  The first meeting, attended by 120 delegates, was held in March 2004, and the second in October 2004 will address issues relating to the delivery of good quality design, disseminate emerging best practice advice and present exemplary development projects in the Housing Growth Areas. More broadly, the focus will be on wider strategies for making successful places, with themes such as public open space strategies and social and cultural infrastructure that form key elements of successful and sustainable communities.

  Housing Stock/Supply
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been spent by each London borough in each year since 1997 on(a) refurbishment, (b) redecoration and (c) renewal of its directly-owned housing stock; and what the average spending per property in each authority was each year, excluding the amount spent on central Government schemes including the New Deal. [186296]

  Keith Hill
  Information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost on the amount spent on refurbishment, redecoration and renewal of local authority owned dwellings, nor can the average spent per local authority dwellings be calculated.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding increases in housing supply; and if he will make a statement. [183471]

  Keith Hill
  On 17 March 2004, Kate Barker reported on the review of housing supply that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister had asked her to carry out. HM Treasury and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) published a joint response on the same day, accepting her central recommendation that there should be a step change in housing supply,562W
  and committing to detailed consideration of her recommendations by working together over the next 12 to 18 months.

  On 13 July, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed the outcome of the Spending Review settlement for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which will support investment made in previous Spending Reviews to deliver the Sustainable Communities Plan. Over the five years to 2008, the Office of the Deputy Prime will spend £38 billion to tackle housing shortages in the South and low housing demand areas in the North and Midlands. This commitment includes a 50 per cent. increase in new social house building each year, providing homes for people who most need them.

  Key Workers (Housing)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which groups of key workers can benefit from the Key Worker Living scheme in each(a) of the scheme zones and (b) English region. [184140]

  Keith Hill
  The Key Worker Living (KWL) scheme is operating in the London. South East and East regions of England. The following public sector groups are eligible to apply for assistance across all three regions: nurses and other NHS clinical staff; teachers in schools and further education colleges; probation officers; social workers; occupational therapists; educational psychologists; and speech and language therapists. Certain prison staff are eligible to apply across all three regions as are retained fire-fighters and whole-time junior fire officers within participating fire and rescue services and police officers, together with some civilian staff, in participating police forces. In London, local authority planners are also eligible to apply.

  The greater London region is broken down into five areas for which three zone agents are working together as a partnership. South East England is covered by a zone agent consortium. Eastern region is broken down into four areas.

  In addition to KWL, there is a key worker scheme particular to the South West region which was established by the South West Housing Body. Under the South West initiative, the definition of key workers is derived from a local assessment of need aimed at ensuring communities remain sustainable and that essential public services are maintained.

  Lost/Stolen Departmental Property
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the items that his Department has reported lost or stolen to the police from his Department's buildings and property since 2001. [185782]

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

  Night Shelters
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many night shelter beds there are in the Greater London area. [185349]
  563W
  Phil Hope
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister knows that there are around 2,750 quick access bedspaces in London hostels together with a further 13,300 bed spaces in longer stay hostels for homeless people. Some 100 people are accommodated each night in rolling shelters designed to help rough sleepers move quickly away from the streets. Other night shelters are managed predominantly by faith based organisations particularly during the Winter.

  Objective 2 Funds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Government North East had failed to spend any allocations of European support under Objective 2 as at 31 December 2003; whether any fine was imposed; and what the profile of spending was for the 2004 calendar year. [185589]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Objective 2 spending targets for 2003 were met therefore no funds were lost. The ERDF element of Objective 2 is set to achieve its 2004 spend target of £153.42 million. While progress against the ESF spend target of £33.9 million has been slow, measures have been implemented to accelerate spending in the remainder of the year.

  Parks and Green Spaces (Safety/Security)
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what policy measures have been introduced by his Department to protect and enhance the safety and security of the users of municipal parks and urban green spaces; [185792]

  (2) what guidance his Department has issued to local authorities and other agencies responsible for the maintenance and management of municipal parks and urban green spaces regarding the promotion of the safety and security of park and green space users. [185793]

  Keith Hill
  The policies of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for protecting and enhancing the quality of parks and green spaces are set out in Living Places —Cleaner, Safer, Greener (2002) and Sustainable Communities—building for the future (2003). Working closely with local authorities and other agencies to creating safe and secure spaces that people will want to use is a key objective of our policies, which include, for example:publication of 'Safer Places—the planning system and crime prevention', which shows how positive planning can contribute to crime prevention and to the creation of safer places;
  creation of CABE Space to assist local authorities and promote good practice on planning, designing, management and maintenance of urban green space; and
  publication of Living places—Caring for Quality, which advises managers of best practice in creating and maintaining safe spaces.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with the Home Office through its Together—tackling anti-social behaviour action plan to prevent and reduce crime and disorder in public spaces.

  Private Rented Sector
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what his Department is doing to stimulate investment in the private rented sector to boost affordable housing options; and if he will make a statement; [186108]

  (2) what discussions his Department is having with the investment and regulatory housing sector in relation to delivering affordable privately rented accommodation; and if he will make a statement; [186128]

  (3) if he will make a statement on his Department's work on the (a) planning and (b) production of affordable rental housing. [186129]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister set out a radical reform programme in our "Sustainable Communities Plan", which was published on 5 February 2003, to increase the provision of affordable housing, including through increased investment, improvements to the planning system and the establishment of four growth areas to provide an additional 200,000 homes. As a result of the Spending Review announced last week, the Government will more than double spending on new affordable housing since 1997 up to £2.25 billion. This funding will provide an extra 10,000 social rented homes a year by 2008—a 50 per cent. increase—to help tackle homelessness.

  The private rented sector also has an important role to play in providing affordable accommodation for those who cannot afford to buy their own homes, the growingnumber of students and single person households. The sector offers a flexible form of tenure to young professionals. It contributes to greater labour market mobility, the efficient functioning of the housing market and to the success of the wider economy.

  The Government believe that there is scope for the private rented sector to make a bigger contribution to meeting individuals' housing needs. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking to encourage this including through consultation on the promotion of investment in commercial property and the private rented sector by removing the tax disadvantages currently faced by institutions. In addition, the Housing Bill seeks to raise quality, especially of management, in some of the worst parts of the private rented sector, where the most vulnerable members of society frequently bear the brunt of some of the poorest conditions and services.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Ministers proposed update to Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 3 (PPG3) titled "Influencing the size, type and affordability of housing", due to be published in October 2004, includes the requirement that local planning authorities should address the housing requirements of the whole community by ensuring a better match between a community's housing needs and supply. It requires that all local planning authorities must have policies on affordable housing to help deliver affordable housing where it is needed. Local authorities are increasingly looking to the private rented sector as a means of meeting housing need.

  Rate Relief (Small Businesses)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 21 June 2004,Official Report,

  565W
  column 1236W, on the rate relief scheme, if he will place in the Library a list of hon. and right hon. Members who have written to his Office regarding the Government's new rate relief scheme for small businesses. [182504]

  Phil Hope
  A list of those hon. and right hon. Members who, according to our records, have written to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister between 18 September 2003 and 18 June 2004 regarding the Government's rate relief scheme for small businesses, has been tabled as follows.

  Contacted by Mps—small business rate relief scheme

  No.

  Name

  Letters

  1

  The right hon. James Arbuthnot Esq. MP

  1

  2

  Ms Candy Atherton MP

  2

  3

  Richard Bacon Esq. MP

  1

  4

  Sir Paul Beresford Esq. MP

  1

  5

  Dr. Roger Berry Esq. MP

  1

  6

  The right hon. Mrs. Virginia Bottomley MP

  1

  7

  Graham Brady Esq. MP

  1

  8

  Mrs. Angela Browning MP

  1

  9

  Paul Burstow Esq. MP

  1

  10

  Mrs. Anne Campbell MP

  2

  11

  Mrs. Helen Clark MP

  2

  12

  Mrs. Ann Clwyd MP

  1

  13

  Timothy Collins Esq. CBE MP

  1

  14

  Ross Cranston Esq. QC MP

  1

  15

  Quentin Davies Esq. MP

  1

  16

  The right hon. John Denham Esq. MP

  1

  17

  David Drew Esq. MP

  1

  18

  Jonathan Djanogly Esq. MP

  1

  19

  Paul Farrelly Esq. MP

  1

  20

  Adrian Flook Esq. MP

  1

  21

  Edward Gamier Esq. QC MP

  1

  22

  Andrew George Esq. MP

  1

  23

  Dr. Ian Gibson Esq. MP

  1

  24

  Paul Goodman Esq. MP

  1

  25

  John Hayes Esq. MP

  1

  26

  Mrs. Sylvia Heal MP

  1

  27

  Oliver Heald Esq. MP

  1

  28

  David Heath Esq. CBE MP

  2

  29

  Ivan Henderson Esq. MP

  1

  30

  Mark Hoban Esq. MP

  1

  31

  John Horam Esq. MP

  1

  32

  The right hon. Michael Howard Esq. QC MP

  2

  33

  Brian Iddon Esq. MP

  1

  34

  Ms Glenda Jackson CBE MP

  1

  35

  Boris Johnson Esq. MP

  1

  36

  Robert Key Esq. MP

  1

  37

  Norman Lamb Esq. MP

  1

  38

  Dr. Julian Lewis Esq. MP

  1

  39

  Martin Linton Esq. MP

  1

  40

  Peter Luff Esq. MP

  1

  41

  The right hon. David Maclean Esq. MP

  1

  42

  Malcolm Moss Esq. MP

  1

  43

  Mark Oaten Esq. MP

  1

  44

  Stephen O'Brien Esq. MP

  1

  45

  George Osborne Esq. MP

  1

  46

  Terry Rooney Esq. MP

  1

  47

  Stephen Royce-Rogers Esq. MP

  1

  48

  Ms Christine Russell MP

  1

  Chamber

  Location of Office or Representation

  Cost of Maintenance (£)

  Explanation of Cost

  Source of Funding

  East

  Brussels

  321,740.00

  Contribution to maintenance of office

  Non-ODPM funding

  East Midlands

  Brussels

  5,000.00

  Contribution to maintenance of joint office

  ODPM funding

  North East

  Brussels

  94,700.00

  Contribution to maintenance of joint office

  Non-ODPM funding

  North West

  Brussels

  20,000.00

  Contribution to maintenance of joint office

  Non-ODPM funding

  South East

  Brussels

  37,050.00

  Contribution to maintenance of joint office

  Non-ODPM funding

  South West

  Brussels

  112,316.35

  Contribution to maintenance of joint office

  ODPM funding

  566W

  Contacted by Mps—small business rate relief scheme

  No.

  Name

  Letters

  49

  Robert Russell Esq. MP

  2

  50

  The right hon. Chris Smith Esq. MP

  1

  51

  The right hon. Sir John Stanley Esq. MP

  1

  52

  David Taylor Eq MP

  1

  53

  Ian Taylor Esq. MBE MP

  1

  54

  The right hon. Michael Trend Esq. CBE MP

  1

  55

  Sir Nicholas R Winterton Esq. MP

  1

  56

  Ms Rosie Winterton MP

  1

  57

  Anthony D Wright Esq. MP

  1

  58

  The right hon. Sir George Young Esq. Bt MP

  1

  Note:

  This list only represents those members of Parliament indicated in the ODPMs records between September 2003 and June 2004.

  Regional Chambers
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whether regional chambers are required to produce performance indicators for central Government; [184978]

  (2) to what public service agreements and targets set by central Government regional chambers are subject; [184979]

  (3) what offices outside the United Kingdom are maintained by regional chambers; and what the cost of maintaining each one was in the last financial year for which figures are available. [184983]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Regional chambers are voluntary, independent bodies that have certain designated functions for which they receive Government grant support. They also receive funding from other sources, including the local authorities within their regions. As part of the condition for Government grant the chambers must produce an annual business plan. These set out their objectives and proposed outcomes relating to their responsibilities for scrutiny of the Regional Development Agencies, as the Regional Planning Body, advocacy of their region and the development of their strategic regional role. The business plans are submitted to the Government before funding agreements are issued to chambers for the relevant financial year.

  The chambers claim grant on a periodic basis and each claim must be accompanied by a report detailing the activities undertaken and outcomes achieved through the receipt of Government grant in the preceding period. They are not required to report against common performance indicators. Nor do they report performance against any public service agreements or targets.

  Each chamber makes a contribution with regional partners, including the regional development agency and regional local government association, towards an office outside the United Kingdom. Details of the cost incurred by each chamber are:
  567W

  Chamber

  Location of Office or Representation

  Cost of Maintenance (£)

  Explanation of Cost

  source of Funding

  West Midlands

  Brussels

  6,051.00

  Contribution to maintenance of joint office

  ODPM funding

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Brussels

  250,000.00

  Contribution to maintenance of joint office

  Non-ODPM funding

  12004–05.

  Rent Arrears (London)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the current level of rent arrears is in each London local authority; and if he will make a statement. [185346]

  Phil Hope
  Estimated total arrears of council rents at 31 March 2004, as reported by each local authority in London, were as follows:

  £000

  Rent arrears owed by:

  Local authority

  Current tenants

  Former tenants

  Total arrears

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,232

  465

  2,697

  Barnet

  956

  1,020

  1,975

  Brent

  2,201

  1,559

  3,761

  Camden

  3,583

  2,049

  5,632

  City of London

  112

  75

  187

  Croydon

  1,927

  1,991

  3,918

  Baling

  3,681

  3,953

  7,634

  Enfield

  2,187

  980

  3,167

  Greenwich

  7,980

  9,700

  17,679

  Hackney

  13,747

  8,109

  21,856

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,393

  523

  3,916

  Haringey

  5,000

  2,049

  7,049

  Harrow

  712

  666

  1,377

  Havering

  833

  780

  1,662

  Hillingdon

  1,806

  688

  2,494

  Hounslow

  1,613

  1,028

  2,641

  Islington

  9,847

  7,602

  17,449

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,467

  1,020

  2,486

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,244

  670

  1,914

  Lambeth

  12,551

  3,719

  16,270

  Lewisham

  4,746

  2,865

  7,611

  Merton

  673

  315

  988

  Newham

  3,858

  3,680

  7,538

  Redbridge

  712

  455

  1,168

  Southwark

  14,343

  3,067

  17,410

  Sutton

  1,207

  810

  2,017

  Tower Hamlets

  2,306

  2,209

  4,515

  Waltham Forest

  3,789

  826

  4,615

  Wandsworth

  4,052

  1,333

  5,385

  Westminster

  3,031

  1,657

  4,688

  Total

  115,838

  65,862

  181,700

  Note:

  Some of the totals do not appear to be he sum of the parts. This is because of rounding.

  Source:

  Unaudited figures from the "First Advance Claim Form 2004–5", which forms part of the "Entitlement to Housing Subsidies and Grants" survey that is administered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  A 2003 Audit Commission report on local authority housing rental income found that the performance of rent arrears services had been judged by housing inspectors to be weak relative to other housing services. Based on these findings a number of recommendations have been put forward for improving the prevention and management of arrears:
  1. Local authorities should have clear, effective rent arrears strategies in place to prevent, manage and recover arrears.
  568W
  2. Where tenants are in financial difficulties or are vulnerable. authorities should consider a range of methods for preventing and dealing with arrears, before considering legal action to recover debts. These include access to information and support; debt counselling; liaison with housing benefits sections; and debt management plans to enable tenants to sustain their tenancies and repay their arrears.

  Tenant Representation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the Audit Commission's report, 'Improving Services Through Resident Involvement', if he will recommend a change of policy on(a) tenants' membership of boards of arms length management organisations and large scale voluntary transfer associations and (b) stock transfer; and if he will make a statement. [184882]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Audit Commission's Report on `Improving Services through Resident Involvement' provides clear evidence of the benefit that resident involvement can have on improving housing services. In the light of the recommendation made the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will consider whether any changes are necessary to advice on and support for resident board membership in housing transfer registered social landlords and arms length management organisations.

  Thames Gateway
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the(a) adequacy of and (b) consistency with the policy objectives set out in the Sustainable Communities Plan standard of architectural design in new housing developments in the Thames Gateway. [185821]

  Keith Hill
  New housing development in the Thames Gateway will be expected to comply with existing planning policies, as is the case for development elsewhere in the country. Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 (PPG1) on 'General Policy and Principles' requires that "good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and should be encouraged everywhere". This policy is supported by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's good practice guidance 'By Design' and 'Better Places to Live'. Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3) on 'Housing' places a considerable emphasis on securing well-designed residential developments of the highest standard.

  High quality design is crucial to the delivery of sustainable communities. Projects that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) is funding in the Thames Gateway have been selected against thematic objectives, one of which is "to implement a consistent policy of quality design". We have also increased funding for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), who launched the Growth Areas Housing Quality Forum in March 2004 to

  569W
  disseminate best practice on housing design. Major developments in the Thames Gateway, such as the Greenwich Millennium village, have already used urban design codes to provide certainty to developers and the community as to what constitutes acceptable design quality. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is in the process of identifying other potential sites in the Gateway to pilot further urban coding schemes.

  Travel Costs
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the travel costs incurred by(a) his Department and its predecessors and (b) each Minister within his Department, for each of the last 10 years. [175656]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was formed on 29 May 2002.

  (a) The travel and subsistence costs incurred by the Office of the Deputy Prime. Ministers (ODPM) employees in each financial year are as follows:

  £000

  2002–03

  4,313,010.44

  2003–04

  4.928,250.91

  (b) UK travel costs (air and rail fares) incurred by the ODPM Ministers since June 2002 to 31 March 2004 are as follows:

  £000

  Deputy Prime Minister:

  5,079.60

  Nick Raynsford:

  4,860.90

  Lord Rooker:

  2,276.10

  Chris Leslie:

  2,537.90

  Phil Hope:

  3,458.80

  Barbara Roche:

  3,842.60

  Keith Hill:

  1,078.80

  Tony McNulty:

  5,775.00

  Yvette Cooper:

  1,947.20

  Information for earlier years in respect of both (a) and (b) could only be obtained at disproportionate cost and in some cases will no longer be held.

  In respect of overseas travel by Ministers, since 1999 the Government has published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government has also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. These reports information reaching back to 1995–96. Information for earlier years could only be obtained at disproportionate cost and in some cases will no longer be held. Information for 2003–04 will be published in due course

  Finished consultant episodes (inpatients and daycases)1

  Unitary authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Isle of Anglesey

  17,405

  17,196

  17,552

  17,230

  17,954

  Gwynedd

  30,645

  30,577

  30,123

  29,172

  30,083

  Conwy

  32,484

  32,764

  34,353

  31,582

  32,819

  Urban Capacity Studies
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities in the Thames Gateway have completed an urban capacity study; when the most recent one in each local authority area was completed; and which of these studies were undertaken according to the best practice guidance set out in "Tapping the Potential", December 2000. [185819]

  Keith Hill
  Urban capacity studies for local authorities in the London part of the Thames Gateway have been undertaken as part of larger London-wide capacity work. The latest London-wide urban housing capacity study was undertaken by the London Planning Advisory Committee in 1997 and published by the GLA in 1999. The approach taken by the London Planning Advisory Committee in their study informed the methodology for urban capacity studies set out in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: "Tapping the Potential document".

  All four local authorities in the Kent part of the Thames Gateway are signed up to Kent County Council's protocol for producing urban capacity studies, which is in line with the methodology set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3. Gravesham Borough Council published their urban capacity study in 2000, Dartford Borough Council in 2002 and Swale Borough Council in 2003. Medway Council expect to complete their urban capacity study later this year.

  Each of the urban capacity studies carried out by local authorities in the Essex part of the Thames Gateway were undertaken in line with Planning Policy Guidance Note 3. Rochford Borough Council completed their urban capacity study in 2001, and plan to review this in the latter half of next year. Urban capacity studies for Southend-on-Sea Borough Council and Thurrock Council were completed in 2003. Both Basildon and Castlepoint completed urban capacity studies in 2004.

  Urban District Councils
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the current status of an urban district council in England is; and when this status changed. [186227]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Urban district councils were abolished during the reorganisation of local government in 1974. The Local Government Act 1972 divided England into local authority areas called counties and districts. The areas of the former urban district councils became part of the new district council areas.

WALES

  Consultant Episodes
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many finished consultant episodes there were in the NHS in Wales in each year since 1999, broken down by the local authority in which the patient resided. [184889]

  Mr. Touhig
  The information is in the following table:
  571W

  Finished consultant episodes (inpatients and daycases)1

  Unitary authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Denbighshire

  25,984

  26,252

  28,641

  27,087

  27,963

  Flintshire

  34,011

  35,231

  36,321

  35,134

  35,475

  Wrexham

  29,775

  31,832

  32,757

  31,591

  30,914

  Powys

  27,428

  28,479

  28,223

  26,609

  26,026

  Ceredigion

  15,398

  16,428

  15,926

  15,408

  15,400

  Pembrokeshire

  29,269

  30,454

  31,908

  28,803

  28,640

  Carmarthenshire

  44,282

  44,687

  44,764

  40,015

  42,973

  Swansea

  56,049

  57,792

  56,306

  55,372

  59,141

  Neath Port Talbot

  37,270

  37,624

  36,678

  35,619

  40,043

  Bridgend

  35,593

  35,776

  35,908

  35,486

  34,677

  Vale of Glamorgan

  27,453

  28,135

  26,664

  25,564

  28,333

  Cardiff

  64,680

  67,327

  62,679

  60,031

  65,994

  Rhondda Cynon Taf

  68,227

  67,473

  69,351

  63,251

  64,126

  Merthyr Tydfil

  18,344

  18,046

  17,012

  15,258

  16,610

  Caerphilly

  38,065

  41,193

  41,198

  40,898

  41,825

  Blaenau Gwent

  19.724

  20,085

  18,769

  17,938

  17,845

  Torfaen

  20.355

  22,051

  22,056

  23,292

  22,110

  Monmouthshire

  18.210

  19,457

  19,106

  18,712

  18,736

  Newport

  30.326

  30,927

  31,142

  32,355

  30,992

  Wales

  720.977

  739,786

  737,437

  706,407

  728,679

  1 Welsh resident treated in England and Wales. Updates are sometimes received a considerable time after the period to which data refers and this can result in revisions to previously published figures.

  Source:

  Patient Episode Database for Wales

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly on hospital waiting lists in Wales. [184033]

  Mr. Touhig
  I regularly meet the National Assembly Health Minister to discuss matters of health and social care in Wales: our most recent meeting was on 16 June.

  The Assembly announced on 30 June that the 2nd Offer Scheme is to be extended to reduce the maximum waiting time for inpatient and day -case surgery in Wales to 12 months. This will mean that by 31 March 2005, there will be no one in Wales waiting over 12 months for surgery who has not been offered the opportunity of having their treatment.

  Milford Haven
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of the availability of equipment and personnel from the emergency services in the event of a major disaster at the proposed liquefied natural gas handling facility at Milford Haven; and if he will make a statement; [179861]

  (2) what provision he has made for the development of an emergency disaster plan for the proposed liquefied natural gas handling facility at Milford Haven; and if he will make a statement. [179862]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  If the proposed liquefied natural gas handling facility goes ahead at Milford Haven, the development of an emergency disaster plan will be required.

  My Department will be involved in assessing the Emergency Disaster Plan once it has been agreed by the relevant parties, and it will need to be included in the site's Port Facility Security Plan, as stipulated by the International Maritime Organisation's International Ship and Port Security Code.

  NHS Performance Criteria
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what main criteria he judges the performance of the NHS in Wales. [183392]

  Mr. Touhig
  The performance of NHS Wales is evaluated as part of the Performance Improvement Framework for NHS Wales.

  The "balanced scorecard" is a key component of the framework, giving all perspectives of performance equal weighting. Unlike previous systems which focused on finance and operations, this approach also includes assessment of how the NHS continuously improves and how effectively the needs of all stakeholders are met. Scorecards are produced on a quarterly basis and inform organisational performance reviews.

  In addition, key annual targets for NHS Wales are monitored on a monthly basis and where performance causes concern action is taken by regional offices.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives"
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responses he has received to "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives"; and how many supported the principal proposals. [182309]

  Paul Goggins
  We have received a total 264 responses to the initial consultation on the National Offender Management Service.

  52 of these responses requested specific information or further copies of the consultation document. Of the responses that provided an opinion, over half offered general support for the new service.

  Airguns
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of
  573W
  the number of airguns which should have been licensed by 30 April but for which no application has been received; [179584]

  (2) what discretion is available to the police to grant a licence to an individual who possessed an airgun prior to 30 April and subsequently makes an application; and in what circumstances that discretion may be exercised; [179585]

  (3) how many late applications the police have received for air gun licences; and in how many cases (a) a licence has been granted and (b) the gun has been confiscated by the police and destroyed. [179586]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 21 June 2004]We estimate that between 50,000 and 70,000 self-contained gas cartridge guns have been sold in the UK. Not all will still be in circulation but because they were not previously subject to control it is not possible to say how many might have been destroyed or otherwise disposed of before the new laws came into effect. I understand from the Association of Chief Police Officers that as at 30 April a total 5,791 guns had been entered on certificate and a further 1,524 had been surrendered for destruction. Separate information on the number of late applications is not available. It is for the police to determine in individual cases whether the circumstances warrant acceptance of a late application. Owners have already had over three months in which to either surrender their guns or apply for a certificate. Those who have failed to do so are committing an offence although the Association of Chief Police Officers have advised that where somebody voluntarily comes forward to surrender a gun which they have only just learned has been banned, it will often be sufficient to seize the gun and not to prosecute.

  Amyl Nitrate
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to take to tackle solvent abuse through the use of poppers containing amyl nitrate, with particular reference to the products(a) Liquid Gold, (b) Pure Gold and (c) TNT. [178804]

  Caroline Flint
  None. The alkyl nitrites (poppers) are not controlled under the misuse of drugs legislation. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has considered whether they should be controlled and concluded that they did not give rise to a social problem justifying their control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The substances Liquid Gold, Pure Gold and TNT are all brands of poppers. They are not solvents but are controlled under the Medicines Act 1968.

  Animal Research
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 14 May 2004,Official Report, column 603W, on animal research, what discussions Ministers have had since 1999 to ensure that businesses and individuals can carry on working without interference from animal rights protesters; and on what dates these discussions took place. [185072]
  574W
  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]Under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it is Government policy that information relating to internal meetings is not disclosed.

  Anti-drugs Co-ordinator
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) the cost of recruitment and (b) the total cumulative salary bill of the UK Anti-drugs Coordinator is. [184455]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]Following the general election in 2001, the Home Secretary took over lead responsibility for driving forward delivery of the UK Drug Strategy.

  Within the Home Office, the Home Secretary is supported in this role at official level by the Drug Strategy Directorate. led by Vie Hogg.

  Asylum Seekers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conditions have been placed within his Department's contract with Reliance Monitoring Service to provide a system for tagging persons seeking asylum in relation to(a) the monitoring of families and (b) the monitoring of people under the age of 18 years. [183921]

  Mr. Browne
  Clause 36 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Bill provides the legislative authority for electronic monitoring within the immigration context. Tagging is likely to be appropriate for those who would otherwise have been detained and will, therefore, be used as an alternative to detention.

  A number of factors are taken into consideration when assessing the risk of a family absconding. These may result in one or both of the parents being subject to electronic monitoring.

  Electronic Monitoring for immigration purposes will only be available to those who are 18 years of age and over.

  Botox Toxicity
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the (i) accuracy and (ii) reproducibility of in vitro tests for botox toxicity; and if he will make a statement. [181806]

  Caroline Flint
  The Home Office has not commissioned research of the kind described, but it has provided funds for three projects aimed at trying to develop and evaluate alternatives to using animals in this type of testing. Further details are in the Reports of the Animal Procedures Committee for the years 1996, 1997, and 2002, copies of which are available in the House Library. In addition the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate considers and advises on progress made in this field.

  Botulinium
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences were issued for the animal testing of botulinium toxin in each year since 1997; how many animals were involved, broken down by(a) breed and (b) type; and how much toxin was involved in each case. [181809]

  Caroline Flint
  A survey of currently held data indicates that 10 project licences have been granted since 1997 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. authorising the use of animals in research and testing involving botulinum toxin. The figures are:

  Number of project licences issued

  1997

  1

  1998

  1

  1999

  1

  2000–01

  0

  2002

  4

  2003

  2

  2004 (To date)

  1

  The licensed work has covered safety testing of the toxin for clinical use, research and development as regards possible new clinical applications, research into alternative methods of testing. and forensic food safety checks. None has been connected with publicised use of the substance for non-medical cosmetic purposes.

  The animals used for clinical purpose safety testing in 2002 are a subset of those reported at column 1 of table 15 in the publication entitled Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain 2002 (Command 5886, available in the House Library). This relates to all protected animals used in safety testing of pharmaceuticals—those used for testing botulinum toxin are not identified separately. Although all the testing is undertaken using rodent species, the precise details of the numbers, breed and type are not collated centrally. This is also the case as regards earlier years.

  The amount of toxin used varies between testing programmes and studies, but licence authorities mandate only the use of the minimum intended to achieve the scientific objective.

  Bribery/Corruption
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures the National Criminal Intelligence Service employs to grade allegations of overseas bribery held on the national register; and how many allegations in each grade re held on the NCIS register. [174032]

  Caroline Flint
  Upon receipt of all allegations, research is made and, if appropriate, sent to the relevant investigation authority.

  Allegations are not graded as all are of a serious nature and should there be a prima facie case, which falls within this legislation, further investigation will always be made.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) received regarding the use of cannabis since its reclassification took place; and if he will place a copy of these studies in the Library. [184868]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]The British Crime Survey provides annual updates on drug use. The Home Office is working closely with police forces to monitor the policing of drug offences since cannabis was reclassified and early figures are encouraging. As more robust data become available, a more thorough assessment of the impact of reclassification will be undertaken.

  Careless Driving
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce an offence of causing death by careless driving. [184915]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]The Government are reviewing the existing framework of the criminal law concerning bad driving, particularly where death or injury results, in order to ensure that appropriate offences and penalties are put in place. Any comprehensive review of this area of the law must examine the adequacy of the law relating to fatalities that occur as a result of careless driving. We will publish a consultation paper detailing our proposals as soon as possible.

  Carter Report
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the terms of reference were for the Carter report. [182318]

  Paul Goggins
  As set out in the report, "Managing Offenders—Reducing Crime", the terms of reference for the Correctional Services Review were to establish a credible and effective system for the correctional services that focused on reducing crime and maintaining public confidence, whilst remaining affordable.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the recommendations from the Carter Report have been implemented. [182320]

  Paul Goggins
  The Carter Report 'Managing Offenders—Reducing Crime' a copy of which was placed in the Library on 6 January 2004 was welcomed by Ministers at the time of its publication. The Government response was published on the same date. Much work has been done since to take forward the recommendations made, particularly those involving the development of a single National Offender Management Service.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the external consultants who contributed to Patrick Carter's review of the correctional services; and how much they were paid in each case. [182095]

  Paul Goggins
  External consultants were engaged by the Cabinet Office at a cost of £33,378 to carry out a high level review of the non-operating costs incurred by the correctional services.

  Child Trafficking
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied minors entered the UK in each of the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by country of origin. [182844]

  Mr. Browne
  The requested information on the number of unaccompanied children entering the UK in each year is not available.

  The available information on applications for asylum from unaccompanied children is given in the table.

  Information on asylum applications from unaccompanied minors is published in quarterly web pages and in the annual statistical bulletin 'Asylum Statistics United Kingdom'. Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the UK are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rds/immigration 1.html.

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

  Nationality

  19994

  20004

  20014

  20025,6

  20036

  Albania

  125

  95

  85

  300

  145

  Czech Republic

  30

  20

  20

  10

  —

  Macedonia

  —

  —

  100

  110

  55

  Moldova

  *

  5

  35

  145

  5

  Poland

  45

  15

  25

  10

  60

  Romania

  85

  40

  50

  130

  5

  Russia

  5

  *

  5

  10

  170

  SAM

  1,520

  665

  475

  725

  15

  Turkey

  115

  155

  95

  85

  85

  Ukraine

  *

  5

  *

  5

  5

  Other Former US

  25

  20

  10

  10

  5

  Other Former Yug

  30

  35

  80

  5

  *

  Europe other

  10

  5

  —

  —

  *

  Europe total

  1,995

  1,055

  985

  1,545

  560

  Colombia

  20

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Ecuador

  15

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Jamaica

  5

  5

  *

  15

  5

  Americas other

  5

  *

  5

  —

  5

  Americas total

  40

  15

  20

  30

  15

  Algeria

  10

  25

  20

  40

  20

  Angola

  40

  100

  145

  210

  115

  Burundi

  10

  20

  20

  30

  60

  Cameroon

  —

  5

  20

  30

  20

  Congo

  5

  10

  30

  25

  15

  Dem. Rep. Congo

  35

  45

  80

  145

  95

  Eritrea

  95

  65

  110

  220

  125

  Ethiopia

  55

  60

  140

  140

  100

  Gambia

  —

  —

  *

  5

  5

  Ghana

  *

  10

  5

  5

  5

  Ivory Coast

  —

  5

  5

  5

  10

  Kenya

  10

  10

  15

  30

  25

  Nigeria

  45

  25

  35

  55

  35

  Rwanda

  35

  50

  40

  65

  20

  Sierra Leone

  65

  75

  130

  110

  35

  Somalia

  190

  175

  200

  345

  255

  Sudan

  5

  10

  5

  15

  30

  Tanzania

  *

  5

  *

  5

  5

  Uganda

  10

  25

  45

  105

  125

  Zimbabwe

  5

  35

  35

  90

  10

  Africa other

  10

  25

  25

  70

  105

  Africa total

  630

  800

  1,115

  1,745

  1,225

  Iran

  15

  65

  25

  50

  65

  Iraq

  60

  110

  180

  1,310

  220

  Middle East other

  15

  15

  20

  50

  30

  Middle East total

  90

  190

  225

  1,410

  310

  Afghanistan

  215

  300

  675

  720

  235

  Bangladesh

  5

  5

  15

  60

  50

  China

  165

  115

  135

  260

  145

  India

  15

  15

  20

  60

  60

  578W

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

  Nationality

  19994

  20004

  20014

  20025,6

  20036

  Pakistan

  20

  25

  25

  40

  45

  Sri Lanka

  125

  170

  140

  125

  15

  Vietnam

  5

  20

  90

  180

  125

  Asia other

  5

  5

  5

  15

  10

  Asia total

  550

  655

  1,100

  1,460

  685

  Nationality not known

  40

  20

  25

  5

  5

  Grand total

  3,350

  2,735

  3,470

  6,200

  2,800

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

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

  3 Figures exclude disputed age cases.

  4 May excluded some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices.

  5 Not comparable with manual counts data prior to 2002.

  6 Provisional figures.

  Civil Service Recruitment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the effects of cuts in civil servants will be on his Department. [185812]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced on 14 July, the size of the Home Office will be reduced by 2,700 people.

  Community Sentences
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to improve the information received by magistrates regarding prison alternatives. [182286]

  Paul Goggins
  The National Probation Service has put in place a number of measures to improve the information provided to magistrates on prison alternatives. These include the provision of: a sentencer communications strategy and a sentencer liaison officer in all areas; national and local information about the work of the service; leaflets about the content of successful schemes and programmes attached to pre-sentence reports; and videos on the content of community interventions and the 'what works' initiative.

  As the new National Offender Management Service is taken forward we intend to strengthen the liaison arrangements between sentencers and the prison and probation services.

  The new Sentencing Guidelines Council will also have a role in providing information to sentencers, for example about sentencing patterns, which will inform discussions at a local level. The council will have key role in re-balancing the system to make better use of resources. In framing sentencing guidelines, the council must, among other things, take account of the cost of different sentences and their relative effectiveness in preventing re-offending. One of its earliest priorities is to produce a guideline on the new generic community sentence.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of computer misuse there were in his Department in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003, broken down by category of misuse; and how many of those cases resulted in disciplinary action. [163249]
  579W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  The figures, so far as information is available in the form requested, are as follows:

  Cases of computer misuse

  Area

  1997

  2003

  Core Home Office, including IND

  Sending inappropriate email

  1—

  18

  Accessing inappropriate sites

  1—

  4

  Prison Service Agency

  Sending inappropriate email

  1—

  2

  Accessing inappropriate sites

  1—

  1—

  UK Passport Agency

  Sending inappropriate emails

  1—

  15

  Accessing inappropriate sites

  1—

  1—

  Forensic Science Service

  Sending inappropriate emails

  1—

  1

  Accessing inappropriate sites

  1—

  1—

  1 Indicates that no comprehensive figures available.

  Constitutional Treaty
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has commissioned on the possible(a) impact and (b) cost that may follow from the adopt ion of the proposed European Union constitution, in relation to criminal matters. [184015]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government carried out detailed examination of all proposals in the field of criminal justice with regard to their potential impact, prior to agreement on the Constitutional Treaty. The Government have not commissioned separate research in this area following agreement on the text of the Constitutional Treaty.

  Contracted Prisons
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Prison Service annual report for 2003–04 will contain statistical data on the performance of contracted prisons against key performance indicators; and if he will make a statement. [181518]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service is no longer responsible for the performance of contracted prisons and so the Service's Annual Report does not contain data on the performance of these prisons. The aggregate performance of all prisons in England and Wales, and details of the performance of contracted prison estate are set out in the written ministerial statement I made on 15 July. Details of the performance of individual establishments will be published at a later date.

  Conviction Data Systems
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to develop IT systems that can share conviction and non-conviction data across police forces in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. [183266]

  Paul Goggins
  As part of current arrangements Scottish conviction records are uploaded automatically to the Police National Computer (PNC) in England and 580W
  Wales through the Scottish Criminal Records Office. The Police Service in Northern Ireland has PNC, which provides them with 24-hour access to the service.

  As part of the important work for implementing the recommendations of the Bichard Inquiry we will look to resolve the issue of sharing Intelligence non-conviction data between the 43 forces in England and Wales as well as with Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 5 July from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside relating to entry to the UK of Dr. Yusuf Ali Qaradawi; and what investigations were conducted in advance of his entry to the UK. [184544]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]I wrote to my hon. Friend on 21 July 2004.

  My hon. Friend also asks what investigations were conducted in advance of Dr. Qaradawi's entry to the United Kingdom: I am withholding that information under exemption 5 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  It is not our practice to disclose details of individual entry clearance cases in a public forum.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight dated 25 May concerning the National Offender Management Service. [181804]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 1 July 2004]I replied to the hon. Member on 7 July 2004.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for West Worcestershire will receive a response to his letter of 15 April (Ref: M480/4). [182930]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 July 2004]I wrote to the hon. Member on 22 July 2004.

  Crime Solving
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes in(a) Merseyside, (b) Lancashire, (c) Cheshire, (d) Cumbria and (e) Greater Manchester have involved (i) the Forensic Science Service and (ii) a private company in their solution in each of the last 12 months. [181674]

  Caroline Flint
  From the data recorded by these police forces it is not possible to identify how many crimes involved use of forensic science in their solution. The best indicator of the relative use of (i) the Forensic Science Service (FSS) and (ii) private sector forensic science providers is the number of submissions made by the five named forces to each of these within the last 12 months.
  581W
  (a) For Merseyside police forensic submissions during the year 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 were as follows:

  Forensic provider

  (i) FSS

  (ii) Private companies

  April

  69

  344

  May

  65

  418

  June

  96

  377

  July

  93

  367

  August

  73

  376

  September

  100

  391

  October

  96

  311

  November

  77

  318

  December

  64

  252

  January

  77

  311

  February

  73

  268

  March

  60

  289

  Differences in the level of detail to which data on submissions for forensic analysis is recorded by police forces prevents similar presentation of figures for the remaining forces. The data recorded by these forces indicate:

  (b) For Lancashire Constabulary forensic submissions during the year 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 were as follows:

  Number

  April

  419

  May

  342

  June

  398

  July

  389

  August

  389

  September

  355

  October

  355

  November

  359

  December

  372

  January

  421

  February

  371

  March

  432

  Lancashire Constabulary was unable to report how many of these submissions were made to(i) the Forensic Science Service (FSS) and (ii) private sector forensic science providers.

  (c) For Cheshire Constabulary forensic submissions during the year 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 were as follows:

  (i) FSS: 525

  (ii) Private companies: 609.

  Cheshire Constabulary was unable to provide a monthly breakdown of these figures.

  (d) For Cumbria Constabulary the number of submission for DNA analysis reflects is related to the level of volume crime, the predominant category of crime in Cumbria. These submissions were all made to the FSS:
  582W

  Number

  April

  26

  May

  28

  June

  37

  July

  20

  August

  18

  September

  41

  October

  30

  November

  11

  December

  17

  January

  18

  February

  23

  March

  32

  (e) For Greater Manchester Police forensic submissions during the year 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 were as follows:

  (i) FSS: 8,392

  (ii) Private companies: 135.

  GMP was unable to provide a monthly breakdown of these figures.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission since its inception; and how many are awaiting determination. [184798]

  Paul Goggins
  At 31 May 2004 the Criminal Cases Review Commission had received 6,798 applications of which 638 had yet to be determined. Further detail is available on the Commission's website at www. ccrc.gov.uk.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of CS gas spray by police forces in England and Wales. [184797]

  Caroline Flint
  CS incapacitant spray has been available to police forces in England and Wales since 1996. Currently out of 43 police forces, 40 are using CS incapacitant spray as an item of self-defence equipment.

  Departmental Accounting Practice
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the Finance Director of the(a) Department, (b) Probation Service, (c) Charity Commission and (d) Assets Recovery Agency is; what accountancy qualifications each Director holds; and on how many occasions there has been a qualified opinion on (i) the resource accounts and (ii) other accounts of each in the last five years. [183423]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The information requested, is shown in the table.
  583W

  Finance Director

  Accountancy qualifications held

  (a) Home Office

  William Nye

  —

  (b) Probation Service

  Rat McBurney

  Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants

  (c)Charity Commission

  Nick Allaway

  Member of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants

  (d) Assets Recovery Agency

  Ivor Jamison

  Member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting

  In respect of Departmental Accounts, the audit opinion has been given on the accounts for the periods requested. Of the Departments requested the Probation Service is a part of the Home Office while the Asset Recovery Agency and the Charities Commission are

  Financial year

  National Audit Office opinion: The Home Office

  National Audit Office opinion: The Charities Commission

  1999–2000

  Disclaimed

  Unqualified

  2000–01

  Qualified

  Unqualified

  2001–02

  Qualified

  Qualified

  2002–03

  Unqualified as true and fair, but qualified arising from an expenditure in excess of amounts authorised for Request for Resource 2

  Unqualified

  2003–04

  Resource Accounts not yet audited—an opinion will not be available until later in the year

  Unqualified

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total floor space area of buildings owned or leased by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies has been in each year since 1997. [182220]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The non-ager cy part of the Home Office currently occupies 274,693 sq m of freehold space and 498,664 sq m of rented space. The Department's Executive Agencies occupy 4,188,012 sq m of freehold space and 69,256 sq m of rented space. Together these comprise offices, prisons and other specialised accommodation.

  The figures exclude residential properties, premises that are not rented but taken under service agreements and those where costs are shared with other Government Departments who pay the rent.

  Departmental Expenditure
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of satellite and cable subscriptions in his Department's buildings in the last year for which figures are available: and if he will list the premium channels that his Department subscribes to. [185277]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: Figures for all the Department's buildings are not held centrally. The subscription for cable for the Home Office HQ for 2004–05 will be £20,609.67 plus VAT. No premium channels are subscribed to. This is to ensure access to full range of news and current affairs channels.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of running the canteen facilities of his Department in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [184457]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: Information on the level of the subsidy for canteen facilities in the Department's main central London buildings in 1996–97 is not available. The subsidy paid in 2002–03 was £180,000.
  584W
  non-Ministerial Departments. The Asset Recovery Agency has only recently been created and no accounts are yet available. Audit opinion for the Department and for the Charities Commission are given in the Table:

  Departmental Mobile Phones
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mobile phones owned by his Department were reported lost or stolen since 2001. [185268]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Only one item is showing on the Losses Register since 2001.

  Departmental Refurbishment
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost has been of refurbishments to the fabric of buildings owned by his Department since May 1997. [184454]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 24 May 2004, Official Report, column 1409W.

  Direct Communications Unit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work is undertaken by the Direct Communications Unit at his Department; and if he will make a statement. [183163]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Direct Communications Unit consists of two sections—a Customer Communications Service and a Resource and Planning Section.

  The Customer Communications Service consists of 72 staff and is responsible for a wide range of work in the area of customer communications. They provide:
  A Front of House (reception) service at the Home Office's HQ building;
  A public inquiry telephone service
  Management and co-ordination of the production of replies to ministerial correspondence across the Home Office group, excluding agencies

  585W
  Management and co-ordination of the production of replies to public correspondence, including emails, across the Home Office group, excluding agencies, HMPS and the Immigration and Nationality Department
  Management of responses to requests for publications
  Support for the Home Office's internal Directory of Business
  Internal communications relating to correspondence performance and management
  User support for, and management of the ongoing development of, the Correspondence Tracking System introduced last year
  Support, management and development of the Correspondence Tracking System's Management Information System, and production of performance and management data.

  The Resource and Planning Section consists of 16 staff, and provides a full range of business support services for the Communication Directorate, of which Direct Communications Unit is one part. The services provided include finance and budget management, procurement, business planning, risk management, accommodation support, business continuity planning, and human resources management.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work is undertaken by the Public Contact Section of the Direct Communications Unit in his Department, broken down by policy areas covered; and how many(a) letters and (b) phone calls it has received each year since its creation, broken down by policy area. [183168]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Direct Communications Unit (DCU) was created on 1 September 2001.

  The Public Contact Teams undertake the following work for all areas of the Home Office Group excluding Agencies:
  Answering telephone calls from the public (other than on matters relating to HM Prison Service and Immigration and Nationality Department)
  Front of House (Reception) Service at the Home Office headquarters building

  The Correspondence Teams undertake the following work for all areas of the Home Office Group excluding Agencies:
  Co-ordinating the provision of replies to correspondence from Members (and members of the House of Lords) addressed to Ministers
  MP's hotline (for inquiries about correspondence from Members to Ministers)
  Co-ordinating the provision of replies to correspondence from members of the public (not Her Majesty's Prison Service (HMPS) or the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND)

  (a) The volume of letters received is given in the tables.

  Volume of Ministerial letter1 handled by DCU

  Number

  1 September to 31 December 2001

  5,619

  1 January to 31 December 2002

  27,320

  1 January to 31 December 2003

  21,735

  1 January to 30 April 2004

  9,508

  1Excludes agencies other than HMPS

  586W

  Volume of Ministerial letter1 handled by DCU

  Number

  1 September to 31 December 2001

  12,695

  1 January to 31 December 2002

  43,886

  1 January to 31 December 2003

  22,074

  1 January to 30 April 2004

  5,846

  1Excludes correspondence on IND and HM PS matters and since 1 July 2003 campaign correspondence i.e. that where 50 or more identical items are received.

  The computerised Correspondence Tracking System was introduced for Ministerial Correspondence on 1 April 2003. A break down by policy area is available only from that date and is shown in the table.

  Ministerial correspondence handled by DCU, broken down by policy area

  Policy area

  1 April to 31 December 2003

  1 January to 31 May 2004

  IND

  9007

  5301

  HMPS

  661

  426

  Correctional Services

  362

  327

  Human Resources

  0

  4

  Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group

  2,423

  1,422

  Community Policy

  937

  553

  Criminal Justice Group

  810

  447

  Reply drafted by DCU—no policy unit identified

  1,465

  1,028

  Letters from members of the public (other than campaigns, HMPS and IND) were included on the Correspondence Tracking System from 1 July 2003. A breakdown by policy' area is available only from that date and is shown in the following table.

  Correspondence from members of the public handled by DCU, broken down by policy area

  Policy area

  1 July to 31 December 2003

  1 January to 30 April 2004

  Correctional Services

  317

  738

  Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group

  2,820

  2,570

  Community Policy

  1,024

  618

  Criminal Justice Group

  319

  264

  Reply drafted by DCU—no policy unit identified

  3,207

  1,656

  The figures in the table do not include approximately 70,000 emails p.a. which are also handled by DCU. The handling of emails has only recently been transferred onto the Correspondence Tracking System, and data on distribution across policy areas are not yet available.

  (b) The volume of telephone calls received from the public is given in he table. No breakdown by policy area is available.

  Number

  1 September to 31 October 20011

  9,914

  1 January to 31 December 2002

  70,320

  1 January to 31 December 2003

  70,352

  1 January to 30 June 2004

  33,416

  1Data for November and December 2001 is not held

  Driving Disqualification/Offences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were disqualified from driving in England and Wales in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003 under section 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. [184767]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]The number of people disqualified at all courts in England and Wales as a result of 'totting up' of points on their driving licence under s.35 of the Road Traffic offenders Act 1988 is 30,498 for the year 2002.

  Data for 2003 will not be available until the autumn.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions were brought against and (b) cautions were given to drivers on motorways in the last 24 months for (i) speeding and (ii) non-speeding offences. [184956]

  Caroline Flint
  Information collected centrally on prosecutions for speeding and other road traffic offences does not distinguish the type of road on which the offence took place.

  The available information for the year 2002 showing the total number of fixed penalties, written warnings issued and court proceedings in England and Wales for Motorway offences (other than speeding) under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 s. 17(4) and Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982 Regs. 5–12 and 14 are given in the table.

  Data for 2003 will not be available until the autumn.

  Motorway offences1 (other than speeding) by type of police action, England and Wales, 2002

  Type of action

  Number of offences

  Total Court proceedings

  2,947

  Fixed penalty notices issued

  5,292

  Written warnings issued

  354

  Total

  8,593

  1 Offences under s. 17(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982.

  Drug/Alcohol Treatment
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding is available for drug addiction treatment of prisoners and ex-prisoners over the next five years(a) in Leeds and (b) in total. [181974]

  Paul Goggins
  It is not possible to differentiate between funding provided to treat ex-prisoners and others who access treatment in the community.

  Table 1 shows the amount of funding available for all forms of drug treatment for prisons in the Leeds area. Funding is allocated on an annual basis, and therefore the figures for prisons in the Leeds area are provided only for 2004–05.

  Table 1: Drug treatment funding in prisons in the Leeds area, 2004–05

  Prison

  Funding (£)

  Leeds

  1,200,000

  Wealstun

  332,000

  Wetherby

  118,000

  588W
  Table 2 shows the total funding for drug treatment in adult prisons and juvenile establishments until March 2006, which is the latest date for which funding decisions have been taken.

  Table 2: Total drug treatment in adult prisons and juvenile establishments until March 20061

  £

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Prison Service2

  44,900,000

  52,400,000

  Department of Health

  3,900,000

  3,900,000

  Youth Justice Board3

  10,000,000

  10,000,000

  Total

  58,800,000

  66,300,000

  1 These are ring-fenced funds, made available from spending reviews since 1997–98.

  2 This figure includes £5,000,000 from the Home Office for the CJIP initiative.

  3 The YJB funding shown includes funding for secure training centres and local authority secure children's homes. The allocation for Juvenile Prisons are as follows:

  2004–05: £2,500,000

  2005–06: £3,200,000

  Note:

  All funding is projected and therefore still subject to negotiation. The remaining four years will be determined by further allocations made from SR2004.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that sufficient funds are made available for treatment programmes for all young people convicted of drug and alcohol offences. [184203]

  Caroline Flint
  Early identification of substance misuse problems and the provision of appropriate early intervention and treatment for young offenders is a key element of the young people's strand of the National Drug Strategy.

  The Young People's Substance Misuse Grant brings together a number of funding streams which total £59 million for the development of young people's substance misuse services, alongside mainstream resources by Drug Action Teams.

  Over £18 million of the Young People's Partnership Grant is currently invested in the provision of specialist young people's drug treatment services.

  £30 million has been made available over three years for the development of an Integrated Substance Misuse Programme for the Secure Estate—Young Offenders Institutes, Secure Training Centres and Local Authority Secure Children's Homes.

  As part of this programme of work Youth Offending Teams screen all young offenders and provide early intervention and/or onward referral to specialist young people's drug treatment services.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether drug testing on charge is in place in Crosby. [177936]

  Caroline Flint
  Drug testing of persons in police detention (after charge) is not currently available in Crosby.
  589W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to require prisons to record the proportion of prisoners who complete drug treatment following detoxification. [182230]

  Paul Goggins
  There are currently no plans to require prisons to record the proportion of prisoners who complete drug treatment following detoxification.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of drug treatment programmes within prisons. [182300]

  Paul Goggins
  Due to the need to wait two years for reconviction results, only a limited research base is so far available on the effectiveness of prison-based drug rehabilitation programmes in reducing re-offending.

  Emerging research into the RAPt1 programme is showing encouraging results, with 40 per cent. of graduates, rather than an expected 51 per cent., re-offending within two years. However, such results can only be achieved where effective through-care arrangements are made and timely after-care services are available in the community.

  1RAPt—Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of people receiving drug treatment while in prison were offered aftercare on their release in each year since 1997. [182301]

  Paul Goggins
  Data are not collected centrally on those people that receive drug treatment in prison and who are subsequently offered aftercare on release.

  Drugs
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to ensure that recreational drugs remain illegal; and if he will encourage police to prosecute criminals who supply such drugs. [184021]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government have no intention of legalising any currently controlled drug. The Government takes the supply and possession of illegal drugs very seriously. We work closely with the police to focus more effectively to disrupt the drug supply chain at all levels and prosecute offenders. The Drugs Strategy makes clear our priority is to tackle Class A drug supply offences. The Strategy is supported by the police as we all recognise that Class A drugs do most harm to individuals and to communities.

  Electronic Tagging
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminals were released in Essex with electronic tags in each year since tagging was introduced. [183601]

  Paul Goggins
  The area in which electronically tagged prisoners reside upon release is not recorded centrally.

  The number of prisoners released on the Home Detention Curfew Scheme (HOC) from HMP Bullwood Hall and HMP Chelmsford in each year since the scheme began, and to 31 May 2004, is provided in the table.
  590W

  Prisoners released on the HOC scheme from Essex prisons, by year of release

  Number

  1999

  121

  2000

  150

  2001

  142

  2002

  316

  2003

  278

  2004

  58

  Employment Tribunals
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases against his Department, the agencies for which it is responsible and its predecessor organisations have been brought to employment tribunals in each year since 1997 in relation to(a) equal pay, (b) sex discrimination, (c) race discrimination, (d) disability discrimination and (e) unfair dismissal how many cost awards were made against (i) respondents and (ii) applicants; and how much has been spent (A) settling and (B) contesting claims. [181476]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The information requested is not available and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Energy Efficiency
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on energy efficiency in his Department's buildings. [185286]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office continues to improve the energy efficiency of its buildings. It is addressing the Government's target of increasing the energy efficiency on its estate in terms of kWh used per square metre of building floor area by 15 per cent. by 2010–11, relative to 1999–2000.

  The Department actively improves the energy efficiency of its estate. A switch off campaign is currently in progress across the Central London and Croydon estates, which encourages staff to switch off lights and computer equipment when not in use. There is a contractual requirement to achieve energy consumption at least 10 per cent. below the targets in the Government's energy efficient best practice programme energy consumption guide at the Department's new headquarters building at 2 Marsham street. In September 2003, The Prison Service was re-accredited under the National Energy Foundation's scheme for energy efficiency.

  Environmental Sustainability
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that private finance initiative projects for which his Department is responsible create the minimum of environmental damage; [182214]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of (a) the sustainability of environmental impacts of private finance initiative projects and (b) the capacity of the PFI process to deliver environmentally sustainable projects; [182215]
  591W
  (3) what plans he has to make private finance initiative contracts more accountable and transparent in terms of environmental sustainability. [182216]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Guidance for Departments on how to include environmental considerations within PFI and PPP projects is set out in Green Public Private Partnerships, issued in 2002. A memorandum of understanding, signed by the Home Office Green Minister and the Director General of the Prison Service, requires all new prisons (including those constructed under PFI) to introduce a sustainable development policy and to be managed in an environmentally sound way.

  Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) certificates are obtained for major new buildings. The new Home Office in 2 Marsham Street received the BREEAM excellent level certification of its design in June 2004. Excellent is the highest category certification. Once operational it will be managed under an accredited environmental management system.

  The Home Office is committed to the targets set out in the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. The biodiversity, energy and waste sections of the framework require Departments to include clauses relating to sustainable development issues in relevant contracts, including PFIs. Future sections of the framework are likely to include similar provisions on other environmental issues.

  From 1 April 2004 all Departments have been required to explicitly identify any significant environmental and social costs and benefits when carrying out a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). This will cover RIAs carried out on new PFI/PPP projects.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what parts of his Department's estate will not be covered by the commitments set out in the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. [182222]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  As set out in the departmental website statement of September 2002 the sites not covered by the commitments set out in the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate are those where one of the following apply:(a) the Department is not the major occupier, (b) the floor area of the site is less than 1,000 sq m or (c) the site has less than 50 staff.

  This accounts for some, 150 office sites in the main Home Office, some 850 probation office sites, approximately 10 non-operational Prison Service establishments or premises and one UK Passport Agency site.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken by his Department to review arrangements for public reporting for sustainable development impacts. [182223]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Department has developed a series of departmental sustainable development indicators, which monitor and record progress These are published on the Home Office website and can be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/susdevindicators.html. The Home Office also reports sustainable development 592W
  progress in the Home Office annual report and through the annual Sustainable Development in Government reports. Prison Service progress is covered by its own dedicated sustainable development report.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes there have been in(a) road transport vehicle carbon dioxide emissions and (b) single occupancy car commuting from his Department against the baseline year in the framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. [182224]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office collected baseline data for business mileage in 2002–03 which showed that staff travelled 12,908,999 miles. Data for 2003–04 has not been collated yet. In an effort to reduce business mileage the Home Office has committed to:Review current levels of mileage payment
  The policy relating to payment of mileage claims
  The scope for providing incentives for use of alternatively fuelled vehicles
  Promote the use of video-conferencing facilities
  Collect baseline data on the use of hire cars with a view to reducing their use

  A survey undertaken in 2003 showed that there were 27,146 car park spaces at Home Office sites. These included 21,158 spaces held for the Prison Service, some 3,033 held for the Immigration Service and 1,934 for the Probation Service. The Department is committed to making reasonable efforts to reduce the number of spaces.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the external consultants which have carried out work for his Department under contracts in the last three years. [181500]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The use of external consultants throughout the Home Office provides the Department with specialist knowledge, skills, capacity and technical expertise that is otherwise not available in house. This enables all units and organisations within the Department to achieve the levels of service required by the Home Office and the Government and assists in obtaining value for money.

  The main external consultants which have carried out work for the Home Office under contracts in the last three years are in a list, which will be sent to the Library.

  Financial Systems (Security)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports of(a) cyber attack and (b) misuse of the data and information systems of UK based banks and financial services companies he estimates there were in each year since 1997. [185164]

  Caroline Flint
  Reports of the unauthorised access to information systems and possible offences which might arise from the misuse or modification of data, are made to local police forces. There are no centrally aggregated figures of these reports.

  Firearms Amnesty
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the firearms handed in during the amnesty of 2003 were(a) replica weapons, (b) antique or obsolete weapons, (c) toy guns, (d) blank firing airguns and (e) other types of firearms; [185400]

  (2) how many firearms handed in during the amnesty of 2003 did not need a certificate for possession; [185401]

  (3) whether people who handed in firearms during the 2003 amnesty that did not need a certificate were advised that they could lawfully keep them. [185402]

  Caroline Flint
  A detailed breakdown of the number and type of guns handed into the police was placed in the Library on 15 July 2003. These figures show that a total of 43,908 guns were handed in, including 13,974 air weapons and 9,480 imitations. It is not possible to break down these figures further into the categories requested.

  The primary purpose of the amnesty was to enable people to surrender illegally held guns and ammunition. Given the stricter laws which were being introduced in relation to the possession of air weapons and imitation firearms in a public place without reasonable excuse, it also provided an opportunity for young people, and others, to hand in guns which, while not illegal, were perhaps being held for criminal or anti-social purposes, or were no longer wanted. It was for individual forces to determine the procedures to be adopted for the surrender of all such items.

  Fixed Penalty Notices
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the procedures for issuing fixed penalty notices by police officers. [183177]

  Caroline Flint
  Police issue fixed penalty notices (FPNs) for traffic offences under the powers set out in Part III of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991. Fixed penalties are currently available for about 150 different traffic offences.

  Where a driver is detected committing a fixed penalty offence, the police will decide what action to take in the particular case. The driver may be given an informal warning or issued with a fixed penalty notice or reported for prosecution. The police operate to Association of Chief Officer of Police (ACPO) guidelines advising on what course of action might be appropriate but it is in law ultimately a matter for the individual officer's decision.

  Fixed penalty notices for traffic offences may be issued using one of four different procedures. One involves fixing the FPN to the vehicle. This is normally used for parking offences. The FPN may be issued to the driver at the time of the offence in two sets of circumstances: one for non-endorsable offences, such as failure to wear a seat belt, the other for an endorsable offence, such as speeding. For endorsable offences, the driver has to produce his driving licence at the roadside or later at a police station. The fourth procedure is used to deal with offending drivers detected by automatic
  594W
  speed camera and involves sending a conditional fixed penalty offer to the person identified by the vehicle number plate as being the registered keeper.

  Police may also issue fixed penalty notices for disorder offences. Guidance has been provided by the Secretary of State for police, community support officers and persons accredited by a Chief Constable under community safety accreditation schemes under section 6 of the Act. Supplementary guidance has also been provided on the issue of fixed penalty notices to persons aged 16 and 17-years-old since the scheme was extended to them in January 2004. Copies of the guidance are available on the Home Office website at: http://www.homeoffice. gov. uk/crimpol/police/penalty/ index.html

  The main police operational guidance is currently being revised and a new version will be provided to the police and published shortly. The Home Office continues to take feedback from the police on the operation of the fixed penalty notice for disorder scheme so that guidance may be updated as and when necessary.

  G8 Conference
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask 1he Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces will contribute to the security of the G8 Conference. [183036]

  Caroline Flint
  Responsibility for local policing in connection with the 2005 G8 Summit at Gleneagles, Perthshire, will rest with the Chief Constable of Tayside Police. Tayside Police will call on mutual aid from other police forces as appropriate, and arrangements for this are in hand.

  Gold Incident Command Suite
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the Prison Service GOLD Incident Command suite has been opened in each month since April 2003; and what the nature was of each incident. [181510]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service Gold Command suite opened on 40 occasions between 1 April 2003 and 28 June 2004. The suite was opened on 24 occasions to manage hostage incidents, on nine occasions to manage incidents of concerted indiscipline and on seven occasions to manage at height/roof climb incidents.

  An incident is classified as a concerted indiscipline when a number of prisoners collectively refuse to comply with a lawful order or involve themselves in disruption of an establishment's normal regime. Hostage incidents ate when a prisoner or prisoners take another prisoner, or on occasion a member of staff, hostage. At height incidents usually involve a prisoner or prisoners getting onto a roof but can be other climbs. A barricade incident is when a prisoner barricades his cell or another area to prevent staff access.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the activities of the Green Minister in the Department in financial year 2003–04. [185134]
  595W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  As the Department's Green Minister I take the lead in improving the Department's performance in contributing to wards sustainable development. I do this through meetings with the officials responsible for sustainable development to check progress and give my personal support where necessary. This has included giving a talk at a workshop to launch the Department's Sustainable Development Framework Project and judging a switch off poster competition, as well as attending more formal meetings on sustainable development issues

  I am a member of the Ministerial Sub-Committee of Green Ministers.

  HGVs (Road Accidents)
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road traffic incidents involving left hand drive heavy goods vehicles have been recorded by Cheshire police in the last year for which figures are available. [185391]

  Caroline Flint
  Information collected by my Department on motoring offences recorded by the police does not distinguish the characteristics of the vehicles involved.

  Home Office Legislation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Home Office legislation which has been implemented in different parts of England on different dates since 1997. [181835]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 5 July 2004]: The following provisions of Home office legislation passed since 1997 have been implemented in different parts of England and Wales on different dates.

  Provision

  Subject matter of provision

  Crime and Disorder Act 1998

  Section 46

  Date of first appearance in bail cases

  Section 49

  Powers of magistrates' courts exercisable by single justice

  Section 51

  No committal proceedings for indictable-only offences

  Sections 65 and 66

  Reprimands and warnings

  Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000

  Section 52

  Electronic monitoring

  Section 57

  Drug testing in police detention

  Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001

  Section 130

  Remands and committals of juveniles to secure accommodation

  Private Security Industry Act 2001

  Section 3

  Conduct prohibited without a licence

  Police Reform Act 2002

  Schedule 4

  Detention by Community Support Officers

  Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003

  Sections 48–52

  Removal of graffiti

  Human Trafficking
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress in the UK's implementation of the European Union Council of Ministers' Framework Decision on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings. [182463]

  Mr. Browne
  The European Union Framework Decision requires us to criminalise trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labour. We are committed to criminalising trafficking effectively for these purposes, and in the case of trafficking for sexual exploitation legislative measures are already in force.

  The Sexual Offences Act 2003 includes offences covering trafficking into, within and out of the United Kingdom. These offences were brought into force on 1 May 2004. New offences covering trafficking for other forms of exploitation, including trafficking for the purposes of forced labour and removal of organs, are included in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, which is currently before Parliament.

  Identity Cards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the experience of other countries regarding the experience of ethnic minorities with demands to show identity cards. [182299]

  Mr. Browne
  We have looked at schemes in other countries but the experience of ethnic minorities in other countries depends on a range of factors which are not necessarily comparable. These include:

  (i) whether the scheme is voluntary or compulsory;

  (ii) what police powers exist to require a person to produce an identity card or otherwise identify themselves;

  (iii) how the card scheme is linked to the provision of public services;

  (iv) what use the private sector makes of the card scheme; and

  (v) what legal safeguards are in place to outlaw unlawful discrimination.

  We have announced that we are building a base for a compulsory scheme. One of the advantages of a compulsory scheme is that any requirement to produce a card would not be discriminatory as everyone would have one. We have said that there will be no new power for the police to stop someone and demand to see their card. Our draft Bill does allow public services to specify how a card might be produced but Parliament will have to approve the rules on a case-by-case basis. There are also provisions to guard against 'compulsion by the back door' by prohibiting organisations from making an ID card the exclusive means of proving identity in advance of the scheme being compulsory.

  Finally the administration of the scheme and how it is used to verify identity by public services will be bound by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

  Immigration Database
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 12 July 2004,Official Report, column 983W, on immigration, what

  597W
  time it normally takes for the General Case Information Database to be updated with decisions; and how long it took in the case of Mr. Ahmed. [184765]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: Decisions made within General Group would normally be entered onto the General Case Information Database (G-CID) at the time of decision.

  Following initial inquiries, General Group's decision was entered on G-CID six weeks after receiving Mr. Ahmed's file.

  IMPACT System
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place between(a) his officials and (b) the Police Information Technology Organisation and representatives of the Scottish Intelligence Database regarding its suitability for extension throughout Great Britain; what assessment he has made of the costs and time scale of such a roll-out; and what cost and time scale he envisages for the completion of the IMPACT system. [184902]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]: In my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's response to the House on 22 June 2004, following publication of Sir Michael Bichard's report he told the House the Government shall introduce a national intelligence IT system for the police. Preparations for this are under way. The new system will take full account of the Scottish Intelligence Database.

  Internet Fraud
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the actions taken by(a) his Department and (b) the bodies for which he is responsible to combat fraud conducted over the internet. [178927]

  Paul Goggins
  Government seeks to educate computer users about the risks of fraud facilitated using the internet. The Home Office website provides advice on avoiding internet fraud, while the Department of Trade and Industry has a campaign entitled "Don't be a Mug" advising on scams and rip-offs, including internet scams.

  The Home Office has recently launched the 'e-tailing mini site', which forms part of the Crime Reduction Website. This provides information to help both businesses and consumers protect themselves specifically when using the internet. We have also recently published, jointly with APACS, a leaflet on safe credit card use. This includes a section on using cards safely over the internet.

  The Home Office is represented on an industry-led Steering Group which aims to tackle 'Card Not Present' (CNP) fraud (which includes fraud over the internet). We support practical measures being introduced by the industry to increase levels of security for internet transactions. These include Address Verification Services (AVS), Card Security Code (CSC), Mastercard Secure Code and Verified by Visa which are already making a significant impact on CNP Fraud.

  There is no specific organisation which has a specific mandate to combat fraud where it is facilitated utilising the internet.
  598W
  There are however a range of specialist units within forces which investigate fraud cases, regardless of the media used to commit or facilitate the offence, consulting computer crime units as appropriate in cases where technical expertise is required. Where cases involve serious and organised computer-enabled criminality at national and international levels the case may be dealt with by the National Hi Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU) within the National Crime Squad.

  The West African Organised Crime Section of the National Criminal Intelligence Service investigates cases of advance fee fraud—in which letters are widely distributed by post, fax and email—which commonly lead to fraud. personal identity theft and corporate impersonation. Thy also deal with cases of website spoofing and obtaining goods by deception by West African criminal groups.

  Law enforcement is also engaged in public awareness and education campaigns. For instance in October 2003 NHTCU issued advice together with the British Bankers Association and Association of Payment and Card Services (APACS) on how the public could avoid phishing attacks.

  LD50 Tests
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many LD50 tests were licensed in each year since 1997 for(a) cosmetics and (b) dual purpose products; how many of the licenses were issued to the Health Protection Agency; how many animals were involved in ea h case, broken down by (i) type and (ii) breed; and what products were tested. [181812]

  Caroline Flint
  No licensed LD50 tests have been conducted, under the regulatory provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, since 1997—either for cosmetic products, or in respect of dual purpose products where one of the intended purposes is use as a cosmetic.

  Ministerial Air Travel
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1997 the number of miles flown by each Minister on official departmental business. [181870]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Detailed information for all Ministers in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, since 1995 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. These report information reaching back to 1995–96. Information for 2003–04 is currently being assembled and will he published shortly.

  All ministerial and civil service travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code, Travel by Ministers, and Civil Service Management Code, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.
  599W
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost of air travel between Northern Ireland and Great Britain was for(a) ministers and (b) officials in his Department in the latest year for which figures are available. [182129]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Detailed information for all Ministers (and staff) in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents possibly related to money laundering(a) the In land Revenue and (b) Customs and Excise reported to the appropriate investigative agencies in each year since 1997; and how many prosecutions each year resulted from these reports. [185165]

  Caroline Flint
  Powers to allow this Inland Revenue to pass disclosures relating to incidents of suspected money laundering to other investigatory agencies came into force with other provisions of the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 on 14 December 2001.

  Since that time the number of disclosures passed to the appropriate agencies by the Inland Revenue in each tax year has been as follows:

  Number

  2001–02

  0

  2002–03

  3

  2003–04

  7

  The Inland Revenue do not have the power to prosecute incidents of suspected money laundering.

  For HM Customs and Excise (HMCE), the investigation of money laundering is an assigned matter with the result that, where investigators from the organisation discover incidences of its occurrence, they are empowered to investigate and prosecute the offence themselves and do not need to make disclosures to another agency.

  HMCE may refer cases to another agency where their investigations find that money laundering is related to offences which are not assigned, for example people trafficking or robbery. Since 2001, 17 money laundering cases have been referred to other agencies for them to pursue.

  The information provided by disclosures relating to incidents of money laundering is used by law enforcement agencies in a variety of ways to detect crime and trace the proceeds of criminal activity. For example, such information may contribute to an ongoing investigation, be the trigger for a new one, or be held on the relevant intelligence databases for future cases.

  Given the variety of ways in which this information is used, it is not possible to link particular disclosures with particular prosecutions and convict ions in the majority of cases.

  Motoring Offences (Mobile Phones)
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department has issued to police forces in England and Wales concerning the implementation of the ban on using hand-held mobile phones while driving; and what measures are in place to monitor its enforcement. [183931]

  Caroline Flint
  The new, specific, offence of using a hand-held phone while driving is intended to provide a simple, objective offence, the enforcement and prosecution of which does not depend on judgements of control or carelessness. The Association of Chief Police Officers have welcomed it as a straightforward method of dealing with this dangerous behaviour. The police will enforce the offence as operationally appropriate, and no specific guidance has been issued by the Government.

  Data on action to enforce the new offence (written warnings, fixed penalty notices and court proceedings) will be available in autumn 2004.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorists have been found using mobile phones whilst driving since 1 December 2003; and how many drivers were(a) fined on the spot, (b) successfully prosecuted and (c) driving vans, buses, coaches and lorries. [184796]

  Caroline Flint
  Data on police action (written warnings, fixed penalty notices and court proceedings) for the new offence of driving while using a hand held mobile telephone will not be available until the autumn of 2004. Information collected centrally does not identify the type of vehicle involved unless specific to the legislation. Use of a hands free mobile phone is not an offence.

  National Firearms Database
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the project to develop a National Firearms Database was first initiated; when the system was completed and in operation; and what the total cost was of the project. [184901]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]The requirement under section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 for a central register of all persons who have applied for and been granted or refused a firearm or shot gun certificate is now being taken forward as part of a National Firearms Licensing Management System (NFLMS). I understand from the Police Information Technology Organisation that this project was initiated in September 2002. It is scheduled to be ready for service at the end of August 2004. The migration of individual force records from their local systems to NFLMS will take about six months to include all forces. The final cost of the project will not be available before then.

  National Offender Management Service
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations his Department has received(a) in support of and (b) against the setting up of the National Offender Management Service. [171413]
  601W
  Paul Goggins
  We have received a total 264 responses to the initial consultation on the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and 177 responses to the consultation paper on the NOMS organisational design.

  52 of these responses requested specific information or further copies of the consultation document. Of the responses that offered an opinion, over half, 114, offered general support for the new service and 98 expressed concern. Responses to the NOMS organisational design-consultation paper are currently being analysed.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that voluntary sector organisations have sufficient capacity to bid for contracts under the National Offender Management Service arrangements. [180972]

  Paul Goggins
  The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is in the process of establishing a Voluntary Sector Unit, which will have oversight of the relationship between NOMS and the voluntary and community sector. Identifying the capacity building requirements of the sector to enable organisations to participate as providers in NOMS and putting in place the ways of addressing these will form part of the work of the Unit.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the business case for the introduction of contestability and market testing into the National Offender Management Service. [181815]

  Paul Goggins
  The case for the establishment of the National Offender Management Service was outlined in Patrick Carter's independent report 'Managing Offenders—Reducing Crime' published along with the Government response 'Reducing Crime—Changing Lives' on 6 January 04. This includes the case for increased competition and wider contestability.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new IT systems(a) Community-Tag and (b) Institution-Tag will be integrated into the National Offender Management Service and the measures contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. [182310]

  Paul Goggins
  Proposed IT support for the integrated management of offenders, serving either custodial or community sentences, is being piloted using the TAG product from Syscon Justice Systems Ltd. over the next 12 months. The pilot is intended to confirm the business model of the National Offender Management Service and take into account new sentencing provisions.

  Subject to successful completion of the pilot, approval to build and implement the new system will be sought with a view to implementation in 2006–07.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responses he has received to the consultation document on the National Offender Management Service organisational design; and how many supported the proposals. [182311]
  602W
  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office has received 177 responses to the consultation paper on the National Offender Management Service's organisational design. The responses are currently being analysed.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff he expects to be employed by the National Offender Management Service on 1 June broken down by(a) grade and (b) function. [172409]

  Paul Goggins
  Currently the Prison Service has around 47,500 members of staff and the National Probation Service has around 19,000 full-time equivalent employees. The Correctional Services Head Quarters has aroun J 400 staff.

  All of these employees now come under the ambit of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). However as NOMS Directors are currently developing proposals for the shape, size and structure of the new Service, at this point in time we are unable to advise how this will be split in relation to grade or function.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Stephen O'Blien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible have been(a) established and (b) abolished since 1997. [182948]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office sponsors over 46 public bodies, of which 28 are non-departmental public bodies. Details of Home Office non-departmental public bodies are submitted annually to the Cabinet Office for their publication "Public Bodies", which is a series of annual publications, providing information on public bodies sponsored by Government. The latest publication being "Public Bodies 2003".

  The information required for this PQ has been extracted from past editions of the Cabinet Office "Public Bodies" publications. Details of non-departmental public bodies that have been established and abolished since 1997 are shown in the table.

  (a) Established

  (b) Abolished

  1997–98

  1

  1

  1998–99

  3

  1

  1999–2000

  2

  0

  2000–01

  4

  5

  2001–02

  1

  3

  2002–03

  4

  3

  Obscene Websites
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are for meetings to be held between Ministers and computer manufacturers to discuss ways of limiting access to obscene websites, with particular reference to fitting filters at source. [184459]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]The Government firm]} believes that users of the internet should be able to control what they see, and in particular what children are able to see, online. We support the development of a range of products and approaches to
  603W
  achieve this. Tools to enable such control can be applied by use of specific filtering software or by use of an Internet Service Provider which offers access controls as part of the internet connection "package". Pre-loaded safety software, pre-set at point of sale to a high safety level, would be one of these options. We are currently working with the British Standards Institute to develop a BSI "kitemark" for filtering products, which could help guide consumers in their choices. This development follows initial work done by the Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to provide funding to police authorities specifically for tackling obscene publications on the internet in terms of(a) manpower and (b) IT expertise. [184462]

  Paul Goggins
  Funding for this area of activity is met from within police authorities' own budgets. We have no plans to hypothecate the funding that police authorities should make available to tackle this particular issue.

  Provision for policing in England and Wales has increased by over £2.3 billion (over 30 per cent.) since 2000–01. The recent Spending Review settlement will allow us to continue with this significant investment in policing, although we are still to decide the detailed allocation of the settlement.

  The deployment of officers to deal with this issue and the training they receive is a matter for individual chief officers.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to(a) review and (b) propose amendments to the law governing obscene publications. [184463]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]We are concerned about the availability of obscene material, particularly on the internet. We are currently considering whether the law governing obscene publications should be strengthened. This issue was discussed during the adjournment debate on 18 May, which was obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper).

  Offender Behaviour Programmes
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) of 8 June 2004,Official Report, column 331W, on offender behaviour programmes, how many completions of each programme there were at each privately run prison. [183994]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]The following table gives information on the number of offending behaviour programmes that have been completed by prisoners at contracted out prison which provide these courses for 2003–04.604W

  Offending behaviour programme

  Establishment

  Number of course completions

  Controlling Anger and Learningto Manage it (CALM)

  HMP Wolds

  19

  Cognitive Skills Booster Programme

  HMP Wolds

  15

  Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS)

  HMP Altcourse

  37

  Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS)

  HMP Doncaster

  36

  Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS)

  HMP Dovegate

  48

  Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS)

  HMP Forest Bank

  35

  Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R)

  HMP Dovegate

  16

  Reasoning and Rehabilitation(R&R)

  HMP Lowdham Grange

  38

  Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R)

  HMP Pare

  47

  Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R)

  HMP Rye Hill

  55

  Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R)

  HMP Wolds

  33

  Sex Offender Treatment Programme (core)

  HMP Rye Hill

  7

  Sex Offender Treatment Programme (adapted)

  HMP Rye Hill

  17

  Sex Offender Treatment Programme (rolling)

  HMP Pare

  21

  Total number of Sex Offender Treatment Programme Completions (Post IQR)

  45

  Total number of Offender Behaviour Programme Completions (Post IQR)

  469

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the accredited offender behaviour programmes that have been developed and accredited by private sector prison companies. [183995]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]The Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (CSAP) accredits offending behaviour programmes for delivery to offenders in prison (and in the community under the auspices of the National Probation Service).

  In March 2004 a "Democratic Therapeutic Community Core Model" was accredited by the CSAP. This model was a collaborative development between four public sector prisons (Grendon, Gartree, Winchester West Hill and Aylesbury) and one private sector prison (Dovegate). The work was co-ordinated by the 'What Works In Prison Unit' in HM Prison Service Headquarters. HMP Dovegate contributed the majority of new material in the accreditation submission relating to training for staff.

  There have been no other programmes submitted by private sector prison companies, which have been accredited by CSAP.

  Overseas Corruption Allegations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much ring-fenced funding has been available to law enforcement agencies to deal with overseas corruption allegations in each of the last five years. [183447]
  605W
  Paul Goggins
  Implementation of Part 12 of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Act (ATCS) forms part of the National Policing Plan. Each police authority will take the National Policing Plan into account when drawing up their Local Policing Plans.

  As far as police authorities are concerned, every effort is made to allow police authorities as much scope as possible by not ring-fencing grant wherever feasible. In exceptional circumstances, the Home Secretary may be prepared to contribute to unforeseen costs within certain limits.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been repatriated, and to which overseas countries, as a result of corruption investigations in the UK in each of the last five years. [183448]

  Caroline Flint
  I am not aware of any instances of repatriation of funds as a result of corruption investigations over the past five years. The UK Central Authority (UKCA) in the Home Office received a total of 22 incoming requests for restraint and confiscation of assets in 2003, and has received 10 so far this year. However, more detailed statistics detailing the offences to which requests relate and whether funds have been repatriated are not available.

  The UK is committed to assist its international partners in this area. It has signed the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which obliges parties to return assets to the requesting State where the case involves the embezzlement of public funds or the laundering of public funds.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to revise the legislation on corruption; and if he will make a statement. [183449]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government published a draft Corruption Bill in March 2003 for pre-legislative scrutiny in order to consolidate and clarify the criminal law on bribery. Pursuant to the Joint Committee report and recommendations, the Government published their reply to the Joint Committee in December 2003 setting out the extent to which it agreed with the Committee. It indicated that the intention is to introduce a revised Bill to Parliament in due course, which remains the position.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases are on the national register of overseas corruption allegations held by the National Criminal Intelligence Service; and of these how many are being investigated. [183450]

  Caroline Flint
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) currently has 23 referrals on the Antiterrorism and Crime Security Act register. Of those which it is possible to pursue, six are being considered by NCIS and six have been passed to law enforcement agencies for investigation under the Act.

  Paedophiles
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's strategy is for monitoring repeat paedophiles returning to the community after release from prison. [184176]
  606W
  Paul Goggins
  The protection of the public from sexual and violent offender; is one of the Government's highest priorities, particularly where children are involved. The release of such offenders into the community requires the robust assessment and management of risk. Since April 2001 ensuring such arrangements are in place have been the responsibility of police and probation in each of the 42 Areas of England and Wales. The arrangements, which are known as the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), have recently been strengthened by the Criminal Justice Act (2003).

  PFU/PPP Schemes
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the private finance initiative and public private partnership schemes his Department has entered into that have been subject to refinancing deals, indicating in each case how much of the windfall gain has been repaid to the Government. [179063]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Her Majesty's Prison Altcourse was refinanced in 1999. HM Prison Service received payment of £1 million representing 9.3 per cent. share of the total refinancing gains and 20 per cent. of the amount requiring the Prison Service's consent under the contract.

  Her Majesty's Prison Pare was refinanced in 2001. Her Majesty's Prison Service did not have a contractual right to share in the refinancing benefit and did not receive any share in this benefit.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) book value of the stakeholding, (b) onward sale price and (c) arrangements for sharing any windfall gain from subsequent refinancing arrangements are for each of the private finance initiative and public private partnership schemes his Department has entered into where there has been an onward sale of the private sector stakeholding into secondary market. [179066]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  From the best information available, there have been no instances where there has been an onward sale of the private sector stakeholding into a secondary market.

  Police (Speeding)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen have been fined for speeding whilst driving in police cars in each of the last three years. [185873]

  Caroline Flint
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Police Intelligence Database
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with his proposals for establishing a national police intelligence database; and if he will make a statement. [180794]

  Caroline Flint
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his statement to the House on 22 June 2004, following publication of Sir Michael
  607W
  Bichard's Report, the Government shall introduce the first national police intelligence computer system. Entitled "Impact", it will ensure that all forces use the same system to manage and share intelligence information. In the following debate, in answer to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), the Home Secretary indicated Impact could he in operation in two years, building on the Police Local Exchange (PLX) which should be available next spring. In the meantime three phases are being taken forward. Firstly, Impact will combine intelligence and data from forces' operational systems to deliver real data sharing. This is happening as we speak and progress is encouraging. Secondly, Impact will have analysis tools to pick out patterns of crime. Thirdly, it will enable specific police operations, within and between forces, through briefing and tasking functions. The Police Information Technology Organisation is now undertaking a full feasibility study of the requirements and solutions to build a technical demonstrator by next spring.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for the early inspection of all police force intelligence systems before issuing the proposed statutory code. [181455]

  Caroline Flint
  The Police Information Technology Organisation will review and evaluate all intelligence systems available off-the-shelf either commercially or already within police forces as part of the work to build a technical demonstrator for the 'Impact' national intelligence system. Additionally, the data sharing phase of Impact will require a systems and data healthcheck in each force to prepare data held locally in a common format.

  The National Policing Plan requires all forces to comply with the National Intelligence Model for gathering and analysis of criminal intelligence. The Association of Chief Police Officers' (ACPO) minimum standards form part of the baseline assessment of forces undertaken by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). The National Centre for Policing Excellence will co-ordinate the additional guidance to forces recommended by Sir Michael Bichard. This Statutory Code will sit out the standards to be monitored both through HMIC Inspections and the Police Standards Unit through the 'Policing Performance Assessment Framework'.

  Polls/Focus Groups
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has spent on(a) opinion polling and (b) fccus groups in each year since 2001. [185270]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office undertakes a wide range of research activities that support the development of information led policy.

  The Department conducts or commissions such work only when it is justified by the specific needs of a particular policy or programme and when this is the most economical, efficient and effective way to achieve the purpose. Consulting and invoking the public helps inform both policy formulation and the delivery of better quality public services.
  608W
  Research programmes are often complex and combine a mixture of quantitative and qualitative elements. It is therefore not always possible to break down the separate costs of polling and focus group components from the overall cost of a research project. It has therefore not been possible to provide the breakdown requested without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to regard assaults on prison officers in the execution of their duties as notifiable offences. [183445]

  Paul Goggins
  Assault is already a notifiable offence. There are no specific plans to make all assaults on prison officers separately notifiable.

  In certain circumstances, assaults on a prison officer are already included in the recorded crime (notifiable offences) series. Any offence, which is reported to and investigated by the police, will be recorded as a notifiable offence by them.

  However, a minor offence which is dealt with under prison discipline, would not usually be recorded by the police.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to regard prison officers as constables for the purposes of section 89 of the Police Act 1996. [183446]

  Paul Goggins
  There are no current plans to do so.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers were employed by the Prison Service on a part-time basis on 31 March in each of the last five years. [183953]

  Paul Goggins
  The table contains the number of part-time officers in each year since 1999. The figures include prison officers, senior officers and principal officers.

  31 March

  Number

  2004

  662

  2003

  501

  2002

  343

  2001

  211

  2000

  142

  1999

  140

  The figures for 1999 and 2000 are estimates.

  There has been a significant increase in the number of officers working part-time, which is a reflection of the greater emphasis placed on work-life balance in recent years.

  An addition, the Prison Service Equal Opportunities policy was issued in 2003 to encourage more staff to work part-time hours. This part of the Service's work-life balance policy, which also includes; job sharing and other flexible working patterns.
  609W
  It is now the case that all posts including those on recruitment must be available on either a part-time or job-share basis, except where critical examination by line management shows the post to be unsuitable for part-time or job-share.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the prison population was on 31 March in each of the last live years. [183954]

  Paul Goggins
  The prison population in England and Wales on 31 March in each of the last five years is provided in the table.

  Prison population, England and Wales, 31 March

  Number

  2000

  65,463

  2001

  65,394

  2002

  69,784

  2003

  72,954

  2004

  75,295

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have undertaken dirty protests in each of the last five years. [183955]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been required to remain in a hospital overnight with prison officer supervision in each of the last five years. [183956]

  Paul Goggins
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the main benefits of competition within the Prison Service are. [182304]

  Paul Goggins
  Competitive tendering is one of the principles underlying Government purchasing activities and contributes to seeking and demonstrating good value for money. Additionally, requirements above certain financial thresholds stipulated by the EU have to be advertised in accordance with EU rules on public procurement.

  Competition ensures that a contract is formed with the most suitable supplier in the market for the goods or services required. Checks undertaken as part of the procurement process will mean that the supplier is financially sound, technically and commercially capable of providing the goods or services, submits the best offer in value for money terms and can be expected to provide the goods or service successfully.

  All of this reduces the risk to the Department of a failed contract and provides an audit trail that illustrates the department's commitment to an impartial selection and award process.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison healthcare officers were(a) in post and (b) planned to be in post on 31 March. [183983]
  610W
  Paul Goggins
  On 31 March 2004 the Prison Service corporate personnel database recorded 488 prison officer healthcare staff in post, compared to an operational staffing requirement of 550. This includes prison officer, senior officer and principal officer specialists. It excludes officers who are training to be specialist healthcare officers.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison healthcare officers there were in each prison establishment on 31 March in each of the last five years. [183984]

  Paul Goggins
  Information on the number of specialist healthcare officers within each public sector prison establishment for each year since 2001 is contained in the table. Prior to 2001, this data was not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The figures include prison officer, senior officer and principal officer specialists and are all on a headcount basis.

  Specialist healthcare officers

  Establishment

  31 March 2001

  31 March 2002

  31 March 2003

  31 March 2004

  Acklington

  3

  2

  1

  –—

  Aylesbury

  3

  2

  1

  2

  Bedford

  4

  3

  2

  2

  Belmarsh

  9

  11

  10

  9

  Birmingham

  19

  15

  13

  14

  Blantyre House

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Blundeston

  3

  3

  2

  —

  Bristol

  5

  3

  5

  5

  Brixton

  23

  21

  13

  11

  Brockhill

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Bullingdon

  5

  5

  6

  6

  Canterbury

  6

  5

  5

  5

  Cardiff

  7

  7

  8

  7

  Castington

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Channings Wood

  3

  3

  3

  4

  Chelmsford

  6

  5

  6

  7

  Coldingley

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Dartmoor

  8

  6

  6

  4

  Dorchester

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Dover

  3

  2

  2

  2

  Downview

  2

  1

  1

  —

  Durham

  9

  7

  6

  6

  Eastwood Park

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Elmley

  8

  6

  10

  7

  Everthorpe

  2

  1

  1

  —

  Exeter

  7

  6

  5

  6

  Featherstone

  3

  2

  2

  2

  Feltham

  6

  5

  4

  15

  Ford

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Frankland

  15

  13

  12

  12

  Full Sutton

  14

  11

  7

  6

  Garth

  14

  14

  12

  6

  Gartree

  7

  7

  8

  7

  Glen Parva

  5

  5

  4

  2

  Gloucester

  5

  4

  4

  2

  Grendon

  14

  12

  6

  7

  Guys Marsh

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Haverigg

  2

  2

  2

  2

  High Down

  3

  3

  4

  7

  Highpoint

  4

  3

  1

  —

  Hindley

  11

  12

  10

  8

  Hollesley Bay

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Holme House

  8

  7

  7

  8

  HQ

  1

  4

  3

  1

  Hull

  11

  8

  11

  10

  Huntercombe

  1

  1

  4

  3

  Kingston

  4

  3

  3

  2

  Kirkham

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lancaster

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Latchmere House

  1

  1

  1

  1

  611W

  Specialist healthcare officers

  Establishment

  31 March 2001

  31 March 2002

  31 March 2003

  31 March 2004

  Leeds

  17

  14

  14

  14

  Leicester

  5

  7

  5

  7

  Lewes

  11

  8

  5

  4

  Leyhill

  1

  2

  1

  1

  Lincoln

  16

  14

  8

  8

  Lindholme

  3

  3

  3

  2

  Littlehey

  5

  5

  2

  2

  Liverpool

  41

  35

  34

  28

  Long Lartin

  2

  2

  2

  —

  Low Newton

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Maidstone

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Manchester

  15

  15

  13

  12

  Moorland

  15

  15

  13

  13

  New Hall

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Northallerton

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Norwich

  10

  8

  10

  9

  Nottingham

  9

  8

  8

  6

  Onley

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Parkhurst

  15

  15

  14

  16

  Pentonville

  7

  7

  7

  5

  Portland

  4

  4

  4

  3

  Preston

  19

  19

  17

  13

  Ranby

  4

  6

  5

  5

  Reading

  4

  4

  5

  5

  Risley

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Rochester

  9

  6

  6

  5

  Send

  1

  —

  —

  Shrewsbury

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Edmunds Hill

  —

  2

  2

  2

  Stafford

  9

  8

  6

  4

  Standford Hill

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Stocken

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Sudbury

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Swaleside

  4

  5

  5

  8

  Swansea

  6

  6

  7

  7

  Swinfen Hall

  5

  3

  1

  1

  The Mount

  1

  1

  1

  1

  The Verne

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Thorn Cross

  2

  2

  3

  3

  Usk/Prescoed

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wakefield

  16

  14

  14

  14

  Wandsworth

  8

  6

  7

  4

  Warren Hill

  —

  —

  4

  5

  Wayland

  4

  4

  4

  3

  Wealstun

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Weare

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Werrington

  2

  3

  4

  2

  Wetherby

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Whitemoor

  5

  9

  9

  6

  Winchester

  13

  12

  13

  11

  Woodhill

  12

  20

  16

  14

  Wormwood Scrubs

  16

  18

  14

  14

  Wymott

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Total

  617

  571

  523

  488

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the training programme is for prison healthcare officers; and how many officers have undertaken the training in each of the last five years. [183985]

  Paul Goggins
  This information is not available in precisely the form requested. Prison staff without nursing qualifications are eligible to become healthcare officers. The expectation is that they will obtain a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in custodial healthcare or another health-related subject.

  The first pilot for the NVQ in custodial healthcare, which began in June 2002 with 53 candidates from 24 establishments, is due to be completed on 4 August
  612W
  2004. The Prison Service is currently compiling information on which healthcare officers already have a relevant NVQ and who would like to obtain one.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison custody officer certificates have been withdrawn by his Department from staff at Her Majesty's Prison Bronzefield. [183986]

  Paul Goggins
  The Office for Contracted Prisons certifies all Prison Custody Officers. The Certification of the first Prison Custody Officer for HMP Bronzefield took place on the 10 June 2004. From this date 123 people have been certified to work at HMP Bronzefield as Prison Custody Officers. At present no certificates have been withdrawn.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the innovative working practices, methods and programmes that have been introduced at privately run prison establishments that have been subsequently introduced into publicly run prisons as best practice; and if he will make a statement. [184690]

  Paul Goggins
  There is no simple way to track the spread of innovative working practices between the private and public sectors of the Prison Service. However since the first private prison opened in 1992 significant improvements have been achieved in the treatment of prisoners, regimes and facilities, staff deployment and the use of technology. The introduction of contestability through Market Testing will further encourage the dissemination of good practice.

  Probation Office (Leighton Buzzard)
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the probation office in Leighton Buzzard was closed; and what plans there are to re-open it. [182924]

  Paul Goggins
  The probation office in Leighton Buzzard was closed in 1997. The building has since been demolished and redeveloped as retirement flats. There are no current plans to re-open a probation office in Leighton Buzzard.

  Probation Programmes
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the evidential basis was for the decision to separate probation case management and accredited programme work within the National Offender Management Service structure. [178799]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 21 June 2004]Patrick Carter's independent report "Managing Offenders—Reducing Crime", published along with the Government response "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives" on 6 January 2004, recommended separating offender management from accredited programmes as a way of developing greater contestability.

  Project Endurance
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Project Endurance. [185435]
  613W
  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]Officials from the Home Office and other Government Departments are engaged in talks with industry and law enforcement representatives concerning a possible joint public awareness campaign regarding computer security and staying safe on line. These initial discussions have gone under the title of Project Endurance.

  Public Order Act
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to police and magistrates on interpreting the meaning of what constitutes harassment, alarm and distress in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. [184065]

  Caroline Flint
  Home Office Circular 11/1987 provided guidance on section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. The Circular has been supplemented by the decisions of the courts

  Recidivism
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has commissioned research into the effectiveness of programme and case management integration on(a) programme completion and (b) re-offending rates. [181814]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office's National Probation Directorate (NPD) has commissioned one study that looked at the relationship between case management and accredited programme completion in the Probation Service. The research was conducted by Oxford University and it was managed and published by the National Probation Directorate in 2004. The Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) has evaluated it. The published findings "Think First Prospective Research Study: Effectiveness and Reducing Attrition" are available on the National Probation Service website (www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk).

  The research found that good case management was associated with improved completion rates of the Think First programme. Of greatest value was when case management involved intense supervision around the start of the programme, support with personal problems, and frequent contact after completion of the programme to assist offenders in using what had been learnt.

  NPD is planning to carry out a study to look at the impact of the Think First programme on reconviction rates (an established proxy measure for re-offending). The results should be available in 2005.

  Also, the Home Office RDS is carrying out a systematic review of the international evidence in what works in offender management in the delivery of correctional services to reduce re-offending. The results from this are expected to be available in 2005.

  Regional Offender Management
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will ensure that Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements boards will continue to function locally under regional offender management arrangements. [181816]
  614W
  Paul Goggins
  The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) will build upon the range of work probation boards undertake at a local level. The significant contribution the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements have made to public protection will form a key part of the core offender management function within NOMS.

  Operationally MAPPA usually function at a local rather than area level and will continue to do so under the arrangements for NOMS. The Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels, which oversee the management of the highest risk offenders, will continue to manage the risks posed by the individual offenders in question.

  Rehabilitation Regimes
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will measure the impact of(a) prison regimes and (b) probation work with individual offenders, if those offenders (i) move prisons and (ii) move probation areas. [167521]

  Paul Goggins
  Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) is planned as a longitudinal survey of a representative sample of around 4,000 new prisoners. The study will examine the range of interventions that prisoners receive during their sentence and whether these make a difference during and after custody. Tracking the movement of prisoners between establishments will be an important part of this work.

  A parallel study of offenders on community sentences is also planned. Investigating Targeting, Tailoring and Sequencing of Interventions on Re-offending of Offenders on Community Sentences (ITTSI) will explore how interventions work in combination to address the range of criminogenic needs of offenders on community sentences. It will track a large and representative sample of offenders; profile offenders and their needs; track experiences of interventions; and evaluate the impact of interventions in combination on reducing re-offending. The research will also aim to track any offender from the cohort who moves out of the study probation areas.

  Shotgun Licensing
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of people who will be affected by changes to the licensing on shotgun ownership; what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed changes on the number of crimes committed; how many crimes were committed with licensed shotguns in the last year for which figures are available; and what estimate he has made of the cost of implementation of the new arrangements. [185203]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government have made no specific proposals for changes to the arrangements for licensing shotgun owners. Our consultation paper on firearms control seeks views by 31 August on a range of issues concerning the use and possession of firearms. We will consider all responses carefully before deciding what needs to be done, if anything, to improve existing controls. There were 561,762 shot gun certificates on
  615W
  issue at the end of March 2003. Shot guns were used to commit 671 recorded crimes in 2002–03; it is not known how many of these were legally held.

  Departmental Publications (Storage)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many departmental publications are in storage; and where they are located. [183872]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Latest stock records show that 1,745 titles relating to the Home Office are currently in storage. This includes a wide range of departmental publications including policy and consultation documents, crime reduction materials, research documents and other public information literature.

  Stock levels are monitored to ensure that only regularly ordered materials are retained.

  Publications are stored by our contracted Data Management and Distribution Warehouse Prolog UK (Phase 2), Sherwood Park, Annesley, Nottinghamshire NG15 ODJ.

  Crime Victims
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) road use related crime victims and (b) non-road use related crime victims there were in the last year For which figures are available. [183549]

  Caroline Flint
  In Great Britain in 2002, 3,431 people were killed in road traffic incidents, 35,976 were seriously injured and 263,198 were slightly injured. A proportion of these would have involved serious motoring offences such as Careless Driving, Dangerous Driving and Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

  Information is not available on the number of victims of other forms of road use related crime, such as unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and aggravated vehicle taking or on victims of any other types of criminal offence. However, police recorded crime statistics for 2002–03 show that out of a total of 5,899,450 offences, a range of incidents related specifically to road use, as detailed in the table.

  Offence

  Number of

  Dangerous driving

  7,551

  Aggravated vehicle taking

  11,530

  Theft from a vehicle

  658,740

  Vehicle interference and tampering

  91,653

  Criminal damage to a vehicle

  428,110

  Theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle

  305,654

  Total

  1,503,238

  The remaining 4,396,212 recorded offences related largely to non-road use crime.

  Visas (China)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government has changed its policy on assessing visa applications from Chinese students. [184880]
  616W
  Mr. Mullin
  I have been asked to reply.

  There has been no change in the policy on assessing applications from Chinese students although procedures for processing applications have been revised.

  Our visa teams across China are working hard to ensure a proper balance between the facilitation of genuine student applications and effective immigration control. They have now developed better mechanisms to identify the increasing problem of visa and document abuse. Visa sections in China have also altered the procedures covering the assessment of student applications. This has streamlined the process and provided a more convenient service to the applicant, whilst reflecting increased concerns over the level of visa abuse, relating to the student market in China.

  Water Consumption
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the non-office sites within his Department's estates that have been identified as being likely to provide opportunities for significant water savings. [182227]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Prison Service has benchmarked water consumption on their estate. This has identified some 71 sites that are consuming more than typical consumption benchmark. These are as follows

  HMP Askham Grange

  HMP North Sea Camp

  HMP Brixton

  HMP Haverigg

  HMP Portsmouth Kingston

  HMP Ford

  HMP Foston Hall

  HMP Full Sutton

  HMP Long Lartin

  HMP Garth

  HMP Maidstone

  HMP Grendon/Springhill

  HMP Send

  HMP Chelmsford

  HMP Preston

  HMP Swaleside/HMP Elmley

  HMP Moorland

  HMP and YOI Guys Marsh

  HMP Blantyre House

  HMP Wayland

  HMP Dorchester

  HMP Pentonville

  HMP Bullwood Hall

  HMP Highpoint

  617W

  HMYOI Deerbolt

  HMP Standford Hill

  HMP Hewell Grange

  HMP Canterbury

  HMP Wolds

  HMP High Down

  HMP Leeds

  HMP Coldingley

  HMP Frankland

  HMP Featherstone

  HMP Wymott

  HMP The Mount

  HMP Sudbury

  HMP Lindholme

  HMP Lancaster

  HMP Shotts

  HMP Porterfield

  HMP Acklington/Castington

  HMP Lewes

  HMP Wandsworth

  HMP Gloucester

  HMYOI Huntercombe

  HMYOI Dover

  HMP Barlinnie

  HMYOI Brinsford

  HMP Kirkham

  HMP Peterhead

  HMP Hollesley Bay

  HMP East Sutton Park

  HMP Leyhill

  HMP Prescoed

  HMYOI Thorn Cross

  HMP Parkhurst

  HMP Edinburgh

  HMYOI Swinfen Hall

  HMP Holloway

  HMP Woodhill

  HMP Latchmere House

  HMP Blantyre House

  HMP Wayland

  HMP Dorchester

  HMP Pentonville

  HMP Bullwood Hall

  HMP Highpoint

  HMYOI Deerbolt

  HMP Standford Hill

  HMP Hewell Grange

  HMP Canterbury

  HMP Wolds

  HMP High Down

  HMP Leeds

  HMP Coldingley

  HMP Frankland

  HMP Featherstone

  618W

  HMP Wymott

  HMP The Mount

  HMP Sudbury

  HMP Lindholme

  HMP Lancaster

  HMP Shotts

  HMP Porterfield

  HMP Acklington/Castington

  HMP Lewes

  HMP Wandsworth

  HMP Gloucester

  HMYOI Huntercombo

  HMYOI Dover

  HMP Barlinnie

  HMYOI Brinsford

  HMP Kirkham

  HMP Peterhead

  HMP Hollesley Bay

  HMP East Sutton Park

  HMP Leyhill

  HMP Prescoed

  HMYOI Thorn Cross

  HMP Parkhurst

  HMP Edinburgh

  HMYOI Swinfen Hall

  HMP Holloway

  HMP Woodhill

  HMP Latchmere House

  HMP New Hall

  HMP Wealstun

  HMP and YOI Drake Hall

  HMP/RC Exeter

  HMP Doncaster

  HMYOI Werrington

  HMP Portland

  HMYOI Portland

  HMP North Sea Camp

  HMP Haverigg

  HMP Ford

  HMP Full Sutton

  HMP Garth

  HMP Grendon/Spring hill

  HMP Chelmsford

  HMP Swaleside/HMP Elmley

  HMP and YOI Guys Marsh

  Immigration Removal Centres, Contracted Out Prisons and Forensic Science Service Laboratories have not been benchmarked, but their sites listed as follows, may have a potential for significant water savings.

  Immigration Removal Centres

  Campsfield House

  Colnbrook

  Dover

  Forest Bank

  Haslar

  Lindholme

  Oakington

  619W

  Tinsley House

  Yarls Wood Dungavel

  Privately Managed Prisons

  Altcourse

  Ashfield

  Dovegate

  Forest Bank

  Lowdham Grange

  Parc

  Rye Hill

  Bronzefield

  Doncaster

  The Wolds

  Forensic Science Service Laboratories

  Lambeth

  Huntingdon

  Chepstow

  Chorley

  Cost (£000)

  Prison Consumption (m3)

  Consumption per prisoner (m3)

  Cost (£)

  Non-prison Consumption (m3)

  align="right">Consumption per staff member (m3)

  1997–98

  10,512

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1998–99

  11,172

  8,598,181

  138.7

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1999–2000

  11,312

  8,313,496

  138.4

  n/a

  n/a

  16

  2000–01

  9,491

  8,123,215

  138.0

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  2001–02

  10,041

  8,361,421

  135.8

  n/a

  143,091

  13.9

  2002–03

  10,761

  8,147,572

  125.7

  176,000

  202,520

  12.7

  2003–04

  11,127

  7,661,278

  114.4

  1–

  1–

  1

  n/a – not available

  1Not yet known

  Notes:

  1. The non-prison figures relate to key office buildings in the core Home Office and UK Passport Agency.

  2. The figures do not include any Home Office sponsored non-departmental public bodies.

  3. The Prison Service figures for 2003–01 are provisional.

  Watermark Project
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has joined the Watermark project. [182225]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office joined the Watermark project in 2001.

HEALTH

  Social Work Degree
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bursaries have been taken up by students studying for the new social work degree. [185525]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The total number of social work bursaries awarded by the General Social Care Council in the 2003–04 academic year was 7,626.

  This represents students on the new degree and diploma in social work programmes. It is not possible to separately identify those on the new degree.
  620W

  Wetherby

  Priory House

  Trident Court

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much(a) his Department and (b) agencies of the Department have spent on water and sewerage services in each year since 1997; [182218]

  (2) what changes there have been in water consumption by his Department between each year since 1997. [182226]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Prison Service has collected its water consumption and cost figures centrally for the period covered by the question. The non-prison estate has only been collecting water consumption figures for key office buildings since 1999–2000, when these figures were included in the annual "Sustainable Development in Government" annual reports (previously known as the Greening Government annual report). As these reports only required consumption per staff member figures, information on consumption prior to 2001—02 was not retained. The figures are set out in the table.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) under the age of 40, (b) aged 40 to 50 and (c) aged 50 to 60 years are (i) diagnosed with Alzheimer's and (ii) receiving NHS treatment for Alzheimer's. [185414]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Although the Department does not routinely collect information on the number of people diagnosed with dementia, there are an estimated 750,000 people with dementia in the United Kingdom, of whom around 400,000 have Alzheimer's disease (around 55 per cent.). Around 18,000 of the total number of people with dementia are aged under 65 years.

  Anaphylaxis
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England have died from anaphylaxis in each of the last five years; how many hospital doctors in England have received specialist training in the treatment of anaphylaxis; and what plans he has to fund further(a) research and (b) professional development in this field. [184431]
  621W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows the number of deaths in England and Wales between 1998—2002 where one or more of the conditions mentioned on the death certificate was classified as anaphylactic shock by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

  Number of deaths where the underlying or one of the contributory causes of death was classified as anaphylactic shock1 England and Wales, 1998 to 20022

  Calendar year

  Number of deaths

  1998

  9

  1999

  12

  2000

  11

  2001

  3

  2002

  10

  1Causes of death were classified as anaphylactic shock for the years 1998 to 2000 using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes

  995.0—Anaphylactic shock

  999.4—Anaphylactic shock due to serum

  and for the years 2001 and 2002 using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes

  T78.0—Anaphylactic shock due to adverse food reaction

  T78.2—Anaphylactic shock, unspecified

  T80.5—Anaphylactic shock due to serum

  T88.6—Anaphylactic shock due to adverse effect of correct drug or medicament properly administered.

  2 Figures are based on deaths occurring in each calendar year

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Information is not available centrally on hospital doctors who have received specialist training in anaphylaxis. Post registration training needs for national health service staff are determined against local

  Number of prescription items of antipsychotics dispensed in the community in England by strategic health authorities, 2001 to 2003

  Thousand

  Number of prescription items of Atypical Antipsychotics

  Number of prescription items of Traditional Antipsychotics

  Number of prescription items of all Antipsychotics

  Strategic health authority in which dispensed

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  72.5

  98.2

  124.0

  146.3

  131.2

  121.2

  218.8

  229.4

  245.2

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  55.8

  73.8

  88.1

  63.1

  53.7

  47.8

  119.0

  127.5

  135.9

  Essex

  54.3

  70.7

  87.3

  73.0

  62.8

  56.5

  127.2

  133.4

  143.8

  North West London

  65.5

  87.6

  104.9

  71.0

  60.0

  51.8

  136.5

  147.6

  156.7

  North Central London

  53.4

  69.0

  80.0

  57.0

  47.8

  41.9

  110.4

  116.8

  121.9

  North East London

  57.6

  75.3

  94.3

  61.7

  53.4

  47.8

  119.4

  128.7

  142.0

  South East London

  54.7

  72.0

  86.9

  59.7

  48.6

  42.0

  114.5

  120.6

  128.9

  South West London

  55.8

  71.7

  86.0

  53.7

  45.1

  40.9

  109.5

  116.8

  127.0

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  71.0

  90.3

  108.9

  83.5

  70.5

  61.4

  154.5

  160.9

  170.2

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  40.5

  54.2

  71.1

  83.5

  72.2

  65.8

  124.0

  126.5

  137.0

  North and East Yorkshire and North

  Lincolnshire

  51.1

  72.9

  94.2

  100.1

  90.3

  79.4

  151.1

  163.2

  173.6

  West Yorkshire

  96.9

  128.5

  159.2

  133.4

  119.5

  110.7

  230.3

  247.9

  270.0

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  86.7

  118.5

  148.9

  134.9

  120.3

  108.0

  221.7

  238.8

  256.8

  Greater Manchester

  127.6

  168.1

  218.1

  223.3

  194.6

  178.6

  345.8

  362.6

  396.7

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  121.5

  162.0

  200.4

  180.6

  161.1

  146.2

  302.1

  323.1

  346.6

  Thames Valley

  70.3

  94.0

  115.8

  81.2

  70.4

  62.2

  151.5

  164.4

  178.0

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  76.8

  101.2

  123.0

  94.0

  81.6

  75.1

  170.9

  182.8

  198.1

  Kent and Medway

  59.9

  79.0

  96.8

  76.2

  63.4

  56.3

  136.1

  142.4

  153.2

  Surrey and Sussex

  90.1

  117.4

  147.7

  141.6

  120.7

  104.9

  231.7

  238.1

  252.5

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  73.4

  101.7

  127.6

  120.7

  103.7

  92.4

  194.1

  205.5

  220.0

  South West Peninsula

  62.7

  82.3

  100.1

  109.4

  95.3

  83.6

  172.2

  177.6

  183.7

  Somerset and Dorset

  37.8

  51.9

  64.7

  65.1

  57.4

  50.5

  102.9

  109.3

  115.2

  South Yorkshire

  37.8

  52.0

  68.3

  94.2

  83.7

  75.3

  132.0

  135.7

  143.6

  Trent

  54.1

  77.5

  103.4

  171.6

  153.3

  136.1

  225.7

  230.8

  239.5

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  43.6

  60.5

  78.5

  80.2

  72.2

  68.3

  123.8

  132.7

  146.8

  622W
  NHS priorities, through appraisal processes and training needs analyses informed by Local Delivery Plans and the needs of the service.

  The main agency through which the Government supports medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology. The Medical Research Council does not currently fund any research directly on anaphylaxis. However, the Council does fund a considerable amount of basic underpinning research in immunology and allergy which may lead to further understanding of the mechanisms involved.

  Antipsychotic Drugs
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many prescription items were dispensed in the community in England for atypical antipsychotic drugs, in each of the last three years(a) broken down by health authority and (b) in total; and if he will make a statement; [184801]

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (2) how many prescription items were dispensed in the community in England for all antipsychotic drugs, in each of the last three years(a) broken down by health authority and (b) in total; and if he will make a statement. [184802]

  Ms Rosie Winterten
  Information on the numbers of prescription items of atypical traditional and all antipsychotic drugs dispensed in the community in England in each of the last three years broken down by strategic health authority is shown in the table.
  623W

  Number of prescription items of antipsychotics dispensed in the community in England by strategic health authorities, 2001 to 2003

  Thousand

  Number of prescription items of Atypical Antipsychotics

  Number of prescription items of Traditional Antipsychotics

  Number of prescription items of all Antipsychotics

  Strategic health authority in which dispensed

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  43.6

  58.6

  73.8

  85.5

  73.7

  66.8

  129.2

  132.3

  140.6

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  76.4

  105.9

  137.4

  150.1

  131.5

  118.0

  226.5

  237.4

  255.4

  West Midlands South

  55.4

  76.3

  94.3

  81.2

  68.9

  61.9

  136.6

  145.3

  156.2

  England

  1,842.0

  2,471.3

  3,083.7

  2,876.0

  2,507.2

  2,251.3

  4,718.0

  4,978.5

  5,335.0

  1. PCA data covers all prescription item; that are dispensed in the community in England, (this covers items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors. dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered PCA data does not include items dispensed in hospitals or private prescriptions.

  2. Antipsychotics are defined in the British National Formulary (BNF) paragraph 4.2.1, antipsychotic drugs. Atypical antipsychotics cover the drugs Amisulpride, Clozapine, Oianzapine, Quetiapine, Risperidone, Sertindole and Zotepine contained within BNF 4.2.1. Antipsychotic depot injections (BNF 4.2.2) haw been excluded from this analysis. the same as the StHA in which the drug was prescribed.

  3. The information by Strategic Health Authority (StHA) is the StHA in which the drug was dispensed in the community. This is not necessarily

  4. Doctors, dentists or nurses write prescriptions on a prescription form. Each single item written on the form is counted as a prescription item.

  Source:

  Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) data from the Prescription Pricing Authority

  Art Therapy
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contribution art therapy has made towards patient treatment and recovery within the NHS; and what plans the Government has to recruit more art therapists. [185366]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not recently commissioned or undertaken a national review of the contribution of art therapy. Primal y care trusts (PCTs) have the responsibility for improving the health of the community, securing the provision of high quality services and integrating health and social care locally. They are also responsible for addressing the service needs of their local communities and developing the workforce they require to deliver services. In commissioning services, PCTs need to plan local services near to patients and ensure that they are identifying the health needs of patients and securing services for them. It is for PCTs, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Bacterial Meningitis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the cost of providing a booster vaccination for bacterial meningitis; [185408]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce a booster vaccination programme for bacterial meningitis; and if he will make a statement. [185409]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since the meningitis C vaccine was introduced into the United Kingdom, rates of this disease have fallen by over 90 per cent.

  We currently have no plans to introduce a booster dose. However, we carefully monitor rates of disease and other evidence to ensure our vaccination programme offers the most effective and safest protection.

  Bed Occupancy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the bed occupancy rates were in(a) England, (b) each strategic health authority and (c) each NHS hospital trust in each year since 1996. [184098]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on beds is collected on a provider basis from national health service organisations and the latest data available are for the year 2002–03. Beds data for 2003–04 will be published later this year.

  The table shows the average occupancy rate for England between 1996–97 and 2002–03.

  NHS organisation data are available from the Department's website from 2000-01 at www.performance.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/index.htm. Beds data from 1987–88 to 1999–2000 are available in the Library.

  Average daily number of available and occupied beds in wards open overnight, England, 1996–97 to 2002–03

  Percentage occupancy

  All specialties

  General and acute

  1996–97

  81.3

  80.8

  1997–98

  80.9

  80.5

  1998–99

  82.5

  82.5

  1999–2000

  82.7

  83.1

  2000–01

  84.0

  84.7

  2001–02

  85.1

  86.0

  2002–03

  85.4

  86.5

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO3

  Births/Terminations
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) births and (b) terminations there were of babies with Down's Syndrome in each of the last five years; [181536]

  (2) how many (a) births and (b) terminations there were of babies with (i) spina bifida, (ii) heart defects and (iii) kidney problems recognised during pregnancy in each of the last five years; [181538]
  625W
  (3) if he will estimate the percentage of terminations conducted in each of the past 10 years on account of potential handicap of the baby; [181539]

  (4) if he will estimate the number of terminations conducted on account of (a) foot deformities, (b) cleft lips and (c) cleft palates in each of the past five years. [181541]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is published annually in the Office for National Statistics publication, "Congenital Anomaly Statistics Notifications", series MB3; copies of which are available in the Library.

  In each of the past 10 years, one per cent. of the total number of abortions performed on residents of England and Wales were performed under section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967 (that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped).

  Bureaucracy
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Written Statement of 20 May 2004,Official Report, columns 61-4WS, on bureaucracy, (1) what the budget of each arm's length body is in this financial year; and how many staff in each body are (a) providing duplicated functions and (b) involved in unnecessary regulatory and policy activities; [176714]

  (2) if he will list the arm's length bodies he has identified which could be moved to a more independent status with greater stakeholder control; [176717]

  (3) how many of the planned 25 per cent. fewer staff posts will be lost through (a) natural wastage,(b) compulsory redundancy, (c) transfer to another arm's length body and (d) transfer to his Department; [176715]

  (4) if he will list the arm's length bodies he has identified to be merged or closed; and which of these was created in the last six years; [176716]

  (5) if he will list the unnecessary regulatory and policy activities identified in the review of arm's length bodies. [176718]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  For budgetary information, I refer the hon. Member to the reply sent to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) today.

  A report on the Department's review of its arm's length bodies was published today by way of a written statement.

  Canteen Facilities
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of running the Department of Health's canteen facilities in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [184553]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]The Department's canteen facilities are run on a nil subsidy basis and there is no direct payment to the catering contractor. Utilities to the canteen facilities are provided free of charge, but are not separately metered and cost cannot be apportioned.

  Children of Related Parents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he makes available to the public concerning the possible health implications for children born from patients who are cousins or otherwise related. [183781]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Specific guidance or information is not issued direct to the public concerning the possible health implications for children born from parents who are related. National Health Service genetics counselling services are provided for families affected by genetic disorders, appropriate to their needs and circumstance, irrespective of whether the parents are related or not.

  Civil Service Recruitment
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [185460]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Boateng) on 20 July 2004,Official Report, column 190W.

  Continuing Care
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many of(a) the total number of applicants for NHS continuing care funding and (b) the number of successful applicants who are awarded continuing care suffer from (i) a form of dementia and Alzheimer's disease; and if he will make a statement;[185991]

  (2) how many people in receipt of NHS continuing care are (a) living in their own home, (b) living in a care home and (c) in hospital, broken down by strategic health authority; and if he will make a statement; [185995]

  (3) what the average funding per week is for those who receive fully funded NHS continuing care; and if he will make a statement. [186008]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department does not routinely collect, or hold, this data centrally.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action NHS bodies have taken to make local people aware of the available process for review of cases where applicants may have been wrongly denied NHS continuing care. [185992]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Continued national coverage, through the media and the health service ombudsman's reports, has ensured a high level of awareness and National Health Service bodies have used a range of actions to further improve awareness of the recompense process. These methods include working with voluntary bodies, local media interviews, advertising within local newspapers or other publications and case finding.
  627W
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average length of time is between a local health authority making a decision about an applicant's eligibility for NHS continuing care and informing the applicant about that decision; [185997]

  (2) what the average length of time taken to process an application for fully funded NHS continuing care is, broken down by strategic health authority; and if he will make a statement. [186007]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This data is not collected by the Department. As stated in Directions, published earlier this year, when an individual has been assessed for fully funded National Health Service continuing care and is dissatisfied with the outcome, a review should be completed

  within two weeks of the individual registering their dissatisfaction.

  A Written Ministerial Statement made to the House 22 June 2004, stated that it is expected that all reviews as a result of the Health Service Ombudsman's 2003 report will be completed within two months of all the information on the case being received by the strategic health authority.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rejected applications for NHS continuing care since 2000 have been overturned following an appeal, broken down by strategic health authority; and if he will make a statement. [185998]

  Dr. Lady man
  My written statement, of 22 June 2004, Official Report, column 78WS, details the number of cases which, as a result of the Health Service Ombudsman's 2003 report, have undergone a retrospective review, and the number found to have been wrongly assessed, broken down by strategic health authority.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often a person in receipt of NHS continuing care must be re-assessed to ascertain whether they are still eligible for this funding; and if he will make a statement. [185999]

  Dr. Ladyman
  As care is needs based, individuals should be reassessed when their needs change to ensure that they continue to receive the correct level and type of care. This was reiterated and reinforced in the Continuing Care (National Health Service Responsibilities) Directions.

  Correspondence
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will respond to the letters written by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle on(a) 13 May and (b) 24 June to the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central regarding the inquiry into clinical governance at the Conquest hospital, East Sussex before the House rises on 22 July. [185502]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I responded to the hon. Member on 22 July.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a returners scheme for NHS dental practitioners.[183328]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A scheme for dental returners was launched in June. This provides incentives for dentists to return to practice. It is operated by the recruitment and returning advisers in each strategic health authority who liase with individual dentists and assess the level of support they may need.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of Government funding for dentistry services was in(a) Wales, (b) England, (c) Herefordshire and (d) Worcestershire in each year since 1997. [183946]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  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 1997 is 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 for Hampshire and Worcestershire 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.

  NHS dental service: gross and net fees paid for by the GDS March ending each year

  £ million

  Year/health authority (HA)/primary care trust (PCT)

  Gross fees

  Net fees1

  1997–98

  England

  1,271.0

  882.2

  Wales

  73.3

  52.4

  Herefordshire HA

  4.5

  2.8

  Worcestershire HA

  13.5

  8.7

  1998–99

  England

  1,351.90

  931.8

  Wales

  78.4

  55.9

  Herefordshire HA

  4.9

  3.0

  Worcestershire HA

  13.9

  9.1

  1999–2000

  England

  1,394.3

  962.1

  Wales

  81.8

  58.1

  Herefordshire HA

  5.0

  3.1

  Worcestershire HA

  14.3

  9.3

  2000–01

  England

  1,453.6

  1,000.2

  Wales

  85.3

  60.7

  Herefordshire HA

  5.0

  3.2

  Worcestershire HA

  14.5

  9.3

  2001–02

  England

  1,502.3

  1,032.3

  Wales

  87.7

  63.2

  Herefordshire HA

  5.0

  3.3

  Worcestershire HA

  14.9

  9.7

  629W

  NHS dental service: gross and net fees paid for by the GDS March ending each year

  £ million

  Year/health authority (HA)/primary care trust (PCT)

  Gross fees

  Net fees1

  2002–03

  First half of 2002–03

  England

  769.6

  529.6

  Wales

  50.4

  28.6

  Herefordshire HA

  2.4

  1.6

  Worcestershire HA

  7.5

  4.9

  Second half of 2002-–03

  England

  774.1

  532.5

  Wales

  45.9

  32.9

  Herefordshire PCT

  2.3

  1.6

  South Worcestershire PCT

  3.8

  2.4

  Redditch and Bromsgrove PCT

  2.5

  1.7

  Wyre Forest PCT

  1.5

  1.0

  2003–04

  England

  1,589.2

  1,105.5

  Wales

  92.5

  66.8

  Herefordshire PCT

  4.5

  3.1

  South Worcestershire PCT

  7.9

  5.2

  Redditch and Bromsgrove PCT

  5.3

  3.6

  Wyre Forest PCT

  2.8

  2.0

  1Exclude patient charge

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists left the national health service in each of the last seven years. [185871]

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2011

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Number printed

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2,500

  1,500

  1,500

  Number sold

  n/a

  750

  672

  605

  634

  507

  463

  1342

  Publication cost (£)2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  37,865

  42,253

  31,668

  18,282

  27,626

  Notes:

  n/a = Information not available.

  1The Stationery Office has indicated that it expects further sales of around 100 copies.

  2 The publication costs are those that fall directly to the Department for design, typesetting and artwork. II remaining costs for printing and publication were met centrally by the Stationery Office

  Departmental Priorities
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Chancellor of the Exchequer and (b) the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury regarding departmental priorities. [180531]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been in regular discussions with the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

  Epilepsy (Dogs)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission research into the use of dogs trained to alert people with epilepsy of an impending fit; and if he will make a statement. [184208]

  Dr. Ladyman
  No. The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research (MRC). The MRC is an independent body funded by the Department of Trade
  630W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the total number of dentists leaving the general dental service (GDS) or personal dental service (PDS) is given in the table. Information is not available on the reason for leaving. The leavers include dentists who are retiring or taking a career break.

  General dental service and personal dental service: Number of leavers at 30 September each year—England and Wales

  Exits

  1998

  1,000

  1999

  1,066

  2000

  1,228

  2001

  1,257

  2002

  1,374

  2003

  1,256

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board

  Dentists on the GDS and PDS are mainly self-employed and are free to vary the amount of national health service work they do. Information is not collected on private working.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [183887]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is shown in the table. The Departmental report is also available free of chat ge via the Department's website.

  and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology. In 2001–02 it spent £3.65 million on research into epilepsy. The Department's national health service research and development programme is additionally supporting a £1.35 million trial of longer term clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of standard and new antiepileptic drugs.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what checks his Department makes on the accuracy of food labelling; what amendments to the requirements he has considered; what representations he has received on this issue; and if he will make a statement. [185146]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Food labelling rules, which are agreed at European Union level, prohibit false or misleading labelling. Local authorities enforce them. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) carries out ad-hoc surveys, in close co-operation with local authorities, to
  631W
  check the accuracy of certain aspects of labelling, for example where new methodology is being employed to tackle suspected food problems.

  Where ad-hoc surveys identity shortcomings in current legislation, these may be resolved through the establishment of FSA or industry guidance or by working toward changes in EU legislation.

  Foundation Trusts
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost has been of conducting elections for the membership of boards on the proposed foundation trusts, broken down by(a) staff costs, (b) costs of payments to the Electoral Reform Society, (c) costs of setting up databases, (d) publicity, (e) recruitment of members and (f) public consultations.[185639]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 July 2004]The cost of conducting elections is a matter for each national health service organisation applying for NHS foundation trust status. These costs will not be entirely additional, as they will replicate some current activity that trusts are already doing around informing the public, patients and staff about issues affecting each trust.

  General Practitioners (Out-of-hours Service)
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on hospital emergency services of Nottingham general practitioners shifting their out-of-hours service to an arm's length provider. [184968]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There is to be no change to the pattern of provision for 80 per cent. of Nottingham residents already served by the general practitioner co-operative, Nottingham Emergency Medical Services (NEMS), and which have been in place for six years. Rather than an 'arm's length provider', NEMS is currently constituted as a not-for-profit GP co-operative with over 300 GP members. It will be moving in 2005 to a community interest mutual company with significant local population and stakeholder involvement.

  No adverse impact of the NEMS service on emergency care has been identified by local emergency services and only 1 per cent, of out-of-hours patient contacts are referred to emergency services by NEMS. NEMS is an active participant of the local emergency care network and continues to lave a close working relationship with other local emergency care services.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of calls to National Emergency Medical Services doctors in Nottingham resulted in(a) a home visit by the doctor and (b) a vehicle being sent to collect the patient in the last year for which figures are available. [184972]

  Dr. Ladyman
  7,406, or 12.4 per cent. of all out-of- hours patient contacts with Nottingham Emergency Medical Services (NEMS) resulted in a home visit last year. Over 70 per cent. of the visits were done in under two hours.

  2,951, or 5 per cent. of all out-of-hours patients who contacted NEMS used NEMS transport last year. Out-of-hours patient transport was introduced voluntarily
  632W
  by NEMS when it began operations in 1998. It is to support access to care for patients unable to access alternative means of transport to the NEMS primary care centre. The service is free and ensures that the patient is returned home after their consultation.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the activities of the Green Minister in the Department in financial year 2001–04. [185126]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department is a key player in supporting the Government's objective of building a fair, inclusive and economically thriving society through improving and protecting the health and social well being of the people of England. Sustainable development is an intrinsic part of this aim.

  As the Department's Green Minister, I have a number of responsibilities that help underpin sustainable development goals. These include health inequalities, healthy eating, for example, '5 a Day', and physical activity, such as activity co-ordination teams. My on-going portfolio of work in these, and other, areas actively contributes to the delivery of sustainable development. Further details of the Department's work in these areas can be found at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/ PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/fs/en

  Recent work has centred on the Department's public health consultation, Choosing Health? We are working closely with colleagues in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that our proposals in the 'Choosing Health?' consultation encompass the broad aims of sustainable development, particularly with respect to improving health, promoting community development and social justice.

  I recently spoke about the 'Choosing Health?' consultation at a meeting of the sustainable development taskforce.

  Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost was of conducting the elections of public and patients to the board of Guy's and St. Thomas' Foundation Trust; and if he will break down the total, by sums for(a) staff costs, (b) publicity, (c) recruitment of members, (d) payments to the Electoral Reform Society, (e) building a database and (f) public consultation. [185638]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 July 2004]This is a matter for the chair of Guy's and St. Thomas' National Health Service Foundation Trust. I have written to Dr. Patricia Mobberley, chair, informing her of my hon. Friend's inquiry.

  Health Literacy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the health literacy of the population of England; and what plans he has for a future assessment.[186012]
  633W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Health literacy relates to the ability to navigate the health care system and to get the most out of health care services and information about health including self care and healthy living. It correlates strongly with levels of educational attainment. It is estimated that in England 5.2 million adults have poor literacy levels.

  Hospital Infections
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people who died in Basildon and Thurrock Hospital Trust hospital wards in each of the past three years were suffering from MRSA or related infections; and if he will make a statement. [185736]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 21 July 2004]Information on the number of patients who died in Basildon and Thurrock University Hospital Trust over the past three years is not held centrally.

  It is difficult to produce statistics on methicillin resistant "Staphylococcus aureus" (MRSA) because there are no codes for antibiotic resistance in the international classification of diseases. However, they will be introduced in the future: thus, better data should be available.

  However, the results of a recent special study has shown that deaths involving MRSA have increased substantially from 1993 to 2002. The number of certificates with any mention of MRSA either as the underlying cause or contributing factor increased from 51 in 1993 to 800 in 2002.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance the Department has given to Heriot-Watt University in developing new drugs to combat MRSA; and if he will make a statement.[184419]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None. The Department last year commissioned a £2.5 million strategic programme of research aimed at improving scientific understanding of antimicrobial resistance. £590,000 of that total sum will be spent on projects that will provide useful information relating to best practice in preventing methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus.

  King's College Hospital Foundation Trust
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost of conducting the elections of public and patients to the board of governors of the proposed King's College Hospital Foundation Trust was; and if he will break down the total, by sums for(a) recruitment of members, (b) publicity, (c) setting up of a database, (d) payment to the Electoral Reform Society and (e) staff time. [185636]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 July 2004]The Department does not hold information on the costs of conducting elections in individual national health service organisations. The cost of conducting elections is a matter for each NHS organisation applying for NHS foundation trust status. These costs will not be entirely additional as they will replicate some current activity that trusts are already doing around informing the public, patients and staff about issues affecting each trust.

  Latex Gloves
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish updated guidance to NHS employers on the us of powdered latex gloves. [184104]

  Mr. Hutton
  Allergic reactions following exposure to natural rubber latex have risen significantly over the past 10 years, particularly within healthcare occupations and this prompted action by the Department and the NHS Purchasing and Supplies Agency to remove powdered latex gloves, (the biggest cause of latex sensitisation), from sale to national health service employers. This action has reduced significantly the incidence of latex allergy, and has been followed up by the Department and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) issuing a later toolkit. The toolkit covers issues concerning latex allergy, including what steps employers and employees should be taking to avoid it in the workplace. It also includes comprehensive advice on single-use glove selection, taking into account the importance of infection control. The toolkit can be found at: www.hse.gov.uk/latex

  Major Incident Plans
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of National Health Service trusts meet(a) all, (b) at least six and (c) four or fewer of the eight criteria against which their major incident plans and preparedness have been assessed. [177255]

  Mr. Hutton
  In response to a specific survey of National Health Service major incident planning conducted by the Department last year, all strategic health authorities confirmed that, when judged against the eight criteria, all NHS trusts in their area had met these eight criteria and could be assessed as being at least "prepared" to respond to major incidents.

  Market Research
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on(a) opinion polling and (b) focus group, in each year since 2001. [185868]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A list of the Department's expenditure incurred on opinion polls and focus groups in each year since 2001 can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Medical Trainees (Electives)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 6 July 2004,Official Report, column 613W, on medical trainees (electives), what the total cost in England was of sending undergraduate medical students on electives in 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [184207]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no cost to the national health service where undergraduate medical students decide to go abroad to gain experience as part of their training.

  Individual university medical schools determine their own undergraduate medical curriculum in the light of recommendations from the General Medical Council's education committee, which has the statutory responsibility to determine the extent, knowledge and skill required for the granting of primary medical

  635W
  qualifications in the United Kingdom. We welcome any educational experience that adds to a student's knowledge of medicine and broadens his or her experience of, and perspective on, healthcare systems at home and overseas.

  Midwifery
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to take in response to the Independent Midwives Association's proposed model for midwifery, The NHS Community Midwifery Model. [182978]

  Dr. Ladyman
  To met with representatives of the Independent Midwives Association on 6 May to discuss their proposed model. At the meeting, they agreed to provide me with further information on the acceptability of the model for midwives and users of the maternity service. This is awaited.

  In the meantime, the model is being considered as part of the on-going work looking at midwifery recruitment and retention.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research into myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome his Department(a) is conducting and (b) has commissioned since 1997. [184515]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body, funded by the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology.

  The MRC is currently funding two complementary trials into various treatments options for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) that aim to improve quality of life for those who are ill. The Department is meeting part of the cost of the trials. Patient recruitment will start later this year.

  The first trial is known as pacing, activity and cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised evaluation (PACE). PACE will be led by Dr. Peter White at St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London, Dr. Michael Sharpe of the University of Edinburgh and Dr. Trudie Chalder of King's College London

  The second trial, known as fatigue intervention by nurses evaluation (FINE), will test two different treatments that are particularly suited to those who are too ill to attend a specialist clinic. FINE will be headed by Dr. Alison Wearden at the University of Manchester.

  The MRC also funded a research project: "The role of Noradrenaline in the Neuropsychological Pathogenesis of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome", which was completed in 1998.

  The Department has separately over the last seven years commissioned a number of small scale research projects related to aspects of CFS ME and, through the national health service research and development programme, is funding: "Cognitive Behavioural Therapy in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Randomised Controlled Trial of an Out-patient Group Programme."

  NHS E-mail
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of reaching a settlement with EDS in respect of the cancelled contract for NHS e-mail and directory services. [185067]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]The National Health Service Information Authority (NHSIA) has reached a settlement with Electronic Data Services Corporation (EDS), following mediation, without admission of liability on either side. The terms provide for the payment by the NHSIA of outstanding invoices. They further provide that should EDS make redundancies as a consequence of the change of service provider, the NHSIA will indemnify the actual costs incurred. The NHSIA will also make payments in respect of costs relating to the conclusion of the project. Further details of the settlement are covered by a legally-binding confidentiality agreement.

  The exact costs are not yet known, but will be clarified when the contract ends in October.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) clinical and (b) non-clinical staff are employed by the national health service; and what plans he has to change the numbers. [184043]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of clinical and non-clinical staff employed by the national health service is shown in the table.

  The Government expects that, within the clinical staff group, over a 2001 baseline, there will be increases of 15,000 general practitioners (GPs) and consultants, 35,000 nurses and midwives and 30,000 therapists and scientists by 2008. The nursing and midwifery forecast has already been achieved and significant progress has been made towards the others, as at September 2003, there were 35,978 more nurses and midwives, 5,231 more GPs and consultants and 11,825 more therapists and scientists than in September 2001.

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): Total employed staff by clinical1 and non-clinical2 staff in England as at 30 September 2003

  Headcount

  Total employed staff (HCHS)

  1,144,697

  Clinical staff1

  886,839

  Qualified clinical staff

  583,566

  Other clinical staff

  303,273

  Non-clinical staff2

  257,858

  1Clinical staff consists of HCHS medical and dental staff (excluding locums), ambulance staff, nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, scientific, therapeutic and technical staff and health care assistants and other support staff.

  2 Non-clinical staff consists of administration and estates staff and other non-medical staff and those with unknown classification.

  Note:

  All figures in this table exclude GP and GP practice staff.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  NHS Funding
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding the NHS received in 2003–04. [185517]

  Mr. Hutton
  Total net expenditure in the national health service in England, in 2003–04, is estimated to be £63.7 billion. Outturn figures will be available in the autumn.

  NHS Statistics (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS beds were available in Greater London, broken down by national health service trust, in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [179395]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service is treating patients in better more efficient ways, for example the proportion of finished admission episodes at London NHS providers classified as day cases (where patients are admitted to hospital for a planned surgical procedure, returning home on the same day) increased from 28.8 per cent. in 1997–98 to 31.8 per cent. in 2002–03. Over the same period the total number of finished admission episodes increase by 15.6 per cent. to 1,639,915.

  We have also increased capacity outside of hospitals with the introduction of 10 NHS treatment centres in London. Treatment centres separate elective care from emergency care so that it is not disrupted and between April 2003 and May this year, 65,000 patients received treatment in this way.

  To make healthcare more convenient for patients, the NHS is increasingly offering services in primary care or in outpatient departments, without the need for a hospital admission. With more staff, more facilities and new ways of working, more patients are being treated in primary care.

  The information requested on NHS beds has been placed in the Library.

  NHS Non-clinical Staff (Research)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding the role of non-clinical staff in the national health service. [184045]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has commissioned a range of research projects on the national health service workforce, including on ward staffing, training, pay and human resource management and staff involvement, which has included in its scope staff in non-clinical roles. Full details of these and other policy research programme projects are on the Department website at http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/ResearchAndDevelopment/PolicyResearchProgramme/fs/en

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible have been(a) established and (b) abolished since 1997. [182940]
  638W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since 1997, the Department has established 32 and abolished 25 executive, advisory and tribunal non-departmental public bodies.

  Oral Health
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the oral health of UK citizens is measured. [185177]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  National surveys of the oral health of adult citizens in England and Wales have been carried out since 19(8 and across the United Kingdom since 1978 and have been undertaken on a 10 year basis since then.

  National surveys of child dental health in the UK commenced in 1973 Ind have also been undertaken on a 10 year basis. The initial results of the most recent survey in 2003 were Published by the Office for National Statistics on 30 June 2004.

  Out-of-hours Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms are in place to ensure that people are receiving high quality, safe services from private providers of out-of-hours primary care services; and if he will make a statement. [184103]

  Mr. Hutton
  In England, all organised providers of out of hours services including private providers, must meet the national quality standards, which ensure that patients receive the highest quality care. Primary care trusts (PCTs) have a legal responsibility to provide an out-of-hours service for their patients, which meets the national quality Standards.

  PCTs will monitor their providers in the delivery of their services in the management of their contracts, to ensure they meet the standards, and the strategic health authorities in turn will performance manage the PCTs in delivering these services.

  Pharmaceutical Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has made to align out-of-hours pharmaceutical services with the new arrangements for general practitioner services.[185780]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Pharmacy opening hours are being discussed as part of the new community pharmacy contractual framework negotiations. Discussions are on-going.

  Primary Care Trust Mergers
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is regarding the maintenance of independent decision making for each component trust where the managements of adjacent primary care trusts that were previously autonomous are merged. [185979]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no national policy regarding the maintenance of independent decision-making for each component trust where the management arrangements of adjacent primary care trusts (PCTs) are shared.

  This is a local issue for consideration by PCTs and to be supported by their respective strategic health authorities.

  Private Sector Operations
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the annual cost to the NHS of contributing towards the cost of all those opting for private sector operations at a r ate of 50 per cent. of the NHS cost for the equivalent operation. [181145]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 June 2004]The estimated cost to the Exchequer about £1 billion per year.

  Public Bodies (Staffling)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many staff are employed by(a) the Independent Regulator of Foundation Trusts and (b) the Modernisation Agency; and what the budget of each is for this financial year; [175320]

  (2) how many staff are employed by (a) the Mental Health Act Commission, (b) the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, (c) the National Biological Standards Board, (d) the Family Health Services Appeal Authority, (e) the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, (f) the National Radiological Protection Board and (g) the Public Health Laboratory Service; and what the budget is of each for this financial year; [175323]

  (3) how many staff are employed by (a) the Healthcare Commission, (b) the Commission for Social Care Inspection, (c) the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, (d) NHS Estates, (e) the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, (f) NHSU and (g) the NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service; and what the budget of each is for this financial year. [175324]

  (4) how many staff are employed by (a) the NHS Pensions Agency, (b) NHS Professionals, (c) the Microbiological Research Authority (d) the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals, (e) the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board, (f) the National Joint Registry and (g) NHS Direct; and what the budget of each is for this financial year; [175321]

  (5) how many staff are employ by (a) the Health Development Agency, (b) the NHS Information Authority, (c) the General Social Care Council, (d) the NHS Litigation Authority, (e) the NHS Logistics Authority, (f) the Dental Practice Board, (g) the National Patient Safety Agency, (h) UK Transplant and (i) the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; and what the budget of each is for this financial year; [175322]

  (6) how many staff are employ by (a) the Dental Vocational Training Authority, (b) the NHS Appointments Commission, (c) the Health Protection Agency, (d) the National clinical Assessment Authority, (e) the National Blood Authority, (f) the National Treatment Agency, (g) the Prescription Pricing Authority and (h) the National Prescribing Centre; and what the budget of each is for this financial year. [175325]
  640W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Body

  Number of staff1

  Budget for 2004–05 (£ million)

  Dental Vocational Training Authority

  4

  0.26

  NHS Appointments Commission

  46

  3.56

  Health Protection Agency

  2,518

  195.7

  National Clinical Assessment Authority

  71

  10.2

  National Blood Authority

  5,916

  53.27

  National Treatment Agency

  79

  3.97

  Prescription Pricing Authority

  2,919

  68.00

  National Prescribing Centre

  25

  1.56

  Independent Regulator of NHS

  28

  5

  Foundation Trusts

  Modernisation Agency

  765

  161

  NHS Pensions Agency

  277

  22.66

  NHS Professionals

  671

  27.5

  Microbiological Research Authority

  2

  Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals

  3

  2.0

  Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board

  27

  1.83

  National Joint Registry

  29

  2.19

  NHS Direct

  2,000

  131

  Health Development Agency

  132

  12.10

  NHS Information Authority

  918

  217.6

  General Social Care Council

  146

  13.18

  NHS Litigation Authority

  182

  11.146

  NHS Logistics Authority

  1,377

  709.2

  Dental Practice Board

  325

  24.7

  National Patient Safety Agency

  149

  314.67

  UK Transplant

  121

  13.8

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence

  81

  18.14

  Mental Health Act Commission

  45

  4.82

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  106

  5.30

  National Biological Standards Board

  305

  24.3

  Family Health Services Appeal Authority

  13

  1.41

  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health

  150

  31.0

  National Radiological Protection Board

  315

  15.9

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  69

  0.350

  Healthcare Commission (CHAD

  456

  71.5

  Commission for Social Care Inspection

  2,622

  147

  Medicines and Health Care products Regulatory Agency

  747

  66.9

  NHS Estates

  4218

  19.93

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency

  318

  21

  (f) NHSU

  234

  44.6

  Counter Fraud and Security Management Service

  250

  16.37

  1The number of staff shown is the average in post in 2003–04 as stated in the annual accounts, except for the following bodies, where the number of staff shown is the rounded whole-time equivalent figure as at 31 March 2004:

  National Prescribing Centre

  NHS Professionals

  Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board

  NHS Direct

  Health Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  National Biological Standards Board

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  Healthcare Commission

  Commission for Healthcare Inspection

  NHSU

  Independent regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

  NHS Modernisation Agency

  2 The Authority was subsumed into the Health Protection Agency on 1 April 2003.

  3 National Patient Safety Agency will receive an additional proportional contribution from the National Assembly for Wales according to the Barnett formula.

  4 The staff figure for NHS Estates does not include the 2004 Inventures staff.

  Qualifications (Mutual Recognition)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether in the negotiations on a separate directive on mutual recognition of qualifications, safeguards will be adopted to ensure that regulated health professionals will be covered by processes designed to protect public safety. [183936]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 13 July 2004]Yes. The text of the draft, as agreed by the Council, largely consolidates the existing directives which already include safeguards for those professions which benefit from automatic recognition: the current draft includes specific safeguards on service provision for professions having public health or safety implications.

  Residential Care (Visually Impaired)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what obligations there are on social services authorities in relation to provision of residential care for the visually impaired; and if he will make a statement. [185139]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Social services departments are required to assess the needs of adults in accordance with the principles set out in Fair Access to Care Services, effective from 7 April 2003. Those eligible for care, including those who may have a sensory impairment, should receive care appropriate to their assessed needs in an appropriate setting. Except where an individual has complex or multiple needs, those with sensory impairments will often receive services in their own home.

  Schizophrenia
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been diagnosed with schizophrenia in England in each of the last 30 years for which figures are available. [184427]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the number of people diagnosed with schizophrenia in England in each of the last 30 years is not available. Figures are, however, available on the number of finished consultant episodes with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenic psychoses for the years 1995–96 to 2002–03, and are provided in the table.

  Number

  1995–96

  35,960

  1996–97

  35,500

  1997–98

  35,820

  1998–99

  36,920

  1999–2000

  36,420

  2000–01

  36,460

  2001–02

  30,080

  2002–03

  30,250

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Seroxat
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received about the prescribing of Seroxat to people in the 18 to 29 years age group. [184292]
  642W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In May 2003, the Government's independent scientific advisory committee, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), established an expert working group on the safety of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) because of continuing concerns about withdrawal reactions and possible suicidal behaviour associated with these products. The expert working group is still considering evidence regarding he safety of all SSRIs (including paroxetine). The group is expected to report on its findings later this year, and its report will be made available to the public with copies placed in the Library.

  In June 2003, the CSM considered newly received clinical trial data for paroxetine in children and adolescents and, on the basis of these data and advised that paroxetine should not be used in patients under 18 years of age in the treatment of major depressive illness, because of evidence of an increased risk of suicidal behaviour and a lack of efficacy in this population group. This advice was communicated to prescribers and patients in June 2003 and again in December 2003.

  In March 2004, the CSM issued advice to remind prescribes of the recommended starting and daily doses of paroxetine, as stated in the summary of product characteristics for this medicine.

  A Europe wide review of the risks and benefits of paroxetine has also been undertaken by European Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), with the United Kingdom in the lead. This review included an assessment of whether some young adults as well as those in the under 18 patient group may have an increased risk of suicidal behaviour when using this drug. No strong evidence has been found to support an increased risk and the CSM and the CPMP have advised that the balance of risks and benefits for paroxetine in the treatment of major depressive illness and anxiety disorders in patients of 18 years or older is favourable.

  The CPMP has re commended that patients at high baseline risk of suicidal behaviour should be closely monitored during treatment with paroxetine. These include patients with a known history of suicidal behaviour or thoughts prior to starting treatment, and possibly young adults as a patient group. In April, a summary of the opinion of the CPMP referring to the need for monitoring, during paroxetine treatment of patients at risk of suicidal behaviour, including those with a history of suicidal behaviour and young adults was released by both the European Medicines Agency and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

  The CPMP review and recommendations are now being considered by the European Commission, with final decisions expected in the near future. When decisions have been reached by the Commission, a review of the evident will be made public. If necessary, the product information for prescribers and patients will be updated and communicated, with details harmonised across the European Union.
  643W
  The MHRA emphasises that the patient information leaflet for Seroxat currently advises that symptoms of depression, including suicidal behaviour, may increase in the first few weeks of treatment and that patients should seek urgent medical attention if they have any distressing thoughts or experiences during this initial period or at any other time.

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospital Trust
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what major capital projects have taken place in St. Helens since 1994; and what projects are planned over the next two years. [184620]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Strategic Health Authority Spending
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the spending per heat of population was in each strategic health authority in the last year for which figures are available. 186000]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information for 2002–03, the latest year available, is available in the Library.

  Thimerosal
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence has been presented to his Department concerning health risks in relation to thimerosal. [184097]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The only vaccine currently used in the United Kingdom routine childhood immunisation programme that contains a mercury compound is the diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis (DTwP) vaccine which is given combined with haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine. The mercury is present as ethylmercury in the excipient thiomersal (also known as thimerosal). As with all medicinal products, vaccine safety is continually monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) with advice from the independent expert advisory body, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). The MHRA and CSM have thoroughly reviewed the safety of mercury-containing vaccines, including alleged links with neurodevelopmental disorders, on a number of occasions.

  In 2001, the CSM conducted major review of the available evidence and has since then considered new data as it has emerged. In 2003, following a review of further studies, including two UK studies involving more than 100,000 children, CSM advice was placed on the MHRA website at http: //medicines.mhra.gov.uk. Further studies from Denmark involving almost half a million children and a study from the United States have also specifically investigated the suggested link between mercury-containing vaccines and autism. None of these studies have found any evidence of a causal association with autism.
  644W
  On the basis of the available data, the CSM's advice remains that there is no evidence of harm from the very small quantities of thiomersal contained in some vaccines, with the exception of possible hypersensitivity reactions (typically skin rashes or local swelling at the site of injection). This view concurs with that of the World Health Organisation, the United States Institute of Medicine and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA).

  There is a global goal to minimise environmental exposure to mercury compounds. In line with this and despite the strong evidence supporting the safety of thiomersal in vaccines, the EMEA continues to promote the development of vaccines without thiomersal or with the lowest possible levels of thiomersal. However, the EMEA acknowledges that during some manufacturing processes, the use of mercury compounds is necessary and in such cases, residual levels might be present in the final vaccine product.

  Traffic Offences (Ambulances)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when new regulations relating to fines for speeding and red light offences for ambulance drivers will take effect; and whether they will apply to(a) all vehicles used by the ambulance service, including unmarked cars and motorcycles, (b) private ambulance drivers, (c) vehicles carrying donor organs for transplant, (d) vehicles transporting surgical teams for transplant operations and (e) journeys that are not initiated by a 999 call. [184792]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The new protocol issued by the Association for Chief Police Officers for dealing with speeding and red light offences committed by emergency service vehicles, took effect from 1 July 2004. The new protocol states that if an emergency service vehicle is caught speeding or going through a red light by a safety camera, a notice of intended prosecution will not be sent to the offending organisation if blue lights can be seen flashing on the photograph.

  The protocol also states that if blue lights cannot be seen flashing, the police will send the normal section 172 form and a Notice of Intended Prosecution, together with a standard exemption form.

  The protocol applies to all marked emergency ambulance vehicles being used for ambulance purposes.

  The protocol only applies to emergency service vehicles.

  If the vehicle transporting the organ is a marked emergency ambulance vehicle, the protocol covers such journeys.

  If the vehicle transporting the surgical team is a marked emergency ambulance vehicle, the protocol covers such journeys.

  The protocol applies to every ambulance journey undertaken by a marked emergency ambulance vehicle as defined in (a) above.

  Trainee Doctors
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been available in each of the last seven years for part-time trainee doctors; and what has been budgeted for the future.[185406]

  Mr. Hutton
  The funding of medical training salary costs is resourced through a central overall funding allocation that makes no distinction between full-time and part-time trainees. The distribution of funding between full-time and part-time training at local level is the responsibility of the respective strategic health authorities (SHAs). No figures are held centrally for the local breakdown of resources; the total funding provided to SHAs in 2004–05 was £3.8 billion.

  In addition and to support the introduction of the new contract, funding of £7 million in each of the years 2002–03 and 2003–04 was exceptionally provided to support the salary costs of part-time trainees. This was during a short period when new pay rates for full-time trainees were being progressively introduced and new part-time salaries, introduced in full in one step, were high by comparison; this is no longer the case.

  £000

  Department

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency

  NHS Pensions

  NHS Estates

  Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

  Medicines Control Agency

  Medical Devices Agency

  1997–98

  6,592

  —

  47

  422

  —

  536

  241

  1998–99

  5,814

  —

  48

  689

  —

  577

  208

  1999–00

  7.080

  —

  53

  1,129

  —

  872

  271

  2000–01

  7,295

  524

  67

  1,477

  —

  674

  171

  2001–02

  7,972

  579

  72

  1,343

  —

  704

  177

  2002–03

  7,607

  635

  46

  1,510

  —

  711

  161

  2003–04

  8,211

  662

  54

  1,496

  978

  219

  Treatment Abroad (NHS Scheme)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have taken up the option of treatment abroad under the NHS scheme; and what criteria are used to decide to which patients such treatment should be offered. [184039]

  Mr. Hutton
  From January 2002 to the end of June 2004, 879 patients have been treated overseas on the National Health Service.

  Primary care trusts (PCTs) are responsible for commissioning overseas treatment for NHS patients. Individual PCTs work with their local acute trusts to determine the criteria used to identify those patients suitable for treatment abroad. As a general rule, acute trusts have selected patients for treatment overseas who have been waiting a long time for simple elective procedures such as knee and hip replacements, hernia and cataract procedures. These patients' diagnoses, medical conditions, fitness and willingness to travel and be treated overseas will then be taken into account to determine which patients will benefit most from this treatment in Europe.

  Triage
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what National Emergency Medical Services' triage practice is; and what its relationship is with NHS Direct nurse-led services. [184971]

  Training Hospitals
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of UK hospitals are training hospitals. [185405]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no defined criteria, functions or facilities required for any national health service hospital to describe itself as a training hospital. However, all NHS employer organisations are expected to be effective learning organisations that embrace lifelong learning for their staff.

  Travel Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the travel cost, were of civil servants in(a) his Department and (b) its related agencies in each year since 1997. [183902]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Expenditure on travel and subsistence by the Department and Agencies has been as follows:

  Mr. Hutton
  Nottingham Emergency Medical Services (NEMS) has been integrated with NHS Direct since 1998. NEMS is developing additional capacity with NHS Direct to support local out-of-hours care and to extend the range of coverage of this model to 100 per cent. of the Nottingham population in October. NEMS currently provides care for 80 per cent. and the remainder of Nottingham practices use the Sheffield and Birmingham based triage services of Primecare, a national commercial deputising service.

  Since 2001, NEMS has been an out-of-hours exemplar site, with clinical integration of NHS Direct and the out-of-hours service. NEMS triage will continue to be that recommended by the review of general practitioners (GP) out-of-hours services in 2000, of using NHS Direct nurse assessment, followed by contact with a GP or other health professional, as required.

  Waiting Times (Bury, North)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each of the last 10 years, the total number of patients it the Bury, North constituency, or the nearest relevant unit of population, waiting for NHS operations for longer than(a) 18 months, (b) 15 months, (c) 12 months, (d)nine months and (e)six months. [185251]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is only available from 1995–96 onwards and is shown in the table.
  647W

  In-patient waiting information for the Bury area (Provider based) (Quarter ending March 2004)

  Month ending

  Year

  Qtr

  Unit name

  6 months+

  9 months+

  12 months+

  15 months+

  18 months+

  March 1996

  1995–96

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  1,825

  594

  0

  0

  0

  March 1996

  1995–96

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  923

  356

  0

  0

  0

  March 1996

  1995–96

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,069

  478

  0

  0

  0

  March 1996

  1995–96

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  384

  149

  0

  0

  0

  March 1996 Total

  4,201

  1,577

  0

  0

  0

  March 1997

  1996–97

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  2,306

  967

  0

  0

  0

  March 1997

  1996–97

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,124

  547

  173

  0

  0

  March 1997

  1996–97

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,320

  612

  185

  28

  6

  March 1997

  1996–97

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  353

  157

  37

  0

  0

  March 1997 Total

  5,103

  2,283

  395

  28

  6

  March 1998

  1997–98

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  2,402

  752

  16

  0

  0

  March 1998

  1997–98

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,058

  477

  172

  40

  0

  March 1998

  1997–98

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,838

  1,011

  483

  175

  0

  March 1998

  1997–98

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  481

  230

  102

  11

  0

  March 1998 Total

  5,779

  2,470

  773

  226

  0

  March 1999

  1998–99

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  1,278

  383

  68

  1

  0

  March 1999

  1998–99

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  944

  460

  203

  36

  0

  March 1999

  1998–99

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  620

  251

  103

  27

  0

  March 1999

  1998–99

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  576

  336

  209

  51

  0

  March 1999 Total

  3,418

  1,430

  583

  115

  0

  March 2000

  1999–2000

  4

  Oldharn NHS Trust

  1,108

  426

  55

  5

  0

  March 2000

  1999–2000

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,089

  521

  191

  61

  0

  March 2000

  1999–2000

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  478

  248

  98

  20

  0

  March 2000

  1999–2000

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  544

  325

  161

  56

  0

  March 2000 Total

  3,219

  1,520

  505

  142

  0

  March 2001

  2000–01

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  857

  256

  43

  0

  0

  March 2001

  2000–01

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  707

  310

  61

  16

  0

  March 2001

  2000–01

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  452

  149

  30

  3

  0

  March 2001

  2000–01

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  826

  299

  118

  0

  0

  0

  March 2001 Total

  2,315

  833

  134

  19

  0

  March 2002

  2001–02

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  836

  225

  0

  0

  0

  March 2002

  2001–02

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  826

  299

  45

  0

  0

  March 2002

  2001–02

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  409

  144

  30

  0

  0

  March 2002

  2001–02

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  298

  80

  2

  0

  0

  March 2002 Total

  2,369

  748

  77

  0

  0

  March 2003

  2002–03

  4

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,039

  464

  0

  0

  0

  March 2004

  2003–04

  4

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,402

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health KH07.

  In-patient waiting information for the Bury area (Commissioner based) (Quarter ending March 2004)

  Month ending

  Year

  Qtr

  Unit name

  6 months

  9 months

  12 months

  15 months+

  March 1997

  1996–07

  4

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  2,221

  969

  176

  0

  March 1998

  1997–98

  4

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  2,807

  1,360

  517

  156

  March 1999

  1998–99

  4

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  2,219

  1,096

  511

  98

  March 2000

  1999–2000

  4

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  2,305

  1,198

  500

  159

  March 2001

  2000–01

  4

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  1,727

  778

  220

  51

  March 2002

  2001–02

  4

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  1,752

  673

  123

  0

  March 2003

  2002–03

  4

  Bury PCT

  478

  114

  0

  0

  March 2004

  2003–04

  4

  Bury PCT

  307

  0

  0

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health QF01.

TRANSPORT

  Anti-terrorism Awareness
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures his Department has put in place to offer financial assistance to(a) sea freight and (b) air freight companies to help improve anti-terrorism awareness; [184591]
  648W
  (2) what measures his Department has put in place to offer training to (a) shipping freight and (b) air freight companies in anti-terrorism awareness. [184592]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It has long been central to UK transport policy that users should pay the full costs, including those of security. Organisations delivering training in air cargo security are required to be approved in that role by the Department, and to that end the instructors are required to have attended an air cargo managers course and are then provided with a training
  649W
  pack setting our the UK National Aviation Security Training Programme, with objectives and teaching points to ensure that the training, when they are accredited, represents a proper understanding of how responsibilities for air cargo security should be discharged.

  For shipping freight companies it is part of the Port Facility Security Officer's (PFSO) responsibilities, under the International Ship and Port Security (ISPS) Code, to ensure that appropriate training is conducted by their security staff.

  Aviation (External Costs)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the external costs associated with aviation, with particular reference to the environmental costs. [184848]

  Mr. McNulty
  The principal external costs considered in work supporting "The Future of Air Transport" White Paper were environmental costs, the largest of which is the impact of aviation on global emissions. The supporting paper to the White Paper, "Aviation and Global Warming", February 2004, reports—for an additional runway at Stansted followed by an additional runway at Heathrow—a net present value of the cost of associated global emissions to lie between £3.3 billion and £5.2 billion.

  Bus Services
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost to each local authority in England arising from the tendering of local bus services was in each of the last five years.[185822]

  Dr. Howells
  The table shows expenditure on support for local bus services by local transport authorities London between 1998–99 and 2002–03, the last year for which figures are available.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Bath and North East Somerset

  518

  583

  589

  762

  947

  Bedfordshire

  1,214

  1,511

  1,891

  1,299

  n/a

  Blackburn Darwen

  301

  924

  1,313

  n/a

  n/a

  Blackpool

  212

  -57

  1,114

  n/a

  n/a

  Bournemouth

  331

  507

  543

  405

  502

  Bracknell Forest

  375

  489

  360

  246

  377

  Brighton and Hove

  933

  747

  1,147

  1,203

  933

  Bristol

  1,625

  1,580

  1,781

  1,767

  2,407

  Buckinghamshire

  1,573

  2,212

  1,799

  2,196

  2,737

  Cambridgeshire

  1,735

  1,802

  1,669

  2,766

  1,605

  Cheshire

  3,567

  3,681

  4,575

  3,295

  3,858

  Cornwall

  2,298

  2,579

  2,668

  3,159

  3,698

  Cumbria

  384

  1.326

  1,569

  1,967

  2,298

  Darlington

  20

  178

  179

  281

  392

  Derby City

  213

  239

  731

  640

  760

  Derbyshire

  3,352

  4,739

  4,940

  4,800

  5,645

  Devon

  3,015

  3,228

  2,917

  4,025

  4,506

  Dorset

  1,747

  1,744

  1,611

  2,061

  2,179

  Durham

  2,724

  2,845

  2,626

  3,529

  3,887

  East Riding

  654

  1,277

  994

  1,555

  1,587

  East Sussex

  2,819

  3,438

  2,741

  3,416

  3,697

  Essex

  4,590

  4,641

  5,401

  4,744

  5,029

  Gloucestershire

  2,120

  2,389

  3,138

  2,157

  3,086

  Greater Manchester PTE

  20,520

  20,996

  25,159

  21,010

  20,239

  Halton

  619

  625

  483

  665

  632

  Hampshire

  4,866

  5,586

  5,287

  7,075

  6,874

  Hartlepool

  212

  264

  249

  241

  316

  650W

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Herefordshire

  1,612

  2,102

  1,250

  1,579

  2,081

  Hertfordshire

  4,996

  5,237

  5,586

  5,974

  6,472

  Isle of Wight

  483

  464

  541

  505

  547

  Kent

  4,731

  4,722

  4,436

  5,401

  6,394

  Kingston upon Hull

  447

  399

  768

  451

  661

  Lancashire

  3,583

  4,255

  5,534

  4,465

  4,446

  Leicester City

  795

  831

  573

  794

  1,457

  Leicestershire

  1,359

  2,108

  2,361

  2,188

  2,985

  Lincolnshire

  2,959

  3,434

  2,534

  3,094

  3,898

  Luton

  64

  85

  415

  485

  595

  Medway

  994

  724

  836

  708

  824

  Merseyside PTE

  25,418

  11,607

  25,499

  13,215

  14,247

  Middlesbrough

  567

  273

  925

  198

  202

  Milton Keynes

  1,186

  1,245

  1,487

  971

  1,162

  Norfolk

  2,957

  3,360

  4,338

  3,291

  4,337

  North East Lincs.

  217

  221

  67

  75

  76

  North Lincs.

  390

  653

  1,027

  789

  725

  North Somerset

  470

  493

  581

  572

  614

  North Yorkshire

  2,589

  4,208

  2,958

  3,812

  4,623

  Northamptonshire

  1,373

  1,472

  1,325

  1,671

  2,143

  Northumberland

  870

  1,165

  1,307

  1,445

  1,930

  Nottingham City

  —

  —

  612

  689

  n/a

  Nottinghamshire

  2,389

  3,688

  4,440

  4,467

  5,492

  Oxfordshire

  1,813

  2,358

  2,720

  2,994

  3,607

  Peterborough

  192

  308

  247

  384

  528

  Plymouth

  693

  555

  549

  408

  489

  Poole

  379

  426

  419

  550

  604

  Portsmouth

  425

  438

  602

  508

  591

  Reading

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Redcar and Cleveland

  810

  876

  570

  n/a

  1,135

  Rutland UA

  118

  166

  168

  113

  337

  Shropshire

  2,121

  1,821

  1,642

  2,177

  2,774

  Slough

  151

  161

  153

  178

  224

  Somerset

  1,628

  1,756

  1,688

  2,450

  2,836

  South Glos.

  1,198

  1,448

  1,327

  1,924

  1,992

  South Yorkshire PTE

  6,751

  7,569

  16,191

  8,424

  9,640

  Southampton

  502

  526

  555

  663

  719

  Southend

  122

  225

  173

  265

  415

  Staffordshire

  2,061

  2,864

  2,692

  3,369

  3,814

  Stockton

  908

  968

  617

  783

  937

  Stoke on Trent

  411

  438

  461

  431

  573

  Suffolk

  2,044

  2,609

  2,623

  3,288

  4,130

  Surrey

  4,642

  4,533

  5,527

  6,963

  8,644

  Swindon

  349

  303

  672

  384

  655

  Telford and Wrekin

  776

  846

  431

  381

  323

  Thurrock

  393

  544

  569

  716

  893

  Torbay

  106

  96

  156

  174

  198

  Tyne and Wear PTE

  9,575

  10,225

  11,578

  10,829

  12,320

  Warrington

  1,311

  1,457

  1,364

  1,506

  1,527

  Warwickshire

  661

  897

  1,521

  1,392

  2,875

  West Berks

  501

  686

  1,107

  461

  851

  West Midlands PTE

  27,241

  28,343

  24,687

  30,754

  24,581

  West Sussex

  2,134

  2,626

  2,402

  3,311

  3,459

  West Yorkshire PTE

  19,992

  22,492

  22,143

  25,482

  24,746

  Wiltshire

  2,597

  2,892

  2,605

  4,212

  4,492

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  414

  573

  636

  714

  820

  Wokingham

  483

  194

  497

  234

  429

  Worcestershire

  2,108

  2,469

  3,312

  3,567

  3,915

  York

  633

  678

  583

  620

  686

  n/a = figures not available

  These data have been taken from local authority and Passenger Transport Authority administrative returns. In addition to the cost of tenders for supported services, the figures include related expenditure on administrative services and some other payments.

  Mr. Mole
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has discussed the competition implications of all bus through ticketing with the Department of Trade and Industry. [185390]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have discussed the issue of joint bus ticketing with my colleague the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has discussed the matter with the
  651W
  Chairman of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), the body which has responsibility for applying competition law to the bus industry. Department for Transport officials hold regular meetings with OFT officials to discuss progress on bus ticketing schemes.

  Central Trains
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the stations in the Central Trains franchise area where selective door-opening of trains is permitted. [185848]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are five stations in the Central Trains franchise area where selective train door opening is permitted. They are: The Lakes (Warwickshire), Spooner Row, Whittlesea, Waterbeach and Bedworth.

  Departmental Consultants
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department spent on(a) headhunters and recruitment consultants and (b) management consultants in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available.[185246]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 21 July 2004]The Department was formed in May 2002. The Department spent £58.5 million in 2003–04 on all types of consultancy excluding research. Separate figures for management consultancy are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The Department spent £1.7 million in 2003–04 on recruitment consultants.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent by his Department on public relations consultants in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [185247]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 21 July 2004]Expenditure figures for the financial years are set out as follows. The majority of costs for public relations consultants were devoted to the THINK! road safety campaign and sustainable travel.

  In the 2003–04 financial year the Department for Transport spent £347,666.56 on public relations consultants.

  Identifying any public relations consultants costs for the old Department of Transport in 1996–97 could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Cycling
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cycle routes there are in England; and what plans his Department has to improve safety for cyclists. [182169]

  Dr. Howells
  Cycle routes are in the main the responsibility of local highway authorities. A cycle route will often consist of a variety of linked highways such as dedicated cycle tracks, cycle lanes on the carriageway and the use of roads designated as suitable for cycle routes. Sustrans, the Transport charity, predict that the National Cycle Network will consist of 10,000 miles by the end of 2005. In addition local authorities forecast building over 6,000 miles of new cycle lanes and cycle tracks over between 2001–02 arid 2005–06.
  652W
  We have a safer cycling programme, which is a package of measures including improved infrastructure—better cycle routes, off road cycle tracks, cycle lanes, advance stop lines, toucan crossings etc., better driving standards by improving training and testing for motorists, and publicity aimed both at drivers and cyclists. It also covers the promotion of measures which cyclists can take to protect themselves, such as taking cycle training, making themselves conspicuous and wearing a cycle helmet.

  We have also recently published an "Action Plan for Walking and Cycling", which sets out more than 40 actions from across Government to make cycling and walking easier, safer and more attractive, enabling people to get around more by foot and by bicycle. One of the actions will be to fund new sections of the National Cycle Network to link with existing safe cycling and walking routes to schools.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many footpaths and footways had their status formally changed in each of the past three years in order to allow cyclists to use them legally. [181684]

  Dr. Howells
  The conversion of footways (the pavement) under the Highways Act 1980 is a local highway authority function in which the Secretary of State has no formal role. We therefore have no details of the number of footway conversions.

  Powers are available in the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 to enable local highway authorities to convert footpaths (as opposed to pavements) to cycle tracks. Only orders which are opposed by any party are referred to the Secretary of State for confirmation. Details of this subset of cases referred to the Secretary of State in each of the last three years and to date in 2004 are set out in the following table:

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Cycle track orders confirmed

  4

  5

  1

  2

  Cycle track orders not confirmed

  2

  1

  2

  0

  Awaiting determination

  3

  2

  2

  3

  Total

  9

  8

  5

  5

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his Answer of 16 June 2004,Official Report, columns 934-5W, (1) on pedestrian/ cyclist accidents, what assessment he has made of (a) the problems caused by cyclists using footpaths to access destinations adequately served by cycle paths and roads and (b) the reasons cyclists do this; [181685]

  (2) if he will commission research into (a) the implications of allowing cyclists to use footpaths and pavements and (b) the effects on older people of cyclists using footpaths and pavements.[181681]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has not carried out any formal assessment of the problems caused by cyclists cycling illegally on footpaths and footways (the pavement) and we have no plans to commission specific research into the subject. We are however aware from our post bag that many pedestrians, particularly elderly and disabled people are concerned at the danger and inconvenience caused by cyclists who cycle illegally on footpaths and pavements.
  653W
  While we do not condone it, we believe that some cyclists cycle on the pavement because they feel safer there than cycling on heavily trafficked roads. We hope that as facilities for cyclists and cyclist training improve, cyclists will feel safer on the road and that the number of cyclists using footpaths and footways illegally will reduce.

  Local Transport Note 2/86 (Stationery Office) concerns Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians. This advises local highway authorities that such shared use facilities are not a general or area-wide remedy to cycle safety problems but should be confined to specific links in cycle routes and quiet footways along heavily trafficked roads. The guidance also advises that shared use may be unacceptable if significant use is made of a pedestrian facility by disabled, blind or partially sighted or elderly people.

  Departmental Accountancy Practice
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who the Finance Director of(a) the Department and (b) the Office of the Rail Regulator is; what accountancy qualifications each Director holds; and on how many occasions there has been a qualified opinion on (i) the resource accounts and (ii) other accounts of each in the last five years. [183420]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Finance Director of the Department for Transport is Mr. Ken Beeton. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. There have been no occasions on which DfT accounts have been qualified.

  The Executive Director who had responsibility for finance for the Office of the Rail Regulator was Mr. Keith Webb. Responsibility for this appointment rested with the Rail Regulator. Mr. Webb did not hold an accountancy qualification. However, in line with Government Accounting, a senior manager who was a qualified accountant with 15 years post qualification experience, supported the Director and provided the appropriate level of financial advice. The new Office of Rail Regulation, which was established on 5 July 2004, will appoint a Finance Director. It does, however, have a Non-Executive Board member with responsibility for finance who is Mr. Peter Bucks.

  Since April 1999, the accounts of the Office of the Rail Regulator have been qualified once. The Resource Accounts-for financial year 2002–03 were qualified. The qualification related to resource expenditure of £0.4 million in excess of the amount authorised for the Request for Resources. The cause of the excess was additional consultancy expenditure incurred on the interim review of Network Rail Access Charges not being forecast in time to secure a supplementary estimate.

  Departmental Administration Costs
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total administration costs were in his Department in financial years(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98.[186078]

  Mr. McNulty
  Details of gross running costs for 1996–97 and 1997–98 for the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are contained 654W
  in Table 5.5 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2000–01 (Cm 4601). These figures are on a cash basis. From Public Expenditure Analyses 2001–02 (Cm 5101), Departments' administrative expenditure was reported on a resource basis, as administration costs.

  Departmental Air Travel
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost of air travel between Northern Ireland and Great Britain was for(a) Ministers and (b) officials in the Department in the latest year for which figures are available.[184533]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers use a variety of public transport services when undertaking departmental business and all ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers.

  The majority of this Department's air tickets are booked through a centrally negotiated travel agency contract. The total cost of travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland hooked through that contract in the financial year 2003–04 was £85,974.

  The cost of any bookings outside the contract possibly made in the same period could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Buildings
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total floor space area has been of buildings owned or leased by(a) his Department and (b) its agencies in each year since 1997. [185727]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed in May 2002 and as a result the information provided relates to the period from then.

  No comprehensive figures are available and to obtain them across the estate would involve disproportinate cost. The available estimate we have as at 1 April 2003 is 22,000 m2 for the central Department and 302,000 m2 for the agencies.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost of refurbishments to the fabric of buildings owned by the Department has been since May 1997. [185243]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 21 July 2004]There have been no refurbishments to any buildings owned by the Department for transport since its inception in May 2002.

  Departmental Electricity Use
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of electricity used by buildings in(a) his Department and (b) its agencies has come from renewable sources in each year since 1997. [185724]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed in May 2002, and as a result, the information provided relates to the period from then.

  The latest year for which we have information available is 2002–03 when 93 per cent. of the Department for Transport Central and 43 per cent. of its

  655W
  agencies electrical use came from renewable sources. The information for 2003–04 is still being collected and will be published in due course in the Sustainable Development in Government Report and on the Department's website.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much(a) his Department and (b) agencies of his Department have spent on electricity use in each year since 1997.[185725]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed in May 2002 and as a result the information provided relates to the period from then.

  We do not have full details of spend on electricity across the Department estate but in 2002–03 the information we do have shows spend on electricity of £308,502 for the central Department and £1,554,527 for the agencies. The information for 2003–04 is still being collected.

  Departmental Special Advisers
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the salary bill was for special advisers in his Department in 2003–04; and what it is expected to be in 2004–05.[180908]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Dave Watts).

  Departmental Staff (Upper Age Limits)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether(a) his Department and (b) agencies for which it is responsible (i) have a set retirement age which applies to all or most personnel and (ii) have a maximum age beyond which applications for employment will not be considered; and what the age is in each case. [186094]

  Mr. McNulty
  The normal retirement age for all staff in DfT and its agencies is 60. However, staff outside the Senior Civil Service have a contractual right to work until age 65 if they wish. Staff who opt to work beyond 60 can choose to retire at any time up to their 65th birthday. Beyond those restrictions, there is no maximum age beyond which applications for employment will not be considered.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road vehicles are operated by the Department and its agencies; how many personal injury accidents involving road vehicles operated by the Department have occurred within each of the last five years; and what the Department's policy is for managing work-related road safety. [185924]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The numbers of road vehicles operated by the Department and its agencies are not recorded centrally and neither is the number of personal injury accidents.

  The Department's policy for central staff is contained within the Risk Assessment Procedures for Staff Working out of the Office Environment. It includes
  656W
  advice for staff and line managers on vehicle roadworthiness, alcohol/drugs, driver tiredness and illness, mobile phones, weather, driver competence and the availability of driver training. The policy is presently being reviewed and updated.

  In the Department's agencies, responsibility for occupational health and safety management arrangements is delegated to agency Chief Executives. The agencies either have their own policy to suit their specific business needs or they follow the central policy.

  The Government Car and Despatch Agency will provide an answer covering its ministerial and other vehicles that it provides to Government Departments.

  Departmental Water and Sewerage
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much(a) his Department and (b) agencies of his Department have spent on water and sewerage services in each year since 1997. [185726]

  Mr. McNulty
  No figures are readily available and to obtain them across the estate for some 1,170 properties would involve disproportionate cost.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many names and addresses of vehicle owners or keepers have been disclosed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority to third parties by virtue of that party showing reasonable cause for the disclosure over the last 12 months, broken down by category of reasonable cause; in how many cases disclosure has been subsequently shown not to be for a reasonable cause; what action was taken in each case; and if he will make a statement. [185951]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The DVLA vehicle register is a record of vehicle keepers. It does not contain details of the person who actually owns the vehicle.

  The number of 'reasonable cause' enquiries resulting in the disclosure of keeper details for the year 2003/04 is 1,014,309. The majority of requests are from insurance companies and finance houses in respect of insurance claims and vehicle-related loan arrangements. The remainder are from solicitors, car parking enforcement companies and members of the public.

  The Information Commissioner has powers under the Data Protection Act to prosecute anyone who knowingly obtains information without consent. Any disclosure subsequently used for a purpose other that stated in the application is referred to the Commissioner to investigate. Two such cases were referred in the past year.

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the Department's future plans are for the East Coast Main Line. [185417]

  Dr. Howells
  The current East Coast Main Line franchise is due to expire in April 2005. SRA announced on 7 May that four companies had pre-qualified to bid for the franchise. The franchise replacement process is continuing.

  Employment Tribunals
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases against his Department and the agencies for which it is responsible have been brought to employment tribunals in each year since 1997 in relation to(a) equal pay, (b) sex discrimination, (c) race discrimination, (d) disability discrimination and (e) unfair dismissal; how many cost awards were made against (i) respondents and (ii) applicants; and how much has been spent (A) settling and (B) contesting claims. [181465]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department was formed in May 2002. The table as follows sets out details of cases brought against the Department since that date and the costs involved in settling the claim(s) outside of the Tribunal along with the legal costs incurred with processing of these claims.

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Number of cases brought in Employment Tribunals claiming:

  Equal Pay

  0

  13

  8

  Sex Discrimination

  2

  3

  0

  Race Discrimination

  1

  9

  3

  Disability Discrimination

  3

  3

  2

  Unfair Dismissal

  7

  3

  4

  Cost Awards made against Respondents (£)

  0

  0

  0

  Costs Awards made against Applicant (£)

  0

  0

  1,200

  Money spent settling Employment Tribunal

  0

  0

  0

  Claims (£)

  5,500

  20,727

  10,000

  Money spent contesting Employment Tribunal Claims (£)

  61,712.39

  113,911.36

  33,191.40

  Green Minister
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the activities of the Green Minister in the Department in financial year 2003–04. [185125]

  Mr. McNulty
  In my capacity as Green Minister, I have been actively involved in the work of both ENV(G) Cabinet sub-committee and the Sustainable Development Task Force.

  In my wider role as Green Minister, I have overseen the publication of the Department's Sustainable Development Policy Statement which was published on the DfT website in March of this year. This outlines how DfF is integrating the principles of sustainable development into decision-making.

  I met with a number of stakeholders during 2003–04 to discuss a range of sustainable development issues of mutual concern.

  Heathrow Airport
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many flights there were(a) into and (b) out of Heathrow Airport in each of the last three years. [185344]

  Mr. McNulty
  In each of the last three years, the total number of flights (of all descriptions) at Heathrow were as follows:
  658W

  Arrivals

  Departures

  2001

  231,756

  231,799

  2002

  233,137

  233,210

  2003

  231,721

  231,884

  Source:

  National Air Traffic Services

  International Ship and Port Facility Security Code
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he expects that, by 1 July, sufficient UK ports will have radiation detection equipment to satisfy the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. [184603]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The majority of UK ports (including all major and high risk ports) handling international shipping are compliant with the Government's mandated ISPS security requirements.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are implementing a programme of work to introduce screening equipment at UK ports for detecting the illicit importation of radioactive materials that could be used by terrorists. To date, screening equipment will be in place at a number of major UK ports of entry. This is an on-going programme based on prudent contingency planning which is planned to be complete by March 2007.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what grants are available from Her Majesty's Government to help small ports in Scotland with the costs of meeting the requirements of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code; [185856]

  (2) what new funds will be available to small Scottish ports to meet the costs of the International Shipping and Port Facility Security Code as a result of the Spending Review. [185857]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In line with existing transport security regimes in the UK, the costs of implementing the security measures will fall to those the measures are designed to protect. in this case UK ships and ports and the persons and property associated with them.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received from(a) the British Ports Authority and (b) trust ports in Scotland on the impact of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code; [185858]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on the impact of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code on small Scottish trust ports. [185859]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has carried out extensive consultation with industry on the implementation of the ISPS Code, including with the British Ports Association and other main industry groups such as the United Kingdom Major Ports Group (UKMPG). This has kept trust ports in Scotland and other ports fully informed.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the Answer of 15 July,Official Report, column 1276W, on the International Ship and

  659W
  Port Facility Security Code, which British ports have yet to receive an International Ship and Port Facility Security Code certificate. [185881]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It would not be appropriate for us to comment on what ports/port facilities may not have received security certificates for security reasons.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) pursuant to the answer of 15 July 2004,Official Report, column 1276W, on the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, when all (a) UK flagged ships and (b) British ports will be in possession of an International Ship and Port Facility Security Code certificate; and why the 1 July deadline for implementation of the code was missed; [185968]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 15 July 2004, Official Report, column 1276W, on the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, what proportion of (a) UK flagged ships and (b) British ports were in possession of an International Ship and Port Facility Security Code certificate on 1 July. [185969]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All Ship Security Plans and Port Facility Security Plans received by the deadlines set by my Department's Transport Security Directorate (TRANSEC) were approved by 1 July. On 1 July this represented 95 per cent. of all port facilities including all major and high risk ports, and 99.8 per cent. of all the UK flagged fleet, with the exception of one ship.

  Port Facility Security Plans not approved by the 1 July deadline were because of very late submission, or not meeting the required standard and under-going revisions. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency are pursuing the one remaining UK flagged ship awaiting certification to arrange a verification visit.

  Some small bulk cargo port facility operations are still submitting plans to TRANSEC. We expect that all remaining plans will be approved within the next few weeks.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [185464]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer from my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury of 19 July 2004,Official Report, column 37W.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the official meetings he and his predecessor had with the Mayor of London since July 2000 to discuss transport issues in London, and the dates and subject of each meeting. [172206]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]Ministers and officials are in regular contact with the Mayor of London. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the Mayor on the following occasions, when a range of subjects were discussed:

  26 September 2002; and

  21 October 2002
  660W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr Stephen Byers), met the Mayor of London on the following occasions:

  10 November 2000;

  15 June 2001;

  19 July 2001;

  10 October 2001; and

  12 December 2001.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what dates in the last 12 months he has held meetings with the Mayor of London. [175177]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) today.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of NUMAST to discuss increasing the job opportunities for British Merchant Navy officers on UK flagged vessels. [184137]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers and officials meet regularly with representatives of the maritime trade unions, including NUMAST, to-discuss issues affecting the UK shipping industry. We are currently considering additional measures to enhance UK seafarer employment opportunities. Our social partners, including NUMAST, have been invited to submit proposals as part of the Government's review of tonnage tax. The possibility of an employment link in tonnage tax is one of the areas under consideration. We will announce our conclusions when all of the representations have been carefully considered.

  Olympic Bid
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with Lord Coe regarding transport infrastructure for the 2012 Olympic bid. [184040]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Secretary of State has discussed the 2012 Olympic bid with Lord Coe. Department for Transport Ministers and officials have met with London 2012 representatives, Transport for London and other key stakeholders to discuss the transport plans for the Olympic bid. The Government are confident that London can and will deliver outstanding transport for the Olympic and Paralympic games.

  Policies (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [185105]

  Mr. McNulty
  Our policies for a modern, efficient and sustainable transport system are set out in "The Future of Transport" White Paper, published on 20 July. The White Paper builds on the progress made since the publication of the 10-Year Plan for Transport in July 2000.
  661W
  All our policies are assessed using an approach that takes account of sustainable development objectives. This builds on our New Approach To Appraisal which takes full account of the environmental impacts of transport projects.

  Ports (South-west)
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress there has been on an environmental impact study into Teignmouth Harbour. [185794]

  Mr. Jamieson
  An Environmental Statement on the potential impacts of the Teignmouth Harbour proposals was prepared by the promoters in accordance with the Harbour Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 and was considered at the public inquiry held last year into the application for a Harbour Revision Order.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the report of the inquiry into the extension to Teignmouth Docks to be published; and if he will make a statement. [185795]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Inspector's report of the public inquiry into the proposed extension to Teignmouth Docks is under careful consideration by the Secretary of State as part of the statutory planning process. The report will be published at the same time as the Secretary of State's decision on the proposals.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent studies he has undertaken into the viability of ports in(a) Devon and (b) Cornwall. [185796]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has not undertaken any recent studies into the viability of ports in Devon and Cornwall. However, in September 2001 the South West of England Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) published their Regional Gateways Strategy which addressed the potential future roles of gateway ports in the South West region.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department spent on press officers, broken down by grade, in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [185234]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 19 July 2004](a) I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 26 May 2004, Official Report, column 1626W that provided information for the financial year 1996–97.

  (b) The salary cost of press officers employed in 2003–04 was £697,000. The average number of staff in post in that year broken down by grade (full time equivalent) is as follows:

  2003–04

  Pay hand/grade

  Number

  Senior Civil Service 1

  0.79

  7.1 (Grade 6)

  0.17

  6.1 (Grade 7)

  0.83

  662W

  2003–04

  Pay hand/grade

  Number

  5.6 (Senior Information Officer)

  3.08

  4.7 (Information Officer)

  8.92

  Total

  13.8

  Private Finance Initiative (Environmental Impact)
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that private finance initiative projects for which his Department is responsible create the minimum of environmental damage. [185721]

  Mr. McNulty
  Department for Transport projects are evaluated against the Department's "New approach to appraisal" (NATA). NATA provides an integrated approach to appraising environmental, economic and social aspects of transport projects. The same procedures apply to PH projects, which are also subject to NATA appraisals.

  Similarly approved PFI projects have to conform to the relevant planning provisions. The scale and nature of Department for Transport PFIs would usually require the Contracting Authority to prepare an environmental impact assessment on the project.

  The Department for Transport has jointly published environmental guidance on PFI projects—"Green Public Private Partnerships"—with ODPM, OGC and DEFRA. The guidance note provides practical assistance on environmental aspects of PFI project development, procurement and management.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of(a) the sustainability and environmental impacts of private finance initiative (PFI) projects and (b) the capacity of the PFI process to deliver environmentally sustainable projects. [185722]

  Mr. McNulty
  Project design has an important bearing on sustainability and environmental impact. This is reflected in the Department for Transport PFI project appraisal methodology and spending round evaluation criteria.

  The "Green Public Private Partnership" guidance note provides practical advice on how the PFI process can be used to deliver environmental benefits. The guidance directs contracting authorities to consider the scope for PFI projects to minimise waste, reduce whole life costs and design flexibility into facilities. The London Underground Power Supply PFI provides a case study of a project designed with tough environmental standards for power station decommissioning and redevelopment, and standards that reduce the level of greenhouse gasses produced.

  Quantitative and qualitative assessments of PFI project outcomes will improve, as more projects become operational for a longer time.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make private finance initiative contracts more accountable and transparent in terms of environmental sustainability. [185723]
  663W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport will consider the accountability and transparency of its PFI programmes when the consultation on new HM Treasury PFI Value for Money guidance has been completed and the guidance issued.

  Private Motoring (External Costs)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent estimate he has made of the external costs associated with private motoring, with particular reference to the environmental costs. [184847]

  Mr. Jamieson
  An estimate of the external costs of road use is provided on page 73 of the report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the Feasibility Study of Road Pricing in the UK (published by my Department on Tuesday 20 July 2004).

  Public Highways (Expenditure)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the Government have spent on maintaining public highways in each year since 1997. [183791]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Government expenditure on maintaining motorways and trunk roads in England between 1996–97 and 2002–03 is shown in the following table:

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1996–97

  550

  1997–98

  582

  1998–99

  641

  1999–2000

  726

  2000–01

  736

  2001–02

  711

  2002–03

  796

  Notes:

  1. Figures are net totals (i.e. net of allowable receipts) for capital and resource expenditure.

  2. 1996–97 to 2000–01 figures are on a cash accounting basis. Subsequent figures are on a resource accounting basis.

  3. The figures for 1996–97 to the first quarter of 2000–01 include roads that subsequently transferred to the Greater London Authority.

  Since 2000 there has been a substantial detrunking programme in England. Therefore the money the Government have spent during this period has been against a diminishing length of trunk road. Details of the lengths of road detrunked each year will be available in September; copies of the information will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Local authority expenditure on maintaining local roads in England between 1996–97 and 2002–03 is shown in the following table:

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1996–97

  1,906

  1997–98

  1,858

  1998–99

  1,968

  1999–2000

  2,072

  2000–01

  1,802

  2001–02

  2,048

  2002–03

  2,094

  664W
  Notes:

  1. Figures are net totals of capital and revenue expenditure.

  2. Figures from 2000–01 onwards do not include London.

  Highway maintenance expenditure in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and London is a matter for those Devolved Administrations.

  Public Relations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the salary costs to the Department were for employees working in public relations and publicity in each year since 1997. [183858]

  Mr. McNulty
  The salary costs of staff employed by DfT(C), since its creation in May 2002, are as follows:

  £000

  12002–03

  2003–04

  Press Office

  510

  697

  Publicity2

  459

  729

  1From 28 May 2002. There was a high vacancy rate in this period as a result of the split of what is now DfT from the former Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions.

  2 Advertising and media buying for public information campaigns (e.g. Think! road safety), publishing (e.g. Rail Review), publication and distribution of information leaflets, posters etc.

  Information for each of the financial years 1997—98 and 2001—02, when transport policy formed part of the remit of the former Departments' of Environment, Transport and the Regions and Transport, Local Government and the Regions (respectively), is not available in a comparable format.

  Public Transport Subsidies
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has commissioned on the costs of public subsidies to public transport in the last five years. [184038]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the last five years the Department has commissioned a number of research projects investigating the costs and benefits of public transport. Projects specifically investigating the effects of public subsidies included:

  Monitoring Quality Partnerships (1999–2002)

  Croydon Tramlink Impact Study (2000–01)

  Evaluating Rural Bus Grant and Rural Bus Challenge (2001–04)

  Monitoring Local Bus Tenders (2001–04)

  Monitoring effects of extending BSOG to Community Transport (2003–04)

  Further information about these and other research projects is available from the Research Database at www.rmd.dft.gov.uk.

  Radioactive Materials (Shipment)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 19 May 2004,Official Report, column 999W, on radioactive materials, what constitutes a justifiable reason. [182863]
  665W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The use of the word 'justifiable' was intended to make clear that radioactive material being moved without a serious purpose would not be acceptable.

  Rail Crossings (Safety Equipment)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the audio and CCTV safety monitoring equipment installed in relation to the Medhurst Road, Edenbridge rail crossing has been approved by the Health and Safety Executive. [186072]

  Dr. Howells
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Railway Inspectorate (HMRI)) approved the audio monitoring equipment installed at Medhurst Row, Edenbridge rail crossing. The HSE is not required to approve the CCTV monitoring equipment, which was fitted by Railtrack to gather evidence of level crossing user misuse.

  Railways
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the effect on the punctuality performance of train operating companies of extensions of scheduled journey times; and if he will publish figures for punctuality performance for mainline services over the most recent 12 month period re-stated to be measured against pre-Hatfield scheduled journey times. [181548]

  Mr. McNulty
  Train operators can make timetable adjustments, which may lengthen or reduce journey times, so long as they do not exceed the maximum journey times stated in the Public Sector Requirement (PSR) for each franchise. To re-calculate the performance of services over the last 12 months against historic timetable schedules could be done only at disproportionate costs.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much has been spent on the development of the Global System for Mobile Communications for Railways in each of the last seven years; and what the estimated cost is for each of the next five years; [184437]

  (2) what the total cost of the development of the Train Control System was, excluding costs for erection; [184438]

  (3) what the cost has been of erecting railway telecommunications masts intended for the Track Control System; [184439]

  (4) what proportion of railway telecommunications masts on the West Coast Main Line are operational and supporting an interim voice radio system. [184440]

  Mr. McNulty
  These are operational matters for Network Rail. I have passed these questions to Network Rail, for them to respond directly to the hon. Member.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority on the past and future funding for rail freight through(a) the Freight Small Schemes Fund, (b) incremental output statements for freight, (c) freight facilities grant and (d) track access charges. [180742]
  666W
  (2) if he will list the Strategic Rail Authority Freight Small Schemes Fund schemes (a) which have commenced, (b) where feasibility studies (i) have been completed and (ii) are continuing, (c) which have been placed on hold and (d) which have been cancelled, indicating in each case funding from the Strategic Rail Authority, (A) awarded, (B) approved and (C) projected in 2004–05. [180743]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers and officials in the Department meet regularly with the Strategic Rail Authority about a wide range of issues. Details of the Freight Small Schemes Fund are shown in the Strategic Rail Authority's 2002 Strategic Plan. Of those listed Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine, is set to go ahead following approval by the Scottish Executive. Bletchley-Claydon is being developed by the SRA but remains unfunded.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list out-of-court settlements to which(a) the Department, (b) the Strategic Rail Authority and (c) other agencies of the Department were party during the last 12 months, broken down by (i) date and (ii) amount; and who the other parties were in each case. [180748]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department does not maintain a comprehensive central record of-out of court settlements entered into by itself, its Agencies and the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA). The table sets out payments by three of the Department's Agencies which were made in out of court settlements following the commencement of legal proceedings finalised in the financial year 2003—04. Disproportionate costs would be incurred in identifying generally ex gratia and other settlement payments. However, maladministration claims against the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have been settled for a total of around £0.5 million, including one case finalised at the very beginning of the current financial year. These claims followed on from a ruling by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in an earlier similar case that there had been maladministration in the carrying out of certain statutory functions relating to the safety of vessels.

  Full details of the names of the parties and the circumstances of the cases have not been disclosed as this could be in breach of confidentiality either formally agreed with, or reasonably expected by, the other party. It would be disproportionately expensive to review each case to confirm the position and/or to write to the parties concerned to seek their consent to any disclosure.

  The SRA was party to one out of court settlement in 2003–04 but the terms of the settlement expressly prohibit the parties from disclosing any details including the date, parties or amount of the settlement sum.

  Type of case

  Amount Settled (£)

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  One compensation and six personal injury cases

  (Total)

  31,508

  Vehicle and Operator Services Agency

  Refund of a Single Vehicle Approval fee

  80

  Highways Agency

  Four claims by third parties relating to property

  667W

  Type of case

  Amount Settled (£)

  damage and personal injury on the trunk road network (Total)

  172,148

  For information on cases brought to Employment Tribunals, I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) today (UIN ref 181465).

  No non-employment based, out of court settlements following the commencement of legal proceedings are recorded for the central Department in the financial year 2003—04.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the W. S. Atkins report for the Strategic Rail Authority on a North/South rail line with all commercially sensitive information removed. [180821]

  Dr. Howells
  I have asked the SRA to arrange for a revised text to be produced on this basis, and, once it is available I will place a copy in the Libraries of the House.

  Rescue Co-ordination Centres
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) incidents, (b) accidents and (c) deaths occurred within the areas covered by each of the former rescue co-ordination centres at (i) Oban, (ii) Pentland and (iii) Tyne Tees in each year since 1998. [185855]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is as follows:

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Incidents

  Oban

  286

  281

  205

  310

  240

  297

  Pentland

  111

  106

  110

  180

  192

  153

  Tyne Tees

  443

  473

  342

  492

  448

  441

  Accidents

  Oban

  241

  230

  159

  245

  209

  231

  Pentland

  77

  68

  67

  117

  105

  107

  Tyne Tees

  274

  232

  259

  328

  287

  307

  Deaths

  Oban

  10

  14

  7

  11

  10

  9

  Pentland

  4

  4

  3

  5

  1

  3

  Tyne Tees

  16

  12

  6

  11

  6

  10

  Road Improvement Costs
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated cost is of the items in the programme of road improvements set out in Appendix 6 of the Highways Agency Business Plan which are dependent on the outcome of the Spending Review 2004. [176071]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The current estimated costs of the schemes referred to are:

  £million

  A249 Iwade-Queenborough Improvement

  81

  A5 Weeford—Fazeley Improvement

  38

  668W

  £million

  A14 Rookery Crossroads Grade Separated Junction

  9

  A421 Great Barford Bypass

  43

  A47 Thorney Bypass

  28

  A63 Melton Grade Separated Junction

  23

  M4 Junction 18 Eastbound Diverge

  10

  M5 Junctions 17–18 Northbound Climbing Lane

  6

  In most cases, the major costs of the schemes listed above will be incurred after 2004-05. The Highways Agency is proceeding with scheme preparation in order to allow the planned new starts to begin construction this year. Of the 8 new starts identified in the Business Plan, 2 are now under construction.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out in respect of each of the projects in the Highways Agency Targeted Programme of Improvements(a) the estimated project cost, (b) the cost benefit ratios and (c) the estimated date for completion. [182587]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 6 July 2004]The following projects, with their estimated cost and benefit cost ratio (BCR), are included in the Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI).

  Scheme

  Last calculated BCR

  Latest Estimated outturn cost (£ million)

  A1 Adderstone to Belford Dualling

  2.4

  14

  A1 Bramham—Wetherby (Including Wetherby Bypass)

  6.1

  62

  A1 Dishforth to Leeming

  1.5

  325

  A1 Leeming to Barton

  1.5

  1—

  A1 Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst Bypass

  2.5

  68

  A1 Morpeth to Felton Dualling

  2.2

  84

  A1 Peterborough—Blyth Grade Separated Junctions

  8.6

  86

  A1 Stannington Junction

  6.3

  8

  A1 (M) Ferrybridge—Hook Moor (DBFO)

  4.5

  161

  A1 (M) Wetherby—Walshford (DBFO)

  3.5

  34

  A1/A19/A1068 Seaton Burn Junction Improvement

  2.4

  30

  A10 Wadesmill Colliers End

  4.5

  39

  A 11 Attleborough Bypass

  2.5

  29

  All Fiveways—Thetford Improvement

  2.4

  60

  A14 Ellington—Fen Ditton Improvement

  1.8

  490

  A14 Haughley New St.— Stowmarket Improvement

  2.6

  31

  A14 Rookery Crossroads GSJ

  2.5

  9

  A19/A184 Testos Junction Improvement

  5.6

  21

  A2 Bean—Cobham Phase 1 Bean—Tollgate

  –1.5

  20

  A2 Bean—Cobham Phase 2 Tollgate—Cobham

  1.6

  101

  A2/A282 Dartford Improvement

  1.5

  80

  A21 Lamberhurst Bypass

  2.3

  19

  A21 Tonbridge to Pembury

  1.6

  65

  A23 Handcross to Warninglid Widening

  4.4

  41

  A249 lwade-Queenborough Improvement (DBFO)

  2.1

  81

  Improvement (DBFO)

  669W

  Scheme

  Last calculated BCR

  Latest Estimated outturn cost (£ million)

  A27 Southerham to Beddingham Improvement

  7.7

  19

  A3 Hindhead Improvement

  2.7

  236

  A30 Bodmin Indian Queens

  3.2

  69

  A30 Garland Cross to Chiverton Cross

  2.6

  125

  A30 Temple to Higher Carblake improvement

  1.2

  41

  A30/A3 82 Merrymeet Junction

  2.5

  9

  A303 Stonehenge

  1.3

  223

  A34 Chieveley/M4 J13 Improvement

  4.8

  76

  A38 Dobwalls Bypass

  1.7

  36

  A419 Blunsdon

  3.3

  40

  A419 Commonhead Junction

  3.9

  16

  A421 Bedford to M1 Junction 13

  4.2

  171

  A421 Great Barford Bypass

  3

  43

  A428 Caxton Common to Hardwick Improvement

  3

  44

  A45/A46 Tollbar End Improvement

  3

  57

  A453 Widening (M1 J24 to A52 Nottingham)

  1.5

  89

  A46 Newark—Widmerpool Improvement

  7.9

  186

  A47 Blofield to North Burlingham Dualling

  7.1

  15

  A47 Thorney Bypass

  1.9

  28

  A483 Pant—Llanymynech Bypass

  1.5

  41

  A5 Weeford—Fazeley Improvement

  2.7

  38

  A500 City Road and Stoke Junction Improvement

  2.4

  60

  A505 Dunstable Northern Bypass (A5 to M1 Link)

  4.3

  48

  A5117/A550 Deeside Park Junctions Improvement

  3

  43

  A57/A628 Mottram in Longdendale, Hollingworth and Tintwistle Bypass

  9

  103

  A590 High and Low Newton Bypass

  3

  22

  A595 Parton-Lillyhall Improvement

  2.5

  25

  A63 Melton Grade Separated Junction

  24.7

  23

  A64 Colton Lane Grade Separated Junction

  1.2

  11

  A64 Rillington Bypass

  1.3

  12

  A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Improvement

  5.8

  11

  A66 Greta Bridge to Stephen Bank Improvement

  6.9

  9

  A66 Long Newton Junction

  1.4

  8

  A66 Temple Sowerby and Improvement at Winderwath

  1.4

  23

  A69 Haydon Bridge Bypass

  1.4

  24

  M1 J19 Improvement

  1.8

  124

  M1 J21–30

  2.6

  1,915

  M1 Junction 10 to 13 Widening

  4.3

  382

  M1 Junction 6a to 10 Widening

  2.1

  241

  M20 Junction 10A

  4.2

  46

  M25 J12–15 Widening

  2.3

  105

  M25 J16–23 Widening

  5.5

  496

  M25 J1b–3 Widening

  9.9

  66

  M25 J23–27 Widening

  2.2

  419

  M25 J27–30 Widening

  2.4

  402

  M25 J5–7 Widening

  4.6

  214

  M4 Junction 18 Eastbound Diverge

  2.6

  10

  M40 Junction 15 (Longbridge)

  6

  57

  670W

  Scheme

  Last calculated BCR

  Latest Estimated outturn cost (£ million)

  M40/A404 Handy Cross Junction Improvement

  3.7

  12

  M5 Junctions 17–18 Northbound Climbing Lane

  7.5

  6

  M5 Junctions 19–20 Northbound Climbing Lane

  2.3

  8

  M5 Junctions 19–20 Southbound Climbing Lane

  3.1

  8

  M6 Carlisle to Guardsmill extension

  3

  69

  M60 J5–8 Widening

  3.8

  117

  M62 Junction 6 Improvement

  8.6

  38

  1Cost included above

  These costs include the latest Treasury guidance on risk and optimism bias and allow for inflation at 2.5 per cent. per annum.

  Of these, the following schemes have already started works or, if they have not, have provisional start dates in 2004–05, with anticipated completion dates as shown:

  Scheme

  Date of completion

  A1 Stannmgton Junction

  2004–05

  A1 (M) Ferrybridge—Hook Moor

  2006–07

  A1 (M) Wetherby—Walshford

  2005–06

  A10 Wadesmill Colliers End

  2004–05

  A14 Rookery Crossroads Grade Separated Junction

  2005–06

  A2 Bean—Cobham Phase 1 Bean—Tollgate

  2004–05

  A21 Lamberhurst Bypass

  2004–05

  A249 Iwade—Queenborough Improvement

  2006–07

  A34 Chieveley/M4 J13 Improvement

  2004–05

  A421 Great Barford Bypass

  2006–07

  A47 Thorney Bypass

  2006–07

  A5 Weeford—Fazeley Improvement

  2005–06

  A500 City Road and Stoke Road Junction Improvement

  2006–07

  A63 Melton Grade Separated Junction

  2006–07

  A64 Colton Lane Grade Separated Junction

  2005–06

  M25 J12–15 Widening

  2005–06

  M4 Junction 18 Eastbound Diverge

  2005–06

  M5 Junctions 17–18 Northbound Climbing Lane

  2005–06

  M60 J5–8 Widening

  2006—07

  Decisions on start of works for the remainder of the programme will be made in due course.

  Road Spending
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the money spent in each county in England and Wales over the last year on roads by(a) the Highways Agency and (b) local authorities. [174161]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table below sets out the latest available information on road spend by local authorities and the Highways Agency by county. Actual spend by local authorities in 2003/04 is not yet confirmed so the table provides the spend for 2002/03.

  Information on Wales is available from the Welsh Assembly.
  671W

  £million

  county

  Highway's Agency Authority

  Local

  Total Spend

  Bedfordshire

  23.7

  26.7

  50.4

  Berkshire

  54.5

  40.0

  94.5

  Buckinghamshire

  64.6

  39.3

  103.9

  Cambridgeshire

  36.8

  37.9

  74.7

  Cheshire

  66.7

  71.7

  138.5

  Cornwall

  20.1

  35.8

  55.9

  County Durham

  21.6

  47.3

  68.9

  Cumbria

  16.4

  38.0

  54.4

  Derbyshire

  23.0

  54.4

  77.5

  Devon

  61.8

  69.6

  131.4

  Dorset

  9.2

  34.7

  43.9

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  18.9

  24.5

  43.4

  East Sussex

  12.0

  33.7

  45.7

  Essex

  98.4

  97.2

  195.6

  Gloucestershire

  72.0

  62.8

  134.7

  Greater London

  26.0

  479.9

  505.9

  Greater Manchester

  49.0

  130.1

  179.1

  Hampshire

  35.8

  80.2

  116.0

  Herefordshire

  20.6

  12.4

  33.0

  Hertfordshire

  53.6

  56.3

  109.9

  Isle of Wight

  0.0

  13.0

  13.0

  Kent

  79.5

  83.5

  163.0

  Lancashire

  94.7

  81.8

  176.5

  Leicestershire

  36.5

  42.3

  78.8

  Lincolnshire

  47.6

  60.6

  108.2

  Merseyside

  14.1

  78.2

  92.3

  Norfolk

  18.0

  57.8

  75.8

  North Yorkshire

  41.1

  73.2

  114.3

  Northamptonshire

  41.5

  25.6

  67.1

  Northumberland

  15.7

  24.2

  39.9

  Nottinghamshire

  52.5

  56.4

  108.8

  Oxfordshire

  55.3

  34.4

  89.7

  Rutland

  5.7

  3.3

  9.0

  Shropshire

  37.4

  31.7

  69.1

  Somerset

  18.5

  52.9

  71.4

  South Yorkshire

  54.4

  57.1

  111.5

  Staffordshire

  40.3

  48.8

  89.1

  Suffolk

  14.6

  40.2

  54.8

  Surrey

  33.2

  57.0

  90.2

  Tyne & Wear

  11.8

  64.0

  75.8

  Warwickshire

  53.1

  25.6

  78.7

  West Midlands

  64.4

  122.7

  187.1

  West Sussex

  11.1

  33.9

  45.0

  West Yorkshire

  34.9

  106.2

  141.1

  Wiltshire

  41.0

  34.4

  75.3S

  Worcestershire

  52.5

  28.2

  80.8

  Grand Total

  1,753.8

  2,809.4

  4,563.2

  Note:

  Numbers individually rounded to £0.1 million

  Road Traffic Congestion
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his latest estimates are of the level of road traffic congestion, as measured by(a) seconds per vehicle kilometre and (b) average peak-time speeds on inter-urban routes. [186165]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The White Paper The Future of Transport' which was presented to the House on Tuesday 20 July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explains that we are developing new measures of traffic congestion. Estimates of average peak-time traffic speeds on weekdays were published in April of this year in Traffic Speeds on English Trunk Roads: 2003' available on the Department's website.

  Roads
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's latest estimate is of 672W
  (a) the cost of the local road repair backlog and (b) the proportion of principal local roads with no residual life as at 1 April. [186163]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department does not yet have firm enough data to make a robust estimate of the maintenance backlog on roads and footpaths.

  The structural condition of roads is represented by its "residual life". Where a road's residual life falls to or below zero its deterioration is no longer predictable. It may remain serviceable but needs to be monitored closely to see if maintenance is needed. In the most recent available figures, for 2003, 17 per cent. of English principal roads came into this category.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress the Government has made towards its target of halting the deterioration of the local road network by April. [186164]

  Mr. McNulty
  Results of the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey show that there has been a significant improvement in the condition of English local roads between 2000 and 2003, the latest year for which results are available. The Government is therefore on track to meet its target of halting the deterioration by 2004.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress the Government has made towards its target of completing or having under construction 40 schemes from the Highways Agency's targeted programme of improvements by 2005. [186170]

  Mr. Jamieson
  31 out of the original 40 schemes, contained in the targeted programme of improvements (TPI), are already completed, under construction or will be on site by April 2005. A further three schemes are planned to start this year.

  Rolling Stock
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to facilitate the design and production of less energy-intensive railway rolling stock; [182379]

  (2) what steps he is taking to lessen the power consumption of railway rolling stock. [182380]

  Mr. McNulty
  These are matters for the industry. Increased train weight arising from safety and other design features and the wider use of air conditioning and power operated doors have tended to increase the power needs of modern trains. But current and future developments should offset that. For example, future technology in body construction is expected to lead to lighter trains which draw less power and regenerative braking, which produces new power during the braking process, is already being introduced where practicable.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers(a) he and (b) other bodies have to require franchisees to maintain an adequate supply of rolling stock of acceptable quality. [185269]

  Mr. McNulty
  Rolling stock issues are among those considered when the terms of individual franchises are being drawn up. Where a need for rolling stock refurbishment or replacement is identified, the detailed requirements will be set out in the franchise agreement.
  673W
  Franchises are currently awarded by the Strategic Rail Authority, though it is proposed that this responsibility will in due course pass to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as described in his statement to the House of 15 July.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress with withdrawing Mark 1 slam door rolling stock from the train network. [185419]

  Mr. McNulty
  By early July 2004, 522 Mark I vehicles had been withdrawn. The remaining 1,200 or so will follow progressively over the coming months. The final date for the elimination of Mark 1s from passenger service is the subject of a consultation being conducted by Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate who have indicated that they are minded to approve a proposal that the deadline should be November 2005. 908 new vehicles have been introduced into service.

  Salary and Recruitment Costs
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) recruitment costs and (b) total cumulative salary bill of (i) the Chairman of the UK Commission for Integrated Transport and (ii) the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority are. [185236]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]For the Chairman of the UK Commission for Integrated Transport, the recruitment costs specifically attributable to this post are. not held separately. The most recent Chair appointment was in March 2002. The remuneration for the post is £30,000 per annum with the Chair expected to work five days per month.

  Full details of the payments made to the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority can be found in the Authority's Annual Reports. The recruitment costs specifically attributable to this post are not held separately.

  Security Forces (Ships in British Ports)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for a decision to allow security forces to board a ship in a British port. [184602]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ultimate responsibility for authorising the deployment of special forces in a British port will fall to Ministers, at the request of the Chief Constable dealing with the incident.

  Smartcards
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made with the introduction of smartcard technology; what action he is taking to ensure national compatibility of smartcards; what support he is giving to the introduction of smartcard technology; and if he will make a statement. [185733]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department published national interoperability specifications for smartcard ticketing in March this year (ISBN 0—9548042). The specifications enable a single bus or train ticket to be loaded at one location, used for travel across a network, and then used 674W
  again at the new location. We are working with LAs and industry to set up the associated delivery framework that will provide the management, security and accreditation services to ensure ticketing schemes work seamlessly together.

  We are supporting a number of projects to help existing schemes be compliant with the national specifications. The London Oyster Card is one example. Others are the conversion of existing schemes in Cheshire, Nottinghamshire and Southampton and a new rural scheme in Cumbria and Lancashire (known as No Wcard). The Department has also given provisional approval to the West and South Yorkshire major transport scheme Yorcard.

  The Department is also working closely with ODPM and the Department for Education and Skills to ensure wider compatibility of smartcards, for example using the same card for school attendance, library access and travel.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for which(a) motorway, (b) trunk road and (c) other road locations in Spelthorne permission has been given for (i) fixed and (ii) mobile speed and traffic light cameras; and what criteria were taken into account when deciding whether to grant permission. [183299]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Surrey is one of five police force areas which does not at present participate in the national safety camera programme which provides for the costs of operating camera sites to be met from fixed fine resources. The camera sites operated by the police and local highway authorities in Surrey are therefore not subject to approval under the national programme.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been collected through fines imposed on those caught speeding by speed cameras in Havering since their introduction. [184246]

  Caroline Flint
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the number of fixed penalties or fines paid for the offence of 'speeding detected by camera' is not collected centrally.

  Sustainable Development (Government Estate)
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes there have been in(a) road transport vehicle carbon emissions and (b) single occupancy car commuting from his Department against the baseline year set out in the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. [185697]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department of Transport was unable to establish a baseline for 2002–03 for either(a) road transport vehicle carbon dioxide emissions or (b) single occupancy car commuting, due to the lack of available data.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what have been identified as the most significant sustainable development impacts in relation to the operation of the estate of his Department. [185728]
  675W
  Mr. McNulty
  Most staff in the Department for Transport are located in about 100 larger properties while the remainder are located in relatively small properties belonging to the agencies. Consequently, the most significant sustainable development operational impacts of the main office estate are typically in respect of utility use, waste, paper, procurement and travel.

  On the non-office estate there are also few sites that might be considered to have significant sustainable impacts beyond the typical and these are:
  The Air Accidents Investigation Branch at Farnborough that handles crash wreckage from civil aircraft accidents and serious incidents within the UK, which they investigate.
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency Maritime Rescue Sub Centres and Co-ordination Centres which are manned and operational 24 hours a day and include air-conditioned emergency operational areas, rescue equipment, emergency generators etc.
  The 24 acre Driving Standards Agency's training residential centre at Cardington.
  Vehicle Inspectorate's goods vehicle testing stations provide statutory testing of vehicles.
  The 100 HA motorway maintenance depots which provide a base from which to undertake routine motorway maintenance, and especially winter maintenance and could include one or more rock salt storage barns, a number of winter maintenance vehicles, weighbridge and washdown areas, and diesel fuel tanks.

  The sustainable impacts at these sites vary considerably depending on the nature of the work undertaken at them but are likely to cover such aspects as biodiversity, estates management, control of pollution, handling hazardous substances or waste and the discharge of water.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what parts of his Department's estate will not be covered by the commitments set out in the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. [185729]

  Mr. McNulty
  The parts of the Department's estate not currently covered by the Framework commitments are:The Marine Accident Investigation Bureau which only has 28 staff in a small minor occupied office in Southampton.
  Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information Service at Crowthorne which comprise only 11 staff.
  The Traffic Area Offices at Birmingham and Edinburgh because they are minor occupiers in their buildings and useful utility and other environmental information is not available.
  643 Marine and Coastguard sites that are typically unmanned radio masts, garages or sheds where a vehicle or marine rescue equipment is stored.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken by his Department to review arrangements for public reporting of sustainable development impacts since publication of the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. [185730]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since the publication of the Framework the Department now reports publicly on its sustainable development impacts and performance on its website and through the Sustainable Development in Government annual report.
  676W
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements his Department has in place to report publicly on its key sustainable development impacts. [185731]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department reports on progress made in addressing the sustainable development impacts of its policies, in its Annual Report, and through our contribution to the Government's annual Sustainable Development Report.

  We monitor our performance against the Government's sustainable development indicators, laid out in "Quality of Life Counts", by publishing them in "Transport Trends".

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of Thameslink 2000. [186295]

  Mr. McNulty
  Network Rail's application for a Transport and Works Act order was considered at a public inquiry between June 2000 and May 2001. A decision on the project was deferred pending the resolution of three deficiencies identified by the inspector in his report, relating to the design of the scheme in central London. Network Rail has now submitted further applications addressing these issues, which are likely to be considered by a public inquiry next year.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of public expenditure on new trunk roads in each year from 1990–91 to 2010–11; and if he will make a statement. [156694]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table sets out figures for outturn and forecast public expenditure on building new trunk roads and motorways and improving and widening existing roads from 1990–91 to 2005–06. The data do not allow expenditure on new trunk roads to be separately identified. Spending in future years is being reviewed as part of the Spending Review 2004.

  For completeness, the table also sets out equivalent figures for private expenditure on building new trunk roads and motorways, and, improving and widening existing roads.

  The table must be interpreted with care as, for a number of reasons, the trunk road network has reduced in size over the last few years and so the figures do not form a consistent series.

  (1) The government's policy as set out in A New Deal for transport: Better for Everyone (1998 Cm 3950) is that there are a number of trunk roads which mainly serve local and regional traffic and are more appropriately managed at local level. Following negotiations we have, since 1999, transferred around 2,000kms of these non-strategic roads to local highway authorities—about 20 per cent. of the original network. The data have not been adjusted to take this into account. We would hope to complete the transfer of the remaining non-strategic roads, another 1,000kms, over the next two years.
  677W
  (2) In addition, trunk roads (excluding motorways) within Greater London were transferred to Transport for London in July 2000.

  (3) The public expenditure numbers include payments to private operators for their investment. The table sets out figures for the payments made to the private sector, which are deducted to produce the net expenditure figure.

  £ million

  Financial Year

  Public Expenditure

  Private Expenditure Estimated

  Shadow tolls

  Net Expenditure

  1990–91

  1,270

  50

  —

  1,320

  1991–92

  1,277

  29

  —

  1,306

  1992–93

  1,309

  125

  —

  1,434

  1993–94

  1,345

  75

  —

  1,420

  1994–95

  1,183

  80

  35

  1,228

  1995–96

  1,100

  101

  25

  1,176

  1996–97

  965

  123

  42

  1,046

  1997–98

  787

  238

  88

  937

  1998–99

  583

  188

  131

  640

  1999–2000

  496

  33

  205

  324

  2000–01

  506

  28

  202

  332

  2001–02

  636

  173

  206

  603

  2002–03

  731

  223

  220

  734

  2003–04

  687

  242

  239

  690

  2004–05

  724

  150

  261

  613

  2005–06

  769

  325

  353

  741

  Notes:

  Net expenditure equals public expenditure plus private expenditure less payments to private operators.

  Private investment is that estimated in the Ten Year Plan.

  Water
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes there have been in water consumption by his Department in each year since 1997. [185699]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed in May 2002 and as a result the information provided relates to the period from then.

  For the Department's London Headquarters building, Great Minster House, water consumption has. fallen from 12,308m3 to 11,380m3 between 2002–03 and 2003–04 giving a per person ratio of 7.3m3.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the non-office sites within his departmental estate which have been identified as being likely to provide opportunities for significant water savings. [185700]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have not identified any non-office sites within the departmental estate as being likely to provide opportunities for significant water savings.

  Watermark Project
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has joined the Watermark project. [185698]

  Mr. McNulty
  Yes.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Southern Africa (Food Crisis)
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  There continue to be significant humanitarian needs in Southern Africa, but the widespread humanitarian crisis that began in 2001 has eased. The countries with the most acute needs are Lesotho, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. Since 2001, my Department has provided humanitarian assistance totalling over $136 million for the six countries covered by the UN consolidated appeals for Southern Africa—Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland.

  Total availability of the cereals harvest in the region, including South Africa, is forecast to be around 22.7 million metric tonnes this year. This is around the same level as the past five year average for the region. Late rains and increased plantings have helped to increase production levels in Mozambique and Zambia in particular, while output in South Africa is slightly down on last year. Zambia has overtaken South Africa as the biggest regional source of grains for WFP programmes in Southern Africa this year. However, production in Malawi, Lesotho and Swaziland has declined compared to last year; and throughout the region, many poor people are unable to secure enough food regardless of the national or regional production level.

  The UN has recently released the latest crop and food supply assessments for Angola, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique and Swaziland. The biggest shortfall is again expected to be in Zimbabwe. The Government of Zimbabwe's refusal to allow the UN to complete its assessment in the country makes it difficult to quantify food aid needs, but the Government's forecasts of a bumper harvest are not taken seriously by the main agencies working there. The cereal shortfall after domestic production in Zimbabwe is likely to be in the region of around 600,000 to 1 million metric tonnes. Despite claims to the contrary, the Zimbabwe Government is expected to import cereals to cover this shortfall although it is difficult to say how much of the gap they will be able to cover. Pockets of extreme vulnerability are likely to remain beyond the period of the UN Consolidated Appeal (which ends in December), particularly among socially marginalised groups.

  DFID is discussing humanitarian needs with the UN in order to prepare for periods of greater need over the next 10 months. We will respond to further funding appeals in close co-ordination with the Vulnerability Assessment Committees operating in the region.
  60WS
  Zimbabwe

  DFID has spent £67 million in humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe since September 2001. DFID's support for humanitarian relief will be funded through a protracted relief programme worth £18 million over the next two years. This will work with NGOs to provide support to approximately 1.5 million of the poorest households in the country, particularly those affected by HIV/AIDS. The programme will provide targeted food aid, low-cost agricultural inputs and rehabilitation of water points support to stop people falling into acute distress.

  Zambia

  Although Zambia is expecting a good cereal harvest this year, Zambians remain vulnerable due to risks associated with access to food, HIV/AIDS and adverse economic conditions—factors that are common throughout the region. DFID recently began a £10 million programme supporting CARE International to help some of the most destitute and poorest groups in Zambia manage these risks more effectively and are supporting the Government's efforts to establish a vulnerability monitoring system in the country.

  Mozambique

  In Mozambique, DFID's poverty reduction budget support programme has allowed the Government of Mozambique steadily to improve its disaster management capacity and end the previous pattern of annual emergencies. We continue to support targeted food aid and nutritional supplementation programmes as well as seed and input fairs in Mozambique, a method that gives farmers their choice of appropriate agriculture inputs while supporting the private sector and local economies.

  Malawi

  In Malawi, we are working with the UN to support school feeding programmes to feed over 100,000 pupils in five districts. In addition, through the Malawi Social Action Fund, DFID will provide £4.95 million to vulnerable people through a "cash-for-work" programme from which 100,000 households are expected to benefit.

  Swaziland and Lesotho

  In Swaziland and Lesotho, we continue to support targeted food aid programmes through the World Food Programme and supplemented by support for seed fairs with FAO. We are also supporting nutritional monitoring work in Lesotho. We are spending £2 million in Lesotho to support the Government's food security priorities as part of the Poverty Reduction Strategy process. This will include the establishment of a national food security policy, which will be aimed at sustaining and promoting livelihoods.

  Longer-Term Response

  In response to the International Development Select Committee's report of March 2003, DFID is working with Governments, the UN and the NGO community to improve our understanding and response to the problem of food insecurity in Southern Africa. We have produced a regional hunger and vulnerability strategy which outlines the regional dimensions of food security in the region and forms the basis of a regional programme of support, which is currently being designed.
  61WS
  We are also working with the regional UN office in Johannesburg to encourage better joint programming among UN Agencies and NGO partners in the region. And we are supporting the vulnerability assessment committees in Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe so that they can better track vulnerability trends and allow countries and the international community to respond more effectively.

  Ghana
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  Ghana successfully reached completion point under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative (HIPC) on 13 July 2004, becoming the 14th country to do so.

  Under the arrangements agreed when Ghana applied for HIPC status, Ghana will have its debt reduced in net present value terms by $2.2 billion. In addition, many bilateral creditors have indicated their intention to provide additional relief beyond the enhanced HIPC initiative (estimated to total about US$500 million in NPV terms). Between 2004 and 2013, Ghana could save approximately US$230 million annually in debt service costs.

  Debt relief, together with bilateral assistance beyond HIPC relief, will lower Ghana's debt-to-export ratio to 84 per cent. and its debt-to-government revenue ratio to 130 per cent. in 2004. It is estimated that Ghana's debt will remain sustainable (by HIPC definitions) for a wide range of scenarios covering the next 20 years.

  Ghana applied for HIPC status in 2001 with the strong encouragement of the UK, and in particular of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) then Secretary of State for International Development. Since then the Government of Ghana has begun to implement its poverty reduction strategy, maintained sound macro-economic management, and undertaken some important structural reforms as agreed at decision point.

  Completion point is good news for Ghana, and an opportunity to move further and faster with its poverty reduction programmes.

DEFENCE

  Reserve Forces
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  I am publishing today, a consultation document setting out proposals to update the financial assistance arrangements for reservists who are called out for permanent service and their employers.

  The current arrangements are set out in statutory instrument 1997, Number 309. The Government fully recognise that it is important that reservists are financially secure when called out. We are equally aware of the need to avoid placing a reservist's employer at a financial disadvantage during that period. Therefore, as announced in the Defence White Paper of 2003 and which I restated to the House on 13 May, these arrangements are being reviewed in the light of our experiences in military operations.
  62WS
  The consultation document will be given a wide circulation, which will include the reserve forces' and cadets' associations, various bodies representing employers, the Trades Union Congress, the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association and other interested parties. The closing date for responses is 15 October 2004.

  Copies of the consultation document will be in the Library of the House and will also be available on the Ministry of Defence website, at: http://www.mod.uk/consultation/reservists.htm

  Armoured Vehicle Training Service
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  I am pleased to announce that the landmark training consortium has been chosen as the intended preferred bidder for the Ministry of Defence's armoured vehicles training (AVTS).

  The AVTS project aims to deliver live and synthetic armoured fighting vehicles training for Britain's armed forces through a private finance initiative (PFI). The service is planned to last for 30 years and covers training in the UK and Germany, as well as refresher training for troops deployed on operations.

  In line with the Ministry of Defence's announcement yesterday, AVTS forms part of the policy to modernise defence outlined in the recent defence White Paper. The service will exploit new technologies and invest in a flexible and modern training service that will help our Armed Forces maintain the battle-winning professionalism they displayed recently in Iraq.

  PFI offers the opportunity for enhanced training capability faster and cheaper than could be achieved through a conventional procurement. The MOD will now engage with landmark training to assess if a satisfactory, affordable, value for money deal is achievable. Final decisions will not take place until the negotiations have been satisfactorily concluded.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Managed Migration Review
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  As part of the top to bottom review of immigration, the Government have already announced a number of measures to address abuses of the managed migration routes. This statement provides details of additional measures that we intend to bring forward. There will be further announcements in due course.

  As part of this package, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills recently announced plans to establish a register of genuine education providers, by the end of the year. In the meantime we have continued our programme of visits to suspect colleges. To date we have visited 672: 178 (26 per cent.) were genuine; 195 (29 per cent.) were not; and 299 (45 per cent.) will require further investigation. All applications in respect of institutions found not to be genuine are now being refused.
  63WS
  Further detailed work on student applications and routes of potential abuse have raised concerns about the large numbers of overseas nationals switching in-country to the student category, often for lower level courses.

  I have therefore decided to prohibit switching into the student category for anything other than degree level courses. Visa nationals are already prohibited from switching: this will place non-visa nationals in a similar position.

  Genuine students wishing to study on courses below degree level will therefore need to seek entry clearance overseas. Those who intend to study but have not finalised their arrangements may use the prospective student category.

  A related problem has been identified with overseas students who take a succession of short courses at a low level and demonstrate no clear plan of study. I have therefore decided to reduce the overall time that may be spent on such short courses below degree level to a maximum of two years.

  Arrangements are in hand to bring these changes in to effect from September.

  I am also announcing changes that will restrict further the circumstances in which those admitted to the United Kingdom in a temporary category will be allowed to switch into employment routes.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration announced on 19 May that those admitted under the sectors based scheme (SBS) and seasonal agricultural workers scheme (SAWS) would no longer be allowed to switch into work permit employment. I am now also making further changes to the immigration rules which will mean that only those who are present in the United Kingdom as work permit holders, graduated students, working holidaymakers, postgraduate doctors, dentists and trainee general practitioners may switch into the high skilled migrant programme (HSMP) and innovator categories. Switching from most temporary categories into work permit employment, HSMP and the innovator category will therefore only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. The changes will come into effect on 1 October 2004.

  These measures will help to ensure that the separation of temporary and permanent migration routes, which is necessary to an effective immigration control, is preserved. It is also desirable that switching policy should be clear and transparent.

  These measures will not prevent UK employers from recruiting overseas workers with skills that they need. It will simply mean that those currently in the UK in a temporary category will normally need to return to their country of residence and seek entry clearance to come to the U K for employment.

  The Government is determined to ensure that the benefits of managed migration should be realised, as well as limiting the scope for abuse of the system.

  Sir Gareth Roberts' review— "The Supply of People with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Skills"— highlighted the fact that the UK was suffering from a severe shortage of physical science, engineering and mathematics students at university and skilled workers in the labour market. He said that the shortage could do serious damage to the UK's future
  64WS
  growth. In response, the Government have decided that students at UK universities graduating from specific physical science, engineering and mathematics courses should be permitted to stay in the UK for one year following their graduation to take up employment.

  I am now announcing the detail of how the new science and engineering graduate scheme will work. The new scheme will be open to undergraduates (at 2:2 level and above), Masters and Doctors who have successfully completed a shortage physical science, engineering or mathematics course, as defined by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The eligible courses will be reviewed by the Department for Education and Skills on an annual basis. The list of eligible courses for the first year of this scheme is annexed to this statement.

  We want to attract individuals with skills in these shortage areas to the UK. We expect that individuals who do not initially find employment in their chosen field will successfully find work in their sector within the one-year period of the scheme. If an individual can not meet the requirements for work permit employment, or can not meet the requirements to switch into another of our managed migration schemes, they will be required to leave the United Kingdom once their one year on the science and engineering graduate scheme is over.

  We will be making the changes required to the Immigration Rules to implement this scheme in October. It will be open to this year's graduates.

  Further to my statement on 17 June about Ken Sutton's report on the operation of the European Association Agreements in Romania and Bulgaria, work has been in hand in the UK and at posts overseas to implement the recommendations in Mr Button's report about the procedures and guidance which need to be in place to manage applications under the agreements, and the additional safeguards which need to be in place.

  It is now our intention to resume consideration of initial applications, that is for entry clearance and in-country switching (which will be limited under Mr Sutton's recommendations) from 1 September and to resume a service on further leave to remain and indefinite leave to remain later in the year.

  I am also today announcing changes to the current arrangements for Ministers of Religion. The Government is concerned that those who come to the United Kingdom to serve as ministers or religion should understand and respect the community in which they teach and work. I am therefore making changes that take account of consultations which were carried out in 2002 after publication of the White Paper (secure borders, safe haven) and discussions held during June and July this year with faith representatives. Under the changes we will be bringing into force, those seeking entry as a Minister of Religion will be required to demonstrate that they have a basic command of spoken English by providing an International English Language Testing System (IELTS) certificate at the "limited user" level (Level 4). We intend to raise the requirement to level 6 spoken and written English (competent user) after an interim period of two years. Missionaries, Members of Religious Orders (i.e. monks and nuns) and preachers visiting the UK on a religious tour will not be expected to undertake an English language test before entering the UK.
  65WS
  I will shortly be laying before Parliament the proposed changes to the immigration rules that will allow the English language requirement to be introduced. I envisage the new requirement will come into force at the end of August.

  For people with existing English skills—for example, those educated in an English speaking nation—discretion will be applied to allow entry where evidence is provided that an individual speaks competent English. These requirements will be set out in the immigration rules for all those seeking to enter the United Kingdom as a Minister of Religion as well as those switching in-country.

  We are also amending the immigration rules formally to permit in-country switching to Minister of Religion status, with certain limitations. These include that the applicant is legally entitled to be in the United Kingdom as a student or through any other managed migration route; that they have been here not less than one year; and that appropriate evidence is provided of their suitability for the post. This provision will not apply to visitors or asylum-seekers. This was also in the White Paper, which specifically proposed allowing qualified people from overseas to switch their status in-country to fill local vacancies as Ministers of Religion.

  During the second half of this year we will be launching a further round of consultations and meetings with faith communities about what further measures might be taken by the Government in collaboration with faith communities to ensure that the pastoral and religious needs of British congregations in a diverse and cohesive society are met. In particular, we will be consulting on whether there would be merit in introducing religious qualification requirements for those seeking admission as a Minister of Religion. Work will be undertaken with United Kingdom faith communities to identify what skills and qualifications a successful minister needs, with a view to developing standards or accredited qualifications that applicants for the Minister of Religion category must meet. We will look to faith communities to tell us what the requirements should be. In addition the Government is proposing to invite views on the proposal that at the point at which a Minister of Religion from abroad applies for an extension of stay, usually after their first year in this country, they should be asked to undergo an assessment of their civic knowledge and the level of their community engagement. We will therefore be consulting faith communities about the elements of such an assessment and arrangements for making training or tuition available.

  Further announcements will be made in due course.

  First Degree Graduates Course List

  Principle Subject Heading

  HESA Code

  # Pre clinical medicine

  A1

  # Pre clinical dentistry

  A2

  # Biology

  C1

  # Botany

  C2

  # Biochemistry

  C7

  # Food Science

  D4

  # Other Agricultural Subjects

  D9

  # Chemistry

  F1

  66WS

  # Materials Science

  F2

  # Physics

  F3

  # Geology

  F6

  #Environmental Science and other physical sciences

  F9

  # Statistics

  G4

  # Other Mathematical Sciences

  G9

  # Balanced combinations with Mathematical sciences excluding

  GZ

  # Computer science

  # General Engineering

  HI

  # Civil Engineering

  H2

  # Production Engineering

  H7

  # Chemical Engineering

  H8

  # Balanced Combination with Engineering and Technology

  HZ

  # Minerals Technology

  J1

  # Metallurgy

  J2

  # Polymers and Textiles

  J4

  # Other Materials Technology

  J5

  # Maritime Technology

  J6

  # Biotechnology

  J8

  # Other Technologies

  J9

  # Building

  K2

  # Environmental Technologies

  K3

  # Other Architectural Studies

  K9

  ** Mathematics code G1 is not included in this list or the Post Graduate or PhD list as figure show that the number of graduated from this pure branch of mathematics are now increasing. However other variations of mathematics are declining such as statistics and other mathematical sciences and these principle subjects are therefore included on the course list**

  Post Graduate Course List

  Principal Subject Heading

  HESA Code

  # Botany

  C2

  # Zoology

  C3

  # Genetics

  C4

  # Agricultural Sciences

  D8

  # Other Agricultural Subjects

  D9

  # Physics

  F3

  # Astronomy

  F5

  # Balances Combination with Physical Sciences

  FZ

  # Other Mathematical Sciences

  G9

  # Balanced Combination with mathematical sciences

  GZ

  Excluding Computer Science

  # General Engineering

  HI

  # Electrical Engineering

  H5

  # Production Engineering

  H7

  # Other Engineering

  H9

  # Balanced Combination with Engineering and Technology

  HZ

  # Minerals Technology

  J1

  # Polymers and Textiles

  J4

  # Other Materials Technology

  J5

  67WS

  # Maritime Technology

  J6

  # Environmental Technologies

  K3

  PhD Course List

  Principal Subject Heading

  HESA Code

  Pre Clinical medicine

  A1

  Nutrition

  B4

  Ophthalmics

  B5

  Audiology

  B6

  Botany

  C2

  Zoology

  C3

  Biochemistry

  C7

  Agricultural Sciences

  D8

  Chemistry

  F1

  Materials Science

  F2

  Balanced Combination with mathematical sciences

  GZ

  Excluding Computer Science

  # General Engineering

  HI

  # Mechanical Engineering

  H3

  # Aeronautical Engineering

  H4

  # Electrical Engineering

  H5

  # Electronic Engineering

  H6

  # Chemical Engineering

  H8

  # Balanced Combination with Engineering and Technology

  HZ

  # Metallurgy

  J2

  # Maritime Technology

  J6

  # Environmental Technologies

  K3

  Charity Commission
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart)
  I am today announcing that the Charity Commission will be publishing their Department report for 2004 on 23 July. Copies of the report will be available in the Library.

  Parole
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced important changes in relation to the release of certain life sentence prisoners and extended sentence prisoners. In particular, the authority for determining the release of tariff-expired mandatory life sentence prisoners transferred from the Secretary of State to the Parole Board in December 2003. This followed the earlier decision by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Dennis Stafford that a court-like body should determine the release of such prisoners. As a result of these changes, the Parole Board rules 1997 have been amended, as have certain related directions to the Parole Board made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which have also been extended to cover all types of life sentence prisoners.

  Parole Board Rules

  The new Rules will address:
  the arrangements under which Parole Board panels are appointed to consider the cases of tariff expired life sentence prisoners and extended sentence prisoners;
  68WS
  the procedural arrangements for panel consideration of such cases both on the papers and at oral hearings;
  the information and reports to be provided by the Secretary of State and the evidence to be supplied by the prisoner, and
  the arrangements for witnesses and observers to attend the hearing.

  The rules will apply for the first time to Parole Board reviews for tariff-expired mandatory life sentence prisoners as well as to all other existing lifers to whom the previous rules applied. What this means in practice is that the new arrangements will provide for all tariff expired lifers to have their cases considered initially "on the papers", and, if not satisfied with the outcome of that paper panel decision, at a further oral hearing on request. The Government are persuaded that these new arrangements will be just as fair to all parties involved as the previous arrangements, and will have the added advantage of enabling the Board to deal with cases more efficiently and effectively.

  The rules also provide for similar arrangements to apply to the review of the continued detention of recalled extended sentence prisoners.

  The other major change to the rules is that they will now empower the Parole Board panels to call witnesses to oral hearings in their own right. Previously, panels have tended to rely on either party to call witnesses. This is in line with a recommendation of the comprehensive review of parole and lifer processes on which I have reported to the House previously.

  Directions

  Amendments have also been made to the Secretary of State's directions to the Parole Board on the release and recall of mandatory life sentence prisoners and their transfer from closed to open conditions. The amended Directions will, for the first time, apply to all lifers, not just mandatory lifers. They have been designed to reinforce the importance of risk assessment and they will set out more clearly, the factors that panels are expected to take into account in reaching decisions on a lifer's risk to the public.

  The Parole Board have been extensively consulted on the content of the rules and directions and the rules have also been discussed with prisoners' legal representatives.

  The new rules and directions come into force on 1 August 2004. Copies of the rules and directions have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Immigration and Nationality Protectorate
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of the annual report by Mary Coussey, the race monitor appointed in respect of the Home Office's Immigration and Nationality Directorate under the terms of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2002. We will be studying the report carefully and I will publish my reply in due course.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Single Farm Payment
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  I am announcing today further measures concerning the implementation
  69WS
  of the decoupled single payment in England. These include measures to promote more environment-friendly and sustainable farming, to go alongside the reduction in red tape and boost to farm incomes that CAP reform will deliver.

  The CAP reforms agreed last year were a major advance which will encourage an improvement in the economic and environmental performance of English agriculture. The reform adopts a new deregulatory approach to farm support, by decoupling agricultural subsidy from production and simplifying the application process for farmers. Ten major CAP payment schemes will be replaced by one new single payment—considerably reducing the administrative burden for farmers. And the greater freedom to farm provided by the reform will offer opportunities for the industry to enhance incomes.

  We have consulted widely on the key aspects of today's announcement. I believe the measures I have decided upon represent the best balance of interests, taking account of the all the representations I have received. Further decisions will be announced over the coming months.

  As part of the reform, farmers in England sharing some £1.7 billion of payments under the CAP will have to meet new cross-compliance standards designed to protect the environment, animal health and welfare, public health and plant health. Following public consultation and discussions with the range of stakeholders, I have decided upon a series of practical cross-compliance measures that will set a new baseline standard for environmental performance for agriculture. These are a relatively light requirement, representing a mixture of common-sense farming practice and support for existing legislation, which should help drive an improvement in overall performance and deliver public benefit. They will help contribute to a number of the Government's objectives set out in the strategy for sustainable farming and food by protecting soils, wildlife habitats and the landscape. A description of these measures (which are distinct from those included in agri-environment schemes) may be found on the DEFRA website and my Department will be sending a communication to all farmers shortly.

  The possible cross-compliance measure which has most divided opinion was whether farmers should be required to leave uncultivated two metre field margins alongside hedges and ditches, as an alternative to payment for these measures through the new entry level stewardship (ELS). After careful reflection I have decided that the way forward is to use both cross-compliance and ELS in a complementary way. For cross-compliance purposes farmers will be required to protect hedges and ditches by not cultivating, fertilising and spraying within two metres of the centre line (or a minimum of one metre from the top of the bank in the case of ditches). In addition, farmers will be able to receive payment under ELS for positive management of their hedges, as well as for establishing and managing a range of buffer strip options next to the cross-compliance protection zone around hedges and ditches. Since one of the qualifying conditions for the hedgerow management options in ELS will be that farmers leave a minimum uncultivated strip, those farmers entering hedges into ELS will largely be meeting their cross-compliance requirements in this respect. I am aware
  70WS
  there are particular issues about how we accommodate those farmers who have retained small fields and those who want to plant new hedges. We will discuss with the industry and key stakeholders the practical details, so that we can announce the specific arrangements in the early autumn. Finally, I intend to implement this particular cross-compliance measure from the start of the main cropping cycle in July 2005, recognising that farmers have already made plans for the coming season.

  Cross-compliance measures will be enforced in a cost-effective and proportionate way that avoids placing unnecessary burdens on farmers. Full use will be made of existing inspections where possible, with the Rural Payments Agency working in close partnership with the specialist agencies to ensure a fully co-ordinated approach. This will be developed in line with other departmental initiatives such as the whole farm approach, which is designed to streamline farmers' interactions with Government.

  Close partnership working in order to join up public services at the point of delivery to our customers—whether to farm businesses or other customers—is a key element of the reforms I announced yesterday as part of our Rural Strategy 2004. The new Integrated Agency will be a future partner of the Rural Payments Agency, both in these arrangements for delivering cross-compliance, and in providing environmental grants through the agri-environment schemes.

  The cross-compliance measures which have been selected will be complemented by those available through agri-environment schemes in England, which are designed to deliver environmental enhancement and positive management for the public good. A new scheme, environmental stewardship, is being introduced in 2005 and this includes the new entry level stewardship (ELS). The ELS will be open to applications from all farmers, and will provide payments to enable farmers to deliver what society increasingly demands: the sustainable management of our countryside as a whole. This expansion will be funded partly through a deduction (known as "modulation") from the new overall CAP single payment pot. Modulation takes two forms a compulsory element levied at a uniform rate in all member states and the possibility of an additional national rate, at the discretion of the member state. I have decided to take advantage of the option for additional national modulation in England, subject to detailed EU rules being formally adopted early in the autumn. Modulation will be levied at a rate of 5 per cent. in 2005 and 10 per cent. in 2006, when we expect take-up of ELS to be considerably higher. These amounts include both the compulsory EU element and the additional national element. The combined modulation rate to apply in 2005 will therefore be very similar to the modulation rate of 4.5 per cent. previously scheduled to apply in that year. The funds raised through modulation in these years will be matched by funds from the Exchequer, doubling the amount of money returned to the rural economy.

  No decisions have yet been taken as to the rates of modulation and of Exchequer match funding that will apply in England from 2007. These will depend on a number of factors, including future EU financing

  71WS
  arrangements for rural development measures and take-up of the ELS. But, based on current estimates, the overall rate of modulation may rise further in future years.

  On 22 April I made a written statement concerning the determination of the regional boundaries in England for the purposes of the single payment. I can now confirm that farmers will be able to make representations against the location of the Moorland Line on their holdings. The arrangements will be operated by officials in the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) and Rural Development Service (RDS), and farmers unhappy with the results of their representations will be able to make an appeal through a formal appeals procedure. The process will begin during August, when application forms and guidance notes will be available in an information pack from the RPA. Farmers will be able to ask for a pack by ringing an RPA helpline. Under the flat rate payment system we have adopted in England, set aside rates must be calculated using a method set out in European legislation concerning the single payment. I can now announce that the percentage of land to be set aside in the coming year in each of the English regions is as follows:
  8.0 per cent. outside the upland severely disadvantaged area (SDA)
  1.3 per cent. within the non moorland SDA

  There will be no requirement to set aside land in the moorland SDA. These rates are lower than have applied in the past, but a greater area of land will attract a set aside obligation from 2005, thus approximately maintaining the area of land under set aside overall.

  Information concerning the management conditions that will apply on set aside land will be made available shortly and a communication will be sent to all farmers.

  The National Reserve is the mechanism by which certain defined categories of applicant may apply for subsidy entitlements for which they would not qualify through the normal process. A range of decisions relating to the reserve are required to be taken at UK level and some others have UK wide implications. As the Northern Ireland consultation process has only just finished and full consideration of the results has not been completed, it is not possible to make an announcement at this stage. We will be discussing the issues further throughout the summer and hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly after the recess.

  Another issue that will be given further attention over the coming weeks is how to apply the new scheme in respect of common land. My officials will shortly discuss a potential solution with stakeholders.

  Further decisions concerning implementation of CAP reform will be announced in due course. The RPA is currently in the process of contacting those farmers with historic subsidy records to inform them of the crop area and livestock numbers that will be used to calculate the historic entitlement and resolve any queries. If a farmer is unhappy with the outcome of a representation against a decision concerning this data, he or she will be able to make an appeal through a formal appeals procedure. Also during the summer the RPA will provide an opportunity for farmers who have not yet registered their land on the rural land register to do so. This exercise is intended to benefit farmers who consider that
  72WS
  they may be entitled to the flat-rate element of the single payment, and/or would like to apply for environmental stewardship. In Spring 2005 the RPA will despatch application forms to farmers for the single payment. The deadline for completed application forms to be returned to the RPA will be 15th May 2005. In the summer of 2005, when the aggregate area of land applied upon is known, we will advise applicants of entitlement amounts. The window for making single payments to farmers runs from 1 December 2005 to 30 June 2006.

  Fisheries
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  We have been concerned for a number of years about levels of bycatch of common dolphins in the bass pelagic pair trawl fishery prosecuted off the south and south west coasts of England. I am also aware of the keen public interest in this issue which has been the subject of an EFRA Select Committee Report. We have been committed to making progress on reducing this bycatch and have carried out considerable research to identify the fisheries concerned and to seek mitigating measures which would allow fisheries to continue while at the same time protecting dolphins.

  We have reluctantly concluded, in the light of findings from our most recent research, that current levels of bycatch in this fishery may constitute a threat to the common dolphin population and that Community action to address this problem is needed urgently. Our research this season observed 169 dolphin casualties. Across the UK fleet as a whole, and including the larger French element of the fishery, this constitutes a serious problem. It has also become clear from our research that mitigation methods are not currently sufficiently developed to reduce bycatch to more acceptable levels. Until such a time as a proven means of reducing bycatch has been identified, we believe that other more radical options to reduce bycatch in this fishery are now needed.

  There is a clear need for action on a community level. This is because the fishery is prosecuted by a significantly larger number of vessels from other member states. This is why the UK has for many years, in the light of our research findings, pressed for meaningful action at an EU level. I was pleased that an EU regulation to reduce the incidental bycatch of small cetaceans was adopted recently, but this will not provide an early solution to the problem we now face in the light of research we now have available.

  I therefore intend to request the European Commission to take action under Article 7 of Council Regulation 2371/2002. This provides for the introduction of emergency measures which could run for six months and be renewed for a further 6 months, allowing 12 months for more permanent protection to be put in place. We will be asking the European Commission to take action to close the fishery for the forthcoming season whilst permanent measures are considered. I look forward to the Commission's response to our case for emergency action. If it is not accepted then I will consider other options including restricting the number of vessels allowed into the fishery and seeking a ban on pair trawling within 12 miles of the UK.

  Revised Large Combustion Plants Directive
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  The Government have listened to and take seriously the concerns that have been expressed by the various industrial sectors affected about the possible impact of the LCPD on jobs and security of energy supply. In view of this, Defra jointly with DTI have been carrying out extensive further analysis of all the possibilities that the Directive might offer in order to seek an optimal solution within the framework of sustainable development, in a way that will work for industry without compromising the environmental goals set by the directive.

  Our further analysis has shown that a modified approach, drawing on work already done on the National Emissions Reduction Plan (NERP) and Emissions Limit Value (ELV) approaches would deliver the desired environmental outcomes in a way that is more cost-effective for business. The Government intend to explore this approach with the European Commission. We will also be holding further discussions with the Commission about the legal definition of a combustion plant which is unclear in the directive.

  The LCPD does not come into force until 2008 for pre-1987 plants. Nevertheless, we are very conscious of the need for certainty about the application of EU environmental directives so that industry can plan future investments. Final decisions on the UK implementation approach will be made as soon as possible. We will keep stakeholders informed of developments in the meantime.

HEALTH

  Reducing Bureaucracy
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  On 20 May 2004,Official Report, column 61WS, I announced the completion of the initial stage of the review of my Department's arm's length bodies (ALBs). I made it clear then that there is considerable scope to improve efficiency and reduce bureaucracy in the ALB sector and I laid down the following parameters for the review:
  a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of ALBs;
  a saving in expenditure by ALBs of £0.5 billion by 2007–08; and
  a reduction in posts of 25 per cent. in the same period.

  The next stage of the review has now been completed and decisions have been taken on a reconfiguration of the ALB sector and its functions. Some of these functions provide reassurance to patients about standards in an increasingly devolved health and social care system. Others provide functions that can literally be life saving. The reconfiguration will enhance these essential functions while eliminating overlaps and devolving functions where possible. It will not put the safety and welfare of patients in jeopardy. The changes are summarised below and explained in a report, "Reconfiguring the Department of Health's Arm's Length Bodies", copies of which have been placed in the Library.
  74WS
  I want now to move to detailed discussions with all interested parties about how to implement these changes. Some changes will require primary or secondary legislation and the parliamentary scrutiny that goes with that. Some statutory consultation will be required on specific changes.

  Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's overall plans for releasing resources to the front-line. The ALB review contributes to those plans. It will also lift the burden that the central overhead can place on frontline staff. The way in which we achieve the ALB reductions will be linked to the analysis undertaken for the Gershon efficiency review. The changes I will be making reflect the Prime Minister's wider civil service reform agenda and will also deliver the expectations of the Lyons review on public sector relocation.

  The ALB review covered the work of stand-alone national organisations sponsored by the Department to undertake executive functions. Some 38 of these existed in the baseline year of 2003–04, although the review also looked at four prospective ALBs. A list of the bodies can he found in the report. The decisions I have taken so far will reduce the number of ALBs by almost half to 20, in the following four main categories.

  Regulation

  ALBs in this category regulate, inspect and hold specific parts of the system to account. They often have their own primary powers and extra independence from direction by the Secretary of State.

  The Healthcare Commission (whose statutory name is the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection), the Independent Regulator of National Health Service Foundation Trusts and the Commission for Social Care Inspection, will continue to regulate providers and their services. The Healthcare Commission will take on the main role of the Mental Health Act Commission, which will be abolished.

  A new Regulatory Authority for Fertility and Tissue will be created to encompass the work of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and The Human Tissue Authority.

  The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals will continue to oversee the statutory health professional self-regulatory bodies and the General Social Care Council will continue to regulate social care workers. The Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board will take on the role of the Dental Vocational Training Authority, which will be abolished.

  The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency will continue to regulate medicines and healthcare products.

  Standards

  ALBs in this category establish national standards and best practice.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) will take on the work of the Health Development Agency (HDA) in order to link standards work on both the prevention and treatment of ill health. The HDA will be abolished.
  75WS
  Public welfare

  ALBs in this category are focused primarily on the safety, protection, well-being and involvement of patients and public.

  The National Clinical Assessment Authority (NCAA) will be brought into the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) which will also support high quality, independent ethical review of all research that could affect patients. The NPSA will take on the lead national perspective on hospital food, cleanliness and safe hospital design. NPSA will also take over responsibility for the national confidential enquiries from NICE.

  The Health Protection Agency (HPA) has taken on functions from the Public Health Laboratory Service and will take on the role of the National Radiological Protection Board under the Health Protection Agency Act 2004. The PHLS and the NRPB are to be abolished. The National Biological Standards Board will also be abolished and its functions taken on by others, primarily the HPA.

  The regional functions and staff of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse will be transferred to existing mainstream structures as soon as possible. A further announcement on this will be made shortly. Centrally the NTA will continue in existence until we are confident that a detailed programme of mainstreaming drug treatment within the NHS is successfully in place. A review of progress will take place in 2006 to agree any further action needed to ensure drug treatment is fully mainstreamed into the NHS including agreeing the future of the NTA's national functions.

  The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will be abolished. Patients' forums will remain the cornerstone of the arrangements we have put in place to create opportunities for patients and the public to influence health services. Stronger, more efficient arrangements to provide administrative support and advice to forums will be put in place after consultation. The NHS Appointments Commission will appoint forum members. A clearer quality framework for forum activities in monitoring and reviewing health services will be established and communicated to forums as quickly as possible.

  Central services to the NHS

  These ALBs provide services involving economies of scale and focused expertise.

  A new Blood and Transplant Authority will be created to encompass the services provided by the National Blood Authority and UK Transplant, which will be abolished.

  The NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) will be reconstituted to oversee the proposed NHS redress scheme and manage the financial compensation element at national level. Further details on how the scheme will operate will be published later this year, and implementation will require primary legislation. The NHSLA will also take on the functions of the Family Health Services Appeal Authority (Special Health Authority) which will be abolished.
  76WS
  The NHS Appointments Commission will be reconstituted as an executive non-departmental public body with wider powers to make public appointments. It will also make appointments to patients' forums and to research ethics committees.

  The NHSU is subject to a more detailed study, within the overall ALB Review process, which will be completed shortly. The NHS Modernisation Agency will have most of its budget and staff devolved to the NHS, with a smaller core remaining within the Department for the present.

  A new Health and Social Care Information Centre will be created to reduce burdens on the front-line by coordinating information requirements across a wide range of bodies. The new centre will retain some of the information-related functions of the current NHS Information Authority and will take on the statistics and information management functions of the Department. The NHSIA will be abolished. To build on the progress and momentum achieved to date, and reflect its sheer scale, the National Programme for Information Technology will become a time-limited executive agency for three to five years and will incorporate the IT functions of the NHSIA.

  A new NHS Business Services Authority will be created to replace the NHS Pensions Agency, the Dental Practice Board, the Prescription Pricing Authority and the NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Authority, all of which will be abolished.

  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency will be reformed. The role of the NHS Logistics Authority will be market-tested. It is anticipated that the function will be contracted out and that the NHS Logistics Authority will be abolished.

  A Dental Special Health Authority will no longer be created.

  NHS Direct and NHS Professionals will retain their ALB status for two to three years. In the meantime, we will work with both organisations to consider how they may prepare to transfer to independent status as bodies established on foundation principles to operate in the public interest.

  A small core estates team will be brought into the Department and NHS Estates abolished.

  Releasing resources to the frontline

  In 2003–04, ALBs spent a total of £4.8 billion, including operating costs of £1.8 billion, and employed around 25,000 staff.

  The principles outlined in Sir Peter Gershon's efficiency review will be applied to the ALB sector to generate more than £200 million in cash-releasing savings for the front-line, for example by sharing back office services and by carrying out activities more efficiently. No ALB will be exempt from the need to improve efficiency. In addition, £150 to £200 million will be released to frontline control by devolving functions from ALBs. The scope for achieving full cost recovery for regulation will be investigated and taken forward.

  The Department's commercial directorate is scrutinising the business processes and procurement activities of many of the central services ALBs to establish the full scope of the efficiencies to be made, especially in relation to the money (about £3 billion) that is spent by ALBs on behalf of frontline

  77WS
  organisations on NHS supplies, temporary staff and litigation services. The commercial directorate's work on the NHS supply chain is already well advanced, suggesting savings of approximately £150 to 200 million in the period to the end of 2007–08.

  We are confident that expenditure on ALBs can be reduced by at least £0.5 billion by 2007–08. Savings of this magnitude will be associated with a reduction in the number of posts in the ALB sector of about 25 per cent.

  The ALB Review will now move to implementation. Over the next three to four months my officials will work closely with the devolved Administrations, ALBs, staff interests and other stakeholders to draw up implementation plans and to resolve outstanding issues on allocation of functions. These plans will include decision points on new ALB functions and processes, staffing levels, budgets, location and time scales for transfer. A small team in the Department will oversee this process. These arrangements will ensure delivery of the saving of £0.5 billion by 2007–08 and the reduction of posts within ALBs.

  Blood Donations
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  My statement on 17 December 2003 informed the House of the first case of possible transmission of vCJD via blood transfusion and the actions taken as a result of this case to protect future blood supplies. I promised then to provide updates on any major changes.

  My statement of 16 March 2004 indicated that the committee on the microbiological safety of blood and tissue for transplantation (MSBT) had met at my request to consider whether further measures were needed. The recommendations were to exclude from donating blood anyone who had previously received transfusions of whole blood components since January 1980. These measures were introduced with effect from 5 April 2004.

  MSBT met again on 29 June to review experience of these measures. The committee recommended tightening the exclusion criteria for two groups who have similarly received transfusions of whole blood components since January 1980:
  previously transfused apheresis donors; and,
  donors who were unsure if they had previously had a blood transfusion

  Apheresis donors are a small pool of committed donors who make frequent attendances to donate blood, where machine processing removes only certain blood components and the rest is returned to the donor.

  When actions were taken in April 2004 to exclude certain donors, neither of these groups were excluded until any potential impact on the blood supply became clearer.

  In the light of experience since the exclusions came into effect, MSBT has now advised that these groups can be excluded without adverse impact on the blood supply. These new exclusions will take effect from 2 August.

  In a separate development, a second case of possible vCJD prion transmission via blood transfusion has now been confirmed. A patient in the UK received a transfusion of blood in 1999 from a donor who subsequently developed vCJD. Though the patient died
  78WS
  of causes unrelated to vCJD, abnormal prion protein has been found in spleen tissue. This patient had a genetic type that differs from that so far found in patients who have developed vCJD.

  I understand that a detailed account of the case will be appearing soon in the medical journal The Lancet. This new finding was referred to the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee (SEAC) and MSBT for expert advice. SEAC agreed that this second patient with apparent vCJD infection added to the evidence that the vCJD agent can be transmitted by blood. MSBT concurred with this view, and has advised that no additional public health measures are required to protect the blood supply. This confirms the precautionary approach set out in my statement of 17 December.

  Counter Fraud and Security Management Service Accounts 2003–04
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  For the Counter Fraud and Security Management Service, their annual accounts and any accompanying Comptroller and Auditor General report 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.

  Primary Care Dental Workforce Review
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  The Secretary of State's written ministerial statement on 16 July set out the Government's plans for rebuilding national health service dentistry, ensuring better access to NHS dental care and improving oral health in England. The plans included a significant increase in funding and a substantial programme of action to increase dental workforce capacity. These improvements will be made against the background of the move to local commissioning in October 2005.

  The views of a wide range of organisations were helpful to us in drawing up our proposals. For example, the British Dental Association and representatives from the NHS and higher education were among those who contributed to the report of the primary care dental workforce review that was completed in 2002. Although time has moved on, the report is important contextual information about the perceived needs as seen in 2002. The report assisted our thinking as we developed the comprehensive plans announced last week. We are therefore publishing the report today. It is available on the Department's website at www.dh.gov.uk/ publications. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  David Bennett Inquiry
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  This statement follows publication of the independent inquiry into the death of David (Rocky) Bennett, and my written statement on 12 February,Official Report, column 77WS, which set out the action being taken to deliver race equality in mental health services, and respond to the recommendations of the inquiry.
  79WS
  I wish to inform the House that, further to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr Dhanda) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 8 June at column 138, our response to the inquiry will not be available in July, but will be provided later this year.

  I want to reassure the House that this delay is because we want to ensure that our response to the inquiry report recommendations can be set alongside our wider programme of action to improve mental health care for black and minority ethnic communities. This will be published in the autumn, following our consultation on the framework in the report "Delivering Race Equality". We need more time to consider the significant issues raised during our consultation on this document. We also want to ensure that we properly address the recommendations of the inquiry report.

  In the meantime we must ensure that NHS staff have the skills they need to provide services, without discrimination, for people from black and minority ethnic communities. I am pleased to inform the House that the NHSU will be giving priority to develop and deliver this training for NHS staff, starting with staff in mental health settings.

  Further information about progress on the national work we have started and to which I referred in my statement of 12 February is now available. This includes information about the programme of work led by the National Institute for Mental Health to support the development of effective services for people with mental health problems from black and ethnic minority communities; and guidance on best practice to support the safe and therapeutic management of aggression and violence in mental health inpatient settings.

  I would like to draw particular attention to the publication yesterday of our Health and Social Care Standards and Planning Framework. It sets out the local action needed to commission services for the public to take forward the NHS Improvement Plan through effective partnership working. It sets out the national framework for PCTs and their partner organisations to take account of different needs and inequalities in their local populations. It commits us to providing national data year on year on the experience of service users from black and minority ethnic communities. It sets out how PCTs should support access to assessment, treatment and care for all those at risk, paying particular attention to the needs of those from black and minority ethnic communities and other groups that may be hard to reach.

  I would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate my view that there is no place for racism or discrimination in the NHS. Discrimination, both direct and indirect does exist. It is unacceptable; it contradicts the basic value of equity that is the cornerstone of the health service. We are committed to rooting out racism, tackling the inequalities that exist, and ensuring that the experience of people from black and minority ethnic communities is improved.

  1 Details of the NIMH(E) programme, including key publications, can be found at:http://www.nimhe.org.uk/ priori ties/black. asp. NIMHE's guidance "Developing Positive Practice to Support the Safe and Therapeutic Management of Aggression and Violence in Mental Health Inpatient Settings: Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide" has been developed to support mental health service
  80WS
  providers and enable them to review their current policies and procedures relating to education, training and practice in the safe and therapeutic management of aggression and violence. It can be found at http://www.nimhe.org.uk/whatshapp/item display_publications.asp?id=441

PRIME MINISTER

  Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner (Annual Reports)
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  I have today laid before both Houses the annual reports for 2003 of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Swinton Thomas and the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right hon. Lord Justice Simon Brown. Some sensitive information has been excluded from the reports of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner in accordance with Section 58(7) and 60(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

  I am grateful to the Commissioners for their reports and the work that has gone into preparing them.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Berezovsky and Zakayev
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  Russian citizens Boris Abramovich Berezovsky and Akhmed Iliasovich Zakayev were granted asylum in the UK last year, as is public knowledge.

  The grant of asylum to these two persons was made after due assessment by the relevant authorities of their cases and of the UK's obligations under the 1951 UN Convention on refugees and domestic law. They did not enter the UK at the invitation of Her Majesty's Government. A grant of asylum does not imply support from the UK Government for an individual's views, activities or statements.

  We take very seriously the requirement for any person granted asylum in the UK to comply with the conditions of the UN convention under which refugees are recognised, and with the provisions of UK law. Recipients of asylum receive cautions not to take part in criminal activities, or activities such as support for or encouragement of terrorist organisations, or activities endangering national security or public order. Where individuals granted asylum breach these conditions we would not hesitate to take action against them and have strengthened the law to enable us to do so more effectively.

  Iraq: Export Licence Applications
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a further licence to export military list goods to Iraq. The arms embargo against Iraq remains in place under United Nations Security Council resolutions 1483 (22 May 2003) and 1546 (8 June 2004). UNSCR 1483 (2003)
  81WS
  includes an exception for "arms and related materiel required by the (Coalition Provisional) Authority to serve the purposes of this and other related resolutions".

  Accordingly, prior to the hand over of power on 28 June and the Coalition Provisional Authority ceasing to exist, Her Majesty's Government considered it appropriate to grant exemptions for the export of military listed goods for use by Iraqi police forces, Ministry of Justice personnel, Ministry of Oil security personnel and Iraqi security forces. The licence is consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. Future applications will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis against the UN embargo and consolidated criteria, taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time.

  Her Majesty's Government also considers it appropriate to grant a licence for the export of assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols for use by a private security company, contracted to provide support for personnel working under contract with the Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit. The coalition provisional authority (CPA) certified the requirement for these weapons prior to the CPA ceasing to exist on 28 June. The licence is consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. Future applications will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis against the UN embargo and consolidated criteria, taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time.

  British Council Trustees
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin)
  Copies on the British Council Trustees' report and accounts for the financial year ended 31 March 2004 have been placed in the Library of the House. During the period the council received £165.5 million grant in aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Export Licensing
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  Enhanced statistical information on strategic export licensing will, from July 2004, be released on a quarterly basis, instead of once a year through the annual report on strategic export controls, as at present. The first quarterly report on strategic export controls will be published on the Department of Trade and Industry and Foreign and Commonwealth Office websites:www.dti.gov.uk and www.fco.gov.uk on 28 July. This report will contain information on export licensing decisions taken from January to March 2004.

  From now on, statistical data will be published on the FCO and DTI websites three months after the last decision in any given quarter. Until now, decisions taken in one calendar year have been reported in the annual report on strategic export controls in the middle of the following year. Information on the earliest licensing decisions reported in the annual report was not therefore made available until some 18 months later.

  From 2004, the annual report, which the Government have a statutory obligation to produce, will summarise information already provided in quarterly reports, as well as describing export control policy developments. It will be produced in hard and electronic copy. The hard copy will include a CD-ROM containing all of the
  82WS
  licensing data published in the quarterly reports for that year. The Government intend to publish the next quarterly report, relating to decisions taken between April and June 2004, in October.

  The introduction of quarterly reports reflects the Government's commitment to further improve the openness of its strategic export licensing system, which is already acknowledged to be amongst the most transparent in the world.

  The Government's most recent strategic export controls annual report was published on 7 June.

CULTURE MEDIA AND SPORT

  Independent Review of S4C
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  On 3 March this year, I announced the appointment of Roger Laughton, Head of Bournemouth University Media School, assisted by Meurig Royles as Welsh language assessor, to carry out an independent review of S4C.

  I am today publishing Mr Laughton's report of his review and copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. I welcome this very thorough analysis of S4C's current position and the challenges facing the authority in the digital age. The report's conclusions and recommendations raise a number of issues relating to the Government's Digital Action Plan, BBC Charter review and Ofcom's review of public service broadcasting, which will need to be addressed in the context of those initiatives. My Department will liaise with the authority and with other interested organisations to consider Mr Laughton's recommendations in detail and I will notify the House of the resulting conclusions in due course.

  Digital Television
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  In my statement of 19 May I said that I would report further stages in establishing the plan for switchover. I am pleased to say that much progress has been made in the discussions between the Government, Ofcom, and the public service broadcasters.

  While the broadcasters have not reached a full consensus on the optimum timetable, some—including the BBC—have suggested that 2012 may be the most appropriate date for the completion of switchover. This could mean beginning the switching sequence as early as 2007. This would be subject to agreement on a detailed plan, including resolution of the remaining issues raised in the discussions, Ofcom plans to include reference to this timetable in the draft digital licences for Channels 3, 4, 5 and Teletext which they expect to publish for consultation later this summer.

  We continue to believe that an ordered process leading to the earliest practicable switchover remains desirable given the advantages to consumers, the broadcasting industry and future growth of innovative new services. We believe that switchover should be broadcaster-led but that the final decision on timetable should balance these benefits against the need to ensure that the interests of the most vulnerable consumers are protected. I have therefore asked Ofcom's independent

  83WS
  consumer panel to consider what measures might be necessary to ensure this protection and to report to me later this year with their advice. We will also take advice from leading charities. The Government's final endorsement of a timetable will be subject to being satisfied that adequate measures are in place to meet this objective.

  The BBC, in their 29 June publication "Building Public Value", proposed that 2012 should be the target date for switchover. The BBC made clear its willingness to be a "leader and coordinator across the industry" and to "take a special responsibility for bringing the final cohorts into the digital television universe". I have asked the BBC how they propose to take this forward.

  The Government remains committed to ensuring that switchover is planned and implemented in a way which is platform and broadcaster neutral. Consumers must have clear, unbiased information about what is available on each platform and from each provider so that they can make an informed choice. In particular, people who buy television equipment now should know that switchover will take place during the expected lifetime of television sets bought today. We are therefore engaged with retailers and manufacturers—who also need to plan ahead—to see that good clear information is given to consumers currently planning to buy a television or an item of recording equipment. We expect this information to spread through retail outlets from September, identified by the switchover logo.

  As an early step towards switchover, we are proceeding with a technical trial in two villages—Ferryside and Llansteffan—in South Wales. The residents have responded overwhelmingly in favour of taking part in this trial. If, as we expect, this switchover trial is successful, this community will be the first in the UK to go fully digital next spring.

  We expect further progress on these matters in the coming months and I will report to the House on material developments as they occur.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Civil Legal Aid
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  With the agreement of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the Legal Services Commission (LSC) has today published a consultation paper entitled "A New Focus for Civil Legal Aid—Encouraging Early Resolution; Discouraging Unnecessary Litigation".

  The main theme of the paper is to re-focus the civil legal aid scheme from contested litigation and to encourage early resolution of disputes. With a limited budget, we need to ensure that legal aid funding is targeted on the most needy cases and in the priority areas. The proposed changes are also required to update the LSC's funding code in the light of new initiatives—for example, changes in handling clinical negligence cases and the new Independent Police Complaints Commission. The changes to family legal aid complement the proposals announced in our Green Paper entitled "Parental Separation: Childrens' Needs and Parents' Responsibilities".

  The main proposals are as follows:
  84WS
  to restructure the levels of service for private law family cases to encourage the early and amicable resolution of family disputes wherever possible. A new level of service called family help will replace the existing three services, and will build upon the work already done through the FAInS (Family Advice and Information Service). This proposal will be piloted through FAInS providers before full implementation;
  to introduce wider powers to refuse funding for divorce (ancillary relief) cases on the grounds that private funding mechanisms may be available, for example, using the value of the assets in dispute;
  to introduce stricter controls over multiple and repeat applications in private law family cases and to limit funding to one certificate per client at any time;
  to remove from scope low priority categories of case, such as legal help for drafting divorce and judicial separation petitions and changes of name;
  to revise the financial eligibility limits to achieve uniform income limits across all levels of service. The upper limit for qualifying for legal representation in court would be reduced, to the (lower) level for legal help, as adjusted for inflation. However, there should be appropriate safeguards and exemptions in place to ensure the most vulnerable applicants are protected;
  to remove the current rule which disregards £100k of equity in an applicant's home in assessing financial eligibility for legal aid. Again, there will be exemptions for the most vulnerable clients;
  in clinical negligence cases and complaints against the police, a requirement that redress is initially pursued through the appropriate complaints procedure before funding for litigation can be considered.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library of both Houses. It is available on the LSC's website: www.legalservices.gov.uk

  Court Service
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  The Court Service annual report and accounts for 2003–04 has been laid before Parliament today. This document gives full details of the agency's performance and expenditure for that year. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Magistrates' Courts business returns annual report 2003–04 has been laid before Parliament today. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  International Human Rights Instruments
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  My right hon and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has made the following written ministerial statement."The Interdepartmental review of international human rights instruments announced on 7 March 2002 by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Irvine of Lairg has been concluded.
  In the course of the review, the Government has ratified the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention against torture; has signed and ratified Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights; ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, relating to Children in Armed Conflict; and extended the European Convention on Human Rights to the Cyprus sovereign base area. We have decided to accept the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, which will help us to assess the effects of individual petition to the UN generally. By accepting the Protocol we are also confirming the United Kingdom's commitment to women and equality issues, spearheaded by the Minister for Women, Patricia Hewitt. We will also sign Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights; ratify chapters A and B of the Convention on Participation of Foreigners in Public Life; withdraw the general reservation relating to immigration entered under the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination Against women; and modify the reservation relating to the Throne and the armed forces entered under the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Finally we will dispense with a group of reservations now obsolete".

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Planning
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to publish in August new planning policy statements on both sustainable development in rural areas and renewable energy in England. These will be the first in a new series of planning policy statements that are being introduced as part of the Government's programme of reform to the planning system. The new planning policy statement 7 (PPS7) will replace existing planning policy guidance note 7 (PPG7), "The Countryside—Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development", published in February 1997. The new planning policy statement 22 (PPS22) will replace existing planning policy guidance note 22 (PPG22): "Renewable Energy" published in February 1993.

  A draft of PPS7 was issued for public consultation in September 2003. The key policy aims of PPS7 are to plan for and facilitate good quality, sustainable development to support thriving rural communities and businesses, while protecting the beauty and character of the countryside.

  A draft of PPS22 was issued for consultation in November 2003. The final document will be an important step towards facilitating the delivery of more renewable energy developments and thereby meeting this Government's commitments in respect of global warming and climate change.

  Local planning authorities will need to have regard to the policies in PPS7 and PPS22 in preparing their local development documents, as should regional planning
  86WS
  bodies in the preparation of regional spatial strategies. The policies may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications.

  Copies of both PPS7 and PPS22 will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses following publication. They will also be made available on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Copies of the responses to the consultation exercises will be made available for inspection through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's library and lists of those responses will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Planning Policy Statements 11 and 12
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to publish in August Planning Policy Statements detailing the process by which Parts 1 and 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) are to be implemented. Planning Policy Statement 11 (PPS11) sets out the implementation process of Part 1—Regional Functions and replaces Planning Policy Guidance 11—Regional Planning, published in October 2000. Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12) sets out the implementation process of Part 2—Local Development and replaces Planning Policy Guidance 12—Development Plans published in December 1999. These Planning Policy Statements are integral to the Governments programme of reforming the planning system.

  A draft of PPS 11 was issued for public consultation in October 2003. PPS11 provides Government guidance on the new arrangements for regional planning. The new procedural arrangements will better deliver policy at the regional level by giving more weight to what is currently Regional Planning Guidance by replacing it with a statutory Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). The new local development documents will have to be in general conformity with this RSS, and the RSS will be made part of the development plan.

  A draft of PPS12 was issued for public consultation in October 2003. PPS12 provides Government guidance on the new arrangements for the preparation of local development documents, which will comprise the local development framework. The local development framework is largely a "portfolio" of local development documents that collectively deliver the spatial planning strategy for the local planning authority's area. Local development frameworks are intended to streamline the local planning process and promote a proactive and positive approach to managing development.

  Copies of both PPS11 and PPS12 will be made available in the Libraries of the House following publication. They will also be made available on the web site of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Copies of the responses to the consultation exercises will be made available for inspection through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's library and lists of those responses will also be placed in the libraries of the House.

CABINET OFFICE

  Central Office of Information
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  Copies of the Central Office of Information's annual report and accounts have today been laid before Parliament and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Regulatory Impact Assessment Process
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  An updated measurement of the level of compliance with the regulatory impact assessment process is today being placed on the website of the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit. An exercise in June 2004 to establish a snapshot of the level of compliance, based on consultations carried out in the twelve weeks to 16 June 2004, showed a compliance rate of 96 per cent. We will continue to keep this under regular review and will report back to Parliament as appropriate.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  In response to a request from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (The Ombudsman), I have agreed to extend her jurisdiction to include the role of the Government Actuary's Department in relation to the prudential regulation of insurers prior to this function being transferred to the Financial Services Authority in April 2001. This will enable the Ombudsman to conduct a full investigation into Equitable Life. The amendment to the legislation to make this change will be made as soon as possible.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Estate Agents (OFT Report)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)
  On 23 March, the Government welcomed the publication of the Office of Fair Trading's (OFT's) comprehensive analysis of the estate agency market in England and Wales and the effectiveness of the Estate Agents Act 1979. The Government now propose a package of measures building on and strengthening the OFT's proposals. We plan to give enforcers the regulatory tools they need to tackle rogue agents without unnecessarily driving up costs to house sellers, and to provide a cost-effective means by which consumers may win any justified compensation from estate agents through a free independent redress mechanism such as an Ombudsman scheme.

  The Government intend to use the Housing Bill presently before Parliament to provide for such a redress mechanism.

  Estate agents have a key role in the housing market. For most people buying a house is the most expensive purchase they ever make. It is vital that this market works well and that consumers are adequately protected against unfair practices. Our proposals will mean that consumers have better information, that enforcement
  88WS
  activity is directed on those agents who deliberately flout the law and that industry schemes to provide redress are available within a competitive environment.

  The key elements of the Government's proposals are:
  A consultation document later this year on how the OFT's proposals could be brought into effect and what more could be done to strengthen the regulation of estate agents.
  Taking a power in the Housing Bill to require estate agents to belong to any industry redress scheme approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State. The power would be linked with marketing homes with Home Information Packs (HIPs) and its exercise would be subject to detailed evaluation and consultation once Government and industry have drawn up detailed proposals.
  Working with stakeholders to develop methods to evaluate trends in consumer detriment in this market and the case for an industry qualification and national quality standards for estate agents.

  In their report, the OFT concluded that the estate agency market works well in many respects and the market structure is competitive, with businesses able to enter and exit the market with ease. But consumers could make average savings of around £300 on each house sale if they did more to shop around and negotiate fees.

  However, the report highlighted significant consumer dissatisfaction with estate agents' services, ranging from serious uncorrected abuses that the Estate Agents Act should deter (for example, failure to pass on offers or declare a personal interest) to, more commonly, quality of service issues (for example, delays and inadequate communication). Much of estate agency business is conducted orally with relatively little documentation so the process is not transparent and it is consequently difficult for enforcers to detect and substantiate that abuse has occurred in order that it might be dealt with.

  The OFT's broad approach to the problems they have found in the market is
  to ensure a baseline of protection for consumers by making the present regulatory regime more enforceable. The OFT recommend that estate agents should be required to maintain written records of offers, that these should have to be copied to those making the offer as well as sellers, and that the enforcement agencies are given enhanced powers to access these when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the Act has been breached. Breach of statutory undertakings given under the Enterprise Act 2002 should become "trigger" events enabling enforcement action, and the OFT should be able to ban a person who has committed certain offences, not just when he has been convicted of them (as is currently the case).
  to promote quality of service and redress beyond minimum standards by creating incentives for members of the industry to sign up to recognised Codes of Practice with free systems of redress. The Consumer Code of Practice of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents Company Ltd (OEA) has now completed Stage One of the OFT approval process (the code is meeting the OFT's core criteria on paper) and is seeking to complete Stage Two of the process (it will need to show the code is functioning effectively in practice) in order to obtain OFT approval. However, at present it only covers around 40 per cent. of agents. Whilst the OFT hope their promotion of the Scheme—should it be approved—will boost its membership and profile, the OFT recommend that powers should be obtained to establish a statutory redress mechanism in the event that voluntary methods do not realise the anticipated improvements.
  89WS
  The OFT's recommendations also cover such matters as making the statutory terms used in estate agency contracts clearer, extending the definition of an estate agent's personal interest in a deal and bringing the definition of estate agency in the Act up to date.

  There have been calls for the introduction of a positive licensing system as a way of improving standards and increasing protection in this market. The OFT specifically addressed the question of whether positive licensing, which could include a fitness test and training or competence requirements, would improve regulation in this market. They reject it for a number of reasons:
  A requirement for estate agents to obtain licences before they engage in business would not deal with the main identified causes of serious problems in this market. These tend to concern the way existing agents conduct their business and are consequently unlikely to be detected by a screening test in advance of granting a licence.
  Estate agents clearly need to understand their obligations under the legislation but their role is primarily that of salesmen and intermediaries. Evidence from cases where estate agents have been banned suggests that misconduct results from a lack of integrity rather than deficiencies in their knowledge or expertise.
  Positive licensing would adversely affect the benefits consumers receive in terms of downward pressure on prices that results from the ease with which new businesses can enter the market and increase competition. It would also be costly to administer and these costs would ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher fees.

  The OFT's conclusion is that positive licensing would raise costs and inhibit competition without delivering enough improvements to justify this. In their view, a more effectively enforced negative licensing system combined with the OFT's new powers under the Enterprise Act will be effective in dealing with malpractice.

  In considering our response to the OFT's report, the Government have consulted stakeholders and taken into account the representations we have received. We will continue to consult fully as we take this work forward.

  In large measure, the Government agree with the OFT's analysis which identifies a number of clear problems and the case for action to deal with these. We believe that their recommendations potentially offer an effective and proportionate basis for tackling the problems they have identified in this sector.

  However, we believe that it may be necessary to go beyond the OFT's proposals in tackling consumer detriment in this market. In particular we wish to take further views on the question of enforcement and to see what can be done to build on the OFT's initial analysis. It is clear that amendments to the legislation are necessary to improve protection in this area. The Government are therefore proposing to consult later this year on a package of measures that will bring about real improvements in this sector. Our proposals will cover:
  Making estate agents dealings with consumers more transparent by requiring them to copy to buyers the written offers they have passed on to sellers and to keep clear and comprehensive records of each property transaction. This will give consumers more confidence that they are being treated fairly.
  90WS
  Giving the OFT and local Trading Standards Departments the comprehensive armoury of regulatory tools they need to investigate consumer complaints properly, address unfair practices and drive the rogues out of the market. We will look at whether they should have powers to demand the on-site production of administration records, files and copies of correspondence when they have reasonable grounds to suspect estate agents have not complied with the provisions of the Estate Agents Act.
  Allowing enforcement action to be taken where specified offences have been committed, regardless of whether or not the offenders have been successfully prosecuted.
  Widening the range of circumstances in which the OFT can consider the fitness of agents and the range of sanctions available to them.
  Widening the circumstances in which estate agents have to disclose their personal interest in property transactions.
  Modernising the Estate Agents Act so it is relevant to developments in estate agency practices, such as internet enterprises, and making it clear that consumers are protected.
  Making estate agency contracts more transparent so consumers have a better understanding of their liabilities and are not ambushed by clauses in small print or unclear language.
  Making it easier for the OFT and Trading Standards Officers to addressing flyboarding abuses by requiring agents to identify specific properties on "for sale" boards.
  Encouraging estate agents to improve quality of service by subscribing to and developing codes of practice that will meet the standards required to obtain OFT approval.

  In addition, an OFT consumer information campaign will alert consumers to how they can get best value for their money by shopping around, negotiating fees and checking whether agents subscribe to consumer codes of practice, such as the OEA's Code of Practice.

  In the Consultation Document, we will also raise whether there are other ways going beyond the OFT's recommendations in which enforcement could be improved e.g. whether some of the OFT's powers could be delegated to local authorities, whether the OFT's internal procedures for dealing with cases involving estate agents can be streamlined, and what could be done to improve communications between the OEA, the OFT and other relevant bodies to facilitate enforcement action being taken when there are serious complaints about estate agents. And we will work with the OFT and Trading Standards to ensure that the best use is made of their new enforcement powers. Updating the regulatory system on its own will not be sufficient to tackle unscrupulous behaviour unless it is effectively and speedily enforced and problems in this sector are prioritized and the necessary resources allocated to them. We are confident that the OFT and local Trading Standards Offices will rise to this challenge but we will want to work with them so that consumers benefit from real improvements in behaviour in this sector.

  The Government have noted calls for positive licensing of estate agents but we agree with the OFT's analysis that this is not justified. We believe that stakeholders have underestimated the potential impact of the OFT's recommendations as an overall package for addressing mischief in this sector. These recommendations can address the most serious problems without imposing unnecessary costs on businesses or inhibiting competition (both of which would result in higher fees). But we are also committed

  91WS
  to going beyond the OFT's proposals, for example in making it possible to require estate agents to belong to an industry redress system.

  The Government agree that access to free, independent redress is important in the estate agency sector and offers a proportionate means of dealing with consumer complaints about quality of service issues. The OEA is currently seeking approval for its Consumer Code of Practice from the OFT which would enable member agencies to demonstrate a clear commitment to higher standards.

  The Government are concerned, however, that by itself this would leave many consumers unable to obtain redress without resort to the courts. Housing markets are local so a seller may not have the option of engaging an estate agent who subscribes to a redress scheme. A buyer who wants a particular property may also have no choice as he will have to deal with the estate agent or agents selected by the seller.

  The Government are also conscious that with the introduction from 2007 of HIPs as provided in the Housing Bill estate agents may well play an increasingly pivotal role in housing transactions. On the other hand, the Government are concerned that any redress scheme should not impose an unnecessary burden on the industry or significantly increase barriers to entry, neither of which would be in consumers' interests. Proposals for a redress scheme need to be reconciled with the fact that there are no positive licensing arrangements for estate agents.

  The Government also accept that there are advantages in redress arrangements being run by the industry rather than the state. The Government believe that a way of reconciling these different considerations is for Parliament to provide a power to require estate agents to belong to any redress scheme approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State. Under the proposed arrangements, enforcement would fall under the present statutory arrangements in the Estate Agents Act: that is, that Act would apply to breach of the duty to belong to the scheme as it currently applies to a person who has engaged in an undesirable practice under the Act, so that enforcement action, including prohibition from acting as an estate agent, could be taken against any estate agent who failed to comply with the duty. The Government consider that the Housing Bill represents an opportunity to deal with this matter and propose to bring forward amendments to the Bill during the Committee stage in another place to provide for such arrangements. In recognition of the fact that this is a new proposal on which the Government have yet to consult, we would not propose to exercise the power until it was clear what industry scheme or schemes would seek recognition, what arrangements they would have for providing redress including the fees they would charge estate agents, consultation had been carried out on the detailed arrangements and a full Regulatory Impact Assessment had been done. Subject to those considerations, the Government hope that the arrangements will be brought into effect before the introduction of HIPs in 2007.

  We encourage those in the industry who wish to do so to subscribe to more wide-ranging codes of practice and to seek approval under the OFT's Consumer Codes Approval Scheme.
  92WS
  Turning to other steps the Government intend to take in respect of this market, we want to improve the evidence base so as to gain a better picture of just how much consumer detriment there is in this market and how much our proposals improve it. We plan to invite the main stakeholders to join us in trying to devise a methodology for this. Such a better evidence base might establish the need to take further steps in future.

  We also plan to work with stakeholders on the scope for devising and promoting a recognised qualification for estate agents. We see benefit in this as something that, if properly done, could provide a career incentive to raise standards.

  We also note that the British Standards Institute, the UK National Standards Body, is considering developing a service quality Standard and associated Kitemark for the provision of residential estate agency services and we shall follow with interest progress on this.

  Consumers deserve a better deal from estate agents than, as the OFT's report shows, in many cases they have got. The Government's proposals will go a long way to providing consumers in this vital market with a much better deal.

  Regional Development Agencies 2003–04
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith)
  I have today laid before Parliament the annual reports and accounts for 2003–04 for the eight Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) outside of London. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The Government welcomes the contribution that the RDAs have made during this year to driving forward economic development in their respective regions.

  Also published today are the RDAs' reported Tier 3 outputs for 2003–04. These results are evidence that the RDAs continue to play a valuable role in improving the economic performance of the English regions and, through working with their partners, the RDAs are making a real difference to the individual regional economies concerned. The figures cover the creation and safeguarding of jobs, the amount of brownfield land brought back into use, the number of businesses added to the regional economies, the number of learning opportunities created and the amount of private sector investment attracted benefiting deprived areas, all as a result of RDA activity.

  Press releases on the Tier 3 outputs have been issued in each region. Copies of the output results have been placed in the Library of the House, and are also available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/rda/info.

TRANSPORT

  Street Works
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  Regulations under section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 came into force in April 2001. These allow highway authorities to charge utility companies for works in the street that overrun an agreed deadline.
  93WS
  Separate regulations under section 74A of the 1991 Act allow highway authorities to charge utility companies a daily rate, commonly known as "lane rental", whenever the latter carry out works in the street. The 74A powers have not, as yet, been activated nationally, but have been tested in pilot schemes in the London Borough of Camden and in Middlesbrough, which ended on 31 March 2004.

  The Department appointed consultants, Halcrow, to monitor the effectiveness of both sets of powers in reducing disruption on the highway. Halcrow have produced two final reports covering the section 74 and 74A powers respectively. Copies of each report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  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 report and accounts for the Child Support Agency (HC 782).

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  New Child Support Scheme (Progress Report)
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  The new arrangements for child support came into operation for new cases and some linked old scheme cases from 3 March 2003. Progress has been slower than anticipated, chiefly due to problems with the new computer and telephony systems that are being progressively remedied by EDS, the service provider. Recovery has now proceeded to the stage at which the agency has sufficient confidence in the system's ability to handle new applications to permit it to undertake its own recovery programme to improve compliance and increase its clearance rate. The Department will continue to withhold substantial payments from EDS until more satisfactory system performance has been achieved.

  1 Qualifying Child

  2 Qualifying Children

  3 Qualifying Children

  Average Weekly Payment

  £33.25

  £47.95

  £53.49

  Summary of Agency performance to June 2004

  Agency Performance

  Quarter 1 Mar-Jun 2003

  Quarter 2 Jul-Sep 2003

  Quarter 3 Oct-Dec 2003

  Quarter 4 Jan-Mar 2004

  Quarter 5 Apr-Jun 2004

  Scheme to June 2004

  Applications received

  73,582

  78,982

  85,306

  83,652

  83,094

  404,616

  Applications Cleared

  12,648

  38,583

  49,453

  51,8761

  45,0971

  197,6571

  of which:

  6,671

  23,857

  29,672

  31,2291

  25,6571

  117,0861

  Maintenance Calculations

  Closures2

  5,977

  14,726

  19,781

  20,6471

  19,4401

  80,5711

  First Payments made through the Agency

  461

  5,164

  11,473

  14,017

  14,974

  46,089

  First Child Maintenance Premium payments made

  77

  3,314

  6,173

  7,484

  8,070

  25,118

  94WS
  The number of cases cleared was 45,000, taking the total number of clearances (calculations and closures) to over 197,000. The total number of cases cleared continues to rise but, clearly, we need to do much more and the agency has instigated a programme designed to drive performance improvement and build on the progress made during 2003–04, with further emphasis on achieving positive outcomes for families.

  The poorest families are starting to gain significantly in real terms from the new system with the introduction of the child maintenance premium. This last quarter saw a further rise—the highest quarterly rise to date—with over 8,000 first child maintenance payments being made and bringing the total number of beneficiaries to over 25,000.

  Whereas under the old system, most cases were closed before calculations were made, the reverse is now true. The ratio between those cases reaching calculation compared with those that closed remained consistent with previous quarters at around 6:4, comparing favourably with the ratio of 4:6 under the old scheme.

  Technical issues precluded the reporting of reliable figures on compliance and throughput during 2003–04 and this, in turn, has impacted the agency's ability to manage performance improvements. We still do not have complete, fully accurate or timely information on compliance. The best information now available suggests that, in March 2004, just over half of those non-resident parents due to make payments did so.

  The agency is in the process of validating the compliance information it has for this quarter with the aim of providing this in future quarterly reports. We expect performance to improve progressively over the next year or so as the new arrangements move into steady state and better information is made available to support performance improvements.

  A special exercise was undertaken to test accuracy at the end of 2003–04. At the end of the first year of the new scheme, 82 per cent. of decisions checked were accurate to the nearest penny (against a target of 90 per cent.).

  Average weekly child support maintenance payments to parents with care are shown in the table. Figures are for June 2004 only and are calculated as the total amount received and allocated divided by the number of cases.
  95WS

  Agency Performance (April 2004 to June 2004)

  Apr-04

  May-04

  Jun-04

  Total in Quarter

  Applications Received

  28,530

  27,933

  26,631

  83,094

  Applications Cleared

  14,729

  14,809

  15,559

  45,097

  of which:

  Maintenance Calculations

  8,515

  8,428

  8,714

  25,657

  Closures2

  6,214

  6,381

  6,845

  19,440

  First Payments Made Through the Agency

  5,164

  4,745

  5,065

  14,974

  First Child Maintenance Premium Payments Made

  2,813

  2,546

  2,711

  8,070

  Notes:

  1. Quarter 4 2003–04 totals, Quarter 1 2004–05 totals and Scheme to Date figures include clerical cases (new scheme cases unable to be progressed on the new system).

  96WS
  Figures for these are as follows:

  Scheme to March 2004

  Scheme to June 2004

  Applications cleared

  824

  1,345

  Maintenance Calculations

  715

  1,134

  Closures

  109

  211

  2. Closures: Applications close for a variety of reasons. The main reasons are that the parent with care withdraws the application, perhaps due to reconciliation, or having agreed private arrangements with the non-resident parent.

  3. A proportion of cases that have a maintenance calculation in place may already be receiving payment directly, but will not be reflected in the figures shown above.

  4. Figures for child maintenance premium payments include an estimate of the number of parents who receive the premium by way of a disregard to their income support/income-based jobseekers allowance.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Royal Assent
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance Act 2004

Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004

Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2004

Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004

Patents Act 2004

Health Protection Agency Act 2004

Traffic Management Act 2004

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004

Energy Act 2004

Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004

Cattle Movements: Livestock Register
Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to convert the present cattle identification system into a fully electronic record of all cattle movements in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we are developing a GB-wide livestock register for registering cattle and other farmed livestock species and recording their movements. This register will incorporate the existing functions of the cattle tracing system and continue to provide a full electronic record of cattle births, deaths and movements. The livestock register will build on the measures already in place to enhance the existing cattle tracing system and promote improved electronic uptake.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister note the urgent conclusions and recommendations of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee in its report Identifying and tracking livestock in England? It concluded that one in seven cattle were "lost in the system", which means that those cattle cannot be found. It also concluded that the current cattle tracing systems are more expensive and less
334
efficient than those in other EU states. It also identified £16 million of savings, and found that the present system is bureaucratic and places a burden on farmers, involving triple handwritten entries. At present there are 1.2 million unresolved anomalies in the system, and the current IT system has three components. Does the Minister accept that the Public Accounts Committee states that markets have a pivotal role and that a fully electronic system should be implemented? Can he say when implementation will happen?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept the careful analysis of the Public Accounts Committee on these issues but not always the rhetoric of its chairman. The noble Lord's repetition of the term "lost" is an exaggeration of what the Public Accounts Committee found. It found that there were gaps in the records amounting to that number of cattle, but that does not mean that those cattle were lost either currently or in the system. The numbers also included relatively recent movements which would not have been recorded, and even that number has decreased substantially.
I acknowledge that there are serious faults in the cattle tracing system. Its heavy reliance on paper information at various points from farmers adds to the burden on farmers and the inefficiency of the system. That is why we are trying to move to a wider livestock register and a fully electronic system. But when proposing an absolutely electronic system, one has to bear in mind that less than one-third of farmers currently have electronic expertise. A two-way system is required for the scheme to work effectively.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the cattle were not lost, could they be readily found in the case of an outbreak? That is the object of the exercise.
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. The issue was that, in virtually all cases, there was a gap in the records at some point from the livestock's date of birth until now. By now, however, the vast majority could have been found. Even so, for the purposes of traceability and disease control, it is not an adequate situation.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, is the legislation requiring farmers to maintain books on the movement of cattle and other animals extant? If so, who is responsible for monitoring it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are still restrictions on movements. They have been reduced substantially compared with the aftermath of the foot and mouth outbreak. Farmers are supposed to record the movement of cattle through the cattle tracing service. The enforcement of actual movements is a local authority responsibility.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I follow my noble friend's question. It is a very serious situation that these cattle are untraceable, and there will be a problem if disease breaks out. The Minister should acknowledge that. More directly, in response to a

335
Question that I asked him, the Minister said that the IT projects would not be available until 2006 or 2007. Is he not concerned at the delay? What is its cause?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the cattle tracing system is fairly substantial and it takes time to move to a full livestock system. It is not sensible to cut corners on such IT systems. The issue is not untraceability but inadequate total records. Although that could be a disease control problem, it would not be a problem in controlling an immediate outbreak if the records were from some time ago. Of course any error is deeply regrettable and adds to control problems.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge the importance of the need for supermarkets and consumers to know where their beef, for example, comes from? Surely supermarkets could pay for, and the markets could operate, a proper IT system from the field to the plate.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, supermarkets are increasingly operating their own traceability systems and have greatly raised the status of such systems among their suppliers. I do not think that we could ask them to maintain these systems beyond their own supply chain. They have certainly already made an improvement themselves.
Lord Christopher: My Lords, I hope that we do not give supermarkets more power than they have already. Beyond that, however, I wonder whether we are asking ourselves the right question. I do not underestimate the importance of records, but the extent of livestock movement in Britain seems greater than it has ever been. I wonder about the need for it. Is it higher than in Europe? Why is it happening? Has any research been done?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I find that in this House we rarely ask ourselves the right question. It is true that, as became very apparent during the foot and mouth epidemic, many livestock movements occur uniquely in this country, and that applies particularly to sheep movements. There are far more sheep movements in this country between farm and supermarket buyer and between markets than there are in other countries. Although they have been reduced post foot and mouth, there is still a substantial number of them, including long-distance ones. The whole food chain must address that issue for reasons of animal welfare and disease control and for environmental factors.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether BT offered to put a computer in every farm in the country but Defra turned down the offer? Surely if farmers could be brought on board to try to register all cattle, it would relieve Defra and the Government from an IT commitment. As I have said many times in this House, the Government are not exactly the best people for running IT systems.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not aware of any such specific offer from BT, but over the past few years
336
there has been a significant number of schemes offering farmers IT equipment and training. Even so, the take-up has been relatively low. That definitely needs to be addressed by industry and government.

Nurse Education
11.9 a.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the entrance qualifications currently required for nurse education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the Nursing and Midwifery Council sets the entry requirements for pre-registration nursing and midwifery training and is the independent statutory regulator. I understand that, from August 2004, the council has reviewed the entry requirements for pre-registration nursing and midwifery education. Applicants must provide evidence of literacy and numeracy skills, good health and good character. Higher education institutions must ensure that applicants have met the above entry requirements.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not know whether he is aware that I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, this question as a supplementary on 19 April. The question was originally tabled by the late Lady Brigstocke, who is sadly missed. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, replied that she would ensure that her noble friend had the opportunity to respond directly on the question of nurses; but I have heard nothing. That is why I tabled the Question.
Does the Minister agree that many people will never reach the number of A-levels required? He did not make clear in his reply whether they are still required. We are all delighted that nursing has reached the point where there are graduate nurses and nurse practitioners, and we want to see as many of those as possible. However, there are still many caring young people who would enter the nursing profession if there was something more of what the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, described as a "modern apprenticeship" system.
Lord Warner: My Lords, one of the reasons for these changes is that the circumstances have changed. Certainly, the age profile of applicants has risen significantly; the average age of entrants to nursing and midwifery training is 28. The noble Baroness is right that we want to ensure that a wider range of people, particularly those with life skills, returning to nursing after other career changes can enter the profession; which is why more flexibility is being introduced. Of course, one of the other reasons for the changes is the increased protection for members of the public, as the character of the trainee nurse is assessed on application.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, will the Minister remind the House what the total nursing population is of the

337
United Kingdom? How short of nurses might we be? How many nurses in the system are non-British nationals?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I can bore the House again now. The Government have increasingly improved the number of nurses available; there have been 67,000 plus nurses since the Government came to office. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to remind the House of those figures. We have an increasing number of applicants for nursing, the acceptances for both pre-registration diploma training and pre-registration degree courses have been increasing, and there are more healthcare applicants entering training for qualification. There is a surge in all those areas, and the number of entering and returning nurses has gone up substantially.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords—
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, are the Government recruiting sufficient midwives? Are the Government sufficiently successful at retaining midwives in their posts to provide a good quality service?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government continue to attract people into midwifery training, along with nursing training, in reasonable numbers. As I reminded the House before, the birth rate has been falling, so the number of babies born each year is reduced.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, would the Minister be kind enough to answer my noble friend's question about the proportion of overseas nationals who are nursing in this country?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Question is about entry to training, not about the number of nurses.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are two unfortunate side effects of the perfectly natural and appropriate drives to increase the level of education of nurses and graduate nurses? First, there is a higher and higher expectation of those who achieve graduate status that they will move along a career path that moves them up and frequently, sadly, out of direct contact with patients and into management. Secondly, there is a sense that those who wanted to care for patients through the whole of their career are less valued because of the high premium being put on the higher standards of education. There is a genuine dilemma here, which requires to be addressed.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has been trying to take account of the fact that a wide range of people are coming forward to enter nursing. It is worth bearing in mind the changing profile of the students. As I said earlier, the average age has gone up. In 2003, the average age for entering the programmes was 28 years, which is a lot further up the age scale than in the days when the great majority of those entering
338
nurse training were 18 and 19 year-olds. We have an increasing number of mature applicants changing career without formal educational qualifications, but with extensive life skills. That meets some of the noble Lord's concerns. Alongside that, there are increasing numbers of students entering with A-levels, so there is a mixed picture around the profile of people entering nurse training.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, would the Minister be prepared to consider a review of the correlation of theory to practice, in terms of having more supervision for students coming from universities and colleges into the clinical areas? Nursing is a combination of arts and science, and it is about delivering holistic care; basic care; caring for the nutrition and the comfort of the patient; and for hygiene; as well as the advanced technical procedures that must be carried out. It seems that there is a gap between the universities and colleges and the clinical areas, where clinical areas are so busy that they are unable to give supervision. A review would be extremely helpful for the profession.
Lord Warner: My Lords, that is a matter for the profession and for the Nursing and Midwifery Council to consider. The Government always take seriously the points made by the noble Baroness. I remind her that the Department of Health is working with its partners to produce the partnership quality assurance framework, so that we can be sure that the nurse training arrangements, among other professional training arrangements, meet proper quality assurance requirements.

Nepal
11.17 a.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will further help the people of Nepal to find a peaceful solution to their political difficulties and internal conflict.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the United Kingdom remains committed to supporting Nepal and trying to resolve the conflict through work to improve Nepalese counter-insurgence capability, developing human rights, building political capacity, and providing humanitarian assistance. The United Kingdom has run conflict prevention programmes of £10 million over the past two financial years. DfID is running a bilateral programme of £6 million in 2003–04, which is expected to increase in 2004–05 and 2005–06 to £35 million and £47 million respectively.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it is encouraging to hear from the noble Baroness how much DfID is doing in conflict prevention and poverty reduction. Maoism, or the version of Maoism that exists in Nepal, thrives on unrepresentative government and a degree of political confusion. Is our embassy doing enough, alongside DfID, the Indian Government and

339
the European Union, to encourage all political parties, including Congress, to enter the process, and to urge those parties to reduce tension in the country and give the Nepali people a sense of confidence in democratic government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that our embassy is properly engaged in this process. We are encouraged by the formation of a multiparty government in Nepal under Prime Minister Deuba. We are looking forward to supporting the Nepalese in their progress towards a negotiated peace settlement. The noble Lord is right to point out that the Nepali Congress Party's decision to remain outside government is unfortunate, but it is not in itself an obstacle to peace negotiations or to peace. We hope that the new government will maintain those links to the Congress Party as the negotiation strategy continues to develop. I remind the noble Earl that in addition to our ambassador, Sir Jeffrey James is the UK Special Representative for Nepal, and he visits the country three times a year.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, regarding the development plan announced in May, of which the noble Baroness has given details today, does she not agree that some donor programmes, particularly in the west of the country, have had to be suspended because of the conflict? Will the Government, in their spending programme, give priority to all measures for bringing the conflict to an end? Is any of the £80 million specifically earmarked for the facilitation or promotion of dialogue between the government and armed rebels?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that security is a real problem. As we know from this conflict and conflicts elsewhere, if security is not present on the ground it is very difficult for civil society to flourish and democratic processes to take root properly. That is why it is so important that part of the money we are devoting to conflict prevention is going towards a counter-insurgence capability.
Of course, that is not the sole answer, but it is important to look at those security issues. I assure the noble Lord that they are being looked at in concert with the issues around building civil society.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the supply of arms and equipment to the Nepalese Government will not by itself solve the conflict? That simply is not effective as a weapon against terrorism. Only with training in stable government and civil liberties and extending it way outside Kathmandu, which is somewhat of an island in Nepal, can the rule of law be re-established and common sense reign in that country. Will the Minister encourage a move in that direction?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes. I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said. The package of assistance that we
340
are giving in respect of military aid includes a very strong element of human rights training for the armed forces. Our aim has been to improve the professionalism of the army so that it can respond accurately and—if I may say—appropriately and proportionately to Maoist violence, as well as be trained in defending a democratic constitutional state from any takeover by armed Maoist insurrectionists.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, following on from what the Minister said, does she not agree that one of the problems is that the military action that has to be taken to make the rebels realise that they, too, cannot win by military means alone is not always done in the most sensible way? With all our experience, is there not more that we can do to help the Royal Nepalese Army to win the hearts and minds of the villagers as well as giving the rebels a nasty jolt?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that that is exactly the thought behind the way in which we are approaching our relationship with the Nepalese military authorities. There has to be a strong inculcation into those authorities that it is not just the use of force by itself, but that force is used in an appropriate and proportional way.
For example, the counter-insurgency capabilities have included things such as bomb disposal equipment so that a clear benefit can be demonstrated to civil society. Some of the helicopters that have gone to Nepal were used only last weekend to assist from the air, showing how the people of Nepal could be best helped by the sort of military equipment that we are giving. The training element is crucial.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, following up on the question from the noble and gallant Lord, the Prime Minister has often referred to failed states and failing states. Unfortunately, does one not have to reach the conclusion that Nepal is now a failing state? It might be better to get behind the label Maoist and follow up the thought about hearts and minds to set out a much more comprehensive political strategy, possibly in conjunction with the Indian Government, to see how we can talk more directly to some of those people.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I have to disagree with my noble friend. It is not fair to say that Nepal is a failing state in the sense that we usually use that term. Mr Deuba's appointment and the formation of a multi-party government represent the first window of opportunity for a return to negotiations with the Maoists since 2001.
It is important that we should back those efforts. We have been working very closely with our international partners to that end. We have been working through the EU and with our colleagues not only in the United States but also in India.

Pig Welfare
11.24 a.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that imports of pork and processed pork conform to United Kingdom legal minimum standards with respect to pig welfare.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the vast majority of imports of pork and pork products into the UK are from other EU member states. All member states have to implement and comply with Directive 91/630/EC, as amended, which sets out minimum standards for the welfare of pigs. In certain respects, the UK has adopted higher standards, but the EU is now phasing in equivalent standards.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that the figures from the Meat and Livestock Commission show that 70 per cent of the pork and pork products imported into this country in 2003 did not conform to UK legal minimum standards of animal welfare? Do the Government support the best practice guidelines, which ask retailers and food service companies to be clear and transparent in the standards that they require from their suppliers and ask them clearly to label the products that they sell, including the country of origin?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the second point, the industry has helpfully produced that industry code. The Government certainly support the principles of that approach. As regards the 70 per cent figure, it is clear that any trade within the EU is subject to EU standards. Therefore, 70 per cent of the imports are not to UK standards or do not have to be to UK standards, although some EU imports are direct to our retailers, which often require that the pork is produced to UK standards. So the 70 per cent figure is probably a slight exaggeration, but it is true that the UK standards are not mandatory.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, what further steps can the Government take to ensure that the country of origin of imported pig meat is clearly identified on meat packages? Is the Minister aware that the Meat and Livestock Commission has samples, which I have seen, where one needs a magnifying glass to find the country of origin and certain packages where the country of origin is not identified at all but the meat is known to be produced in this country for packaging by well known importers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, under EU law at present it would not be possible for us to require country-of-origin labelling. Currently, there are discussions within the EU on future labelling requirements, which include country of origin. We have supported proposals in those discussions to allow the requirement that country of origin is labelled. Of course, in practice, quite frequently the supermarkets voluntarily designate country of origin.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister note that the British Pig Executive has said that other
342
EU countries are not enforcing welfare standards? It says that because of that those countries have a competitive edge on UK producers in the market by undercutting them, which is devastating the pig industry. Will the Minister introduce a labelling system on imports that do not meet those standards and indicate a lower welfare production system than is the case in the UK?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have just answered a question in relation to labelling and what the Government can and cannot do about it. But at point of sale quite a lot of pork is clearly labelled with country of origin under voluntary arrangements.
Enforcing standards in other EU countries is not the central point. The vast majority of EU countries, particularly in the pork sector of agriculture, manage effective enforcement. In certain respects relating to stalls and tethers we are ahead of EU requirements. It is also true that some EU countries, including big suppliers to this country like the Netherlands, also have slightly higher than minimum EU standards. So we are not alone in that respect.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, although the Food Standards Agency is currently looking at legislation, does the Minister accept that it has already indicated that it will be 2010 before a report is produced? Why is it going to take that long when it is perfectly obvious that consumers want food labelling anyway? Is he aware of the voluntary scheme that has been started in Ireland? The country of origin is clearly marked on imported products as it is known that a lot of those products come from countries where the welfare standards are nowhere near as high as they are either in Ireland or in this country. Does the noble Lord support his ministerial colleague in Ireland, who is seeking the compulsory labelling of beef and insisting that meat products sold over the counter or in restaurants should carry a label showing the country of origin? Surely that is a clear lead for the rest of Europe.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in discussions within Europe both the Irish and ourselves have taken the view that we should change the position so that we would no longer be prevented requiring a label showing the country of origin. Those discussions continue and will conclude well before 2010 and, it is to be hoped, will lead to changes in the labelling requirements from the EU so as allow us to introduce mandatory labelling. However, a vast amount of voluntary labelling can be done, in particular under the code referred to by my noble friend Lord Carter, which impinges in this area. Many supermarkets and meat producers already do that.
On differential standards, it is important to recognise that the vast bulk of pork imports to this country come from the Netherlands and Denmark. Both of those countries have pretty high standards of pork care. Moreover, European standards will, if you like, catch up with British standards. We have already incurred the expenses attached to meeting such standards, whereas our competitors will now have to face the expense of meeting those requirements.

Mental Health
11.32 a.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of yesterday be now considered, and that a committee of twelve Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on any draft Mental Health Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:

B. Barker,

L. Carlile of Berriew,

L. Carter,

B. Cumberlege,

B. Eccles of Moulton,

B. Finlay of Llandaff,

B. Flather,

B. Fookes,

B. McIntosh of Hudnall,

B. Pitkeathley,

L. Rix,

L. Turnberg;

That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the quorum of the committee shall be two;
That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the committee do report on the draft Bill by 31 March 2005; and
That the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Commons on Wednesday 15 September at 10 o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41
The Lord President (Baroness Amos)The Lord President (Baroness Amos) rose to move, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on 8 September next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Byford to be taken before the Committee stage of the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill.
Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums Order 2004
11.33 a.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee and 14th Report from the Merits Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I go into the detail of this order, the House deserves an explanation because, contrary to what is set out on the Order Paper, I shall not be moving the five Motions en bloc, and in fact I do not intend to move the final two Motions.
Concerns were raised in the debate in the other place about all-postal ballots, drawing on some of the experiences of postal voting in recent pilots. There were differences of view on all-postal ballots. This week the Electoral Commission has also announced that it intends to publish its evaluation report of the June pilots and recommendations for future use of all-postal ballots before Parliament returns in September.
The debates in the other place also demonstrated again the solid support and expectations for an early referendum in the north-east region of England. None of the concerns raised about all-postal ballots related to the north-east. There the experiences of all-postal ballots, both in June and in earlier local election pilots, have been very positive. The picture is now one of considerable experience of all-postal ballots that consistently have been widely welcomed by the voters in that region. We have been reflecting overnight on these developments, and on the range of opinions expressed during the debate on the orders. We are a listening Government.
Except where there is a pressing expectation and support for an early all-postal referendum, we have concluded that the right course now is not to proceed with the orders setting up referendums on 4 November, but to await the report of the Electoral Commission. We have therefore decided not to proceed with the orders for the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber. Our commitment to referendums in these regions remains unchanged.
Once Parliament returns in September we will make a Statement on how we intend to proceed in these regions, following our detailed assessment of the Electoral Commission's report which, as I have said, will be available before Parliament returns. We are clear, however, that by not proceeding now with these two orders, there cannot be any referendums on 4 November in either of those two regions. Whatever the Electoral Commission reports and whatever is decided—good, bad or indifferent—there is no prospect whatsoever of referendums being held on 4 November in those two regions. I want to make that clear. As I proceed to set out the chronology of the dates, it will be quite clear why it is not possible, whatever may be said by the commission or anyone else.
In contrast for the north-east, all that we have heard confirms that it is right now to proceed with the orders providing for all-postal referendums in the north-east on 4 November. That is what the people there want and expect and, I hope, is what will he made possible by noble Lords today.
I therefore beg to move formally the first Motion and speak to the following three Motions—the Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Counting Officers' Charges) Order; the Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Expenses Limits for Permitted Participants) Order; and the Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material)(North East Region) Order. However, as I have said, I will not be moving the other two orders.
The four orders to which I am speaking set out the rules and procedures for the referendums, including the postal ballot; the amounts counting officers can receive for their fees and expenses in connection with the referendums; the spending limit for those campaigning in the referendums; the date of the referendums; the options for unitary local government that voters will be asked to choose between; and the explanatory material that will he provided to voters at the time they vote. I shall take each of those matters in turn.
So far as the Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums Order is concerned, this covers the details of the procedure for the conduct of all-postal referendums. I have already said that we believe that the north-east's experience of all-postal voting is different from the other regions. We are confident that problems highlighted in the media coverage of the June election pilots would not apply to the referendum in the north-east. That is because no candidates will he seeking election, and so the risk of fraud will be reduced. There will be a much longer lead-in time for the printing and dispatch of ballot papers in the referendums: six weeks instead of one week, because candidates do not need to be nominated.
Whereas in June there were reports that votes could not be counted because witnessed declarations of identity were incomplete, the Government intend to use security statements, which do not require a witness signature, for this autumn's referendums. The decision was made on the advice of the Electoral Commission that,
"the traditional form of declaration adds nothing to the security of the process but introduces significant risks".
There would be more assistance and delivery points in the referendums, one per 50,000 electors, to be opened on the date of the referendum between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and the preceding seven working days for normal working hours.
For those who cannot reasonably be expected to make it to an assistance and delivery point for reasons of physical impairment. there would he a requirement on counting officers to attend, or make arrangements for one of their clerks to attend on the voter at an agreed time and place.
I turn to expenditure limits. These are set out in the Local Government Referendums (Expenses Limits for Permitted Participants) Order. Political parties would he subject to a sliding scale of limits, determined by their vote share at the last European elections.
As the Explanatory Memorandum to the Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Counting Officers' Charges) Order makes clear, the cost of holding the referendum will he approximately £1·52 per elector on a 100 per cent turnout. It will also be possible to claim additional resources from the Electoral Commission via an exceptions process if the counting officer can demonstrate a strong case.
Turning to the date, the north-east has set a referendum date of 4 November. The Deputy Prime Minister has considered whether the level of interest in holding a referendum had changed materially since he took soundings about the referendums last year. No evidence was presented that caused us to think that fewer people were interested in having a referendum than a year ago.
On 25 May, the Boundary Committee made its final recommendations for single tier local government in the three northern regions. As required by the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003, the committee recommended two options for each county area. The options put forward were a product of a year-long review by the committee, during which time it considered more than 8,000 representations and conducted some 130 meetings.
We have considered the final recommendations and the 650 or so representations that we received. In the light of that consideration, we can accept, reject or modify the committee's recommendations, but we have had regard to the same statutory criteria under which the committee operated, most importantly in regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and the need to secure effective and convenient local government. We have accepted the Boundary Committee's recommendations for the north-east region.
The options that we have adopted will give electors a clear and distinctive choice between different patterns of unitary local government. It is important that the choice is presented simply, clearly and neutrally in the ballot paper. It is also important that voters are provided with sufficient explanatory information to enable them to make an informed choice.
We have worked closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure that the ballot question and accompanying explanatory material is informative and neutral.
Finally, I should draw your Lordships' attention to article 6 of the orders. These change the period in which applications can be made to the Electoral Commission by permitted participants who want to be the designated organisation for either the Yes or No campaign.
The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 provides a default timetable for a referendum period, with a power to change some of the timings as

347
appropriate. It would be standard practice to have 28 days for participants to apply for designated organisation status; 14 days for the Electoral Commission to consider those applications; and for that decision to be made at least 28 days before the date of the referendum. That gives 10 weeks.
However, as campaign expenditure and publications are regulated only during the referendum period, the Government believe that the referendum period should start once the orders are effective. As this means the campaign period would extend over the summer, when many people are on holiday, we have extended the period for permitted participants to apply to be designated from 28 days to 42 days. There will then be 14 days for the Electoral Commission to consider applications for designation and around 42 days before the close of poll on 4 November. That gives 14 weeks overall.
Finally, let me take a moment to explain the timing of the publication of the draft Bill. During the course of the passage through the House of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill we had many debates about the draft Bill. We said at the time that we would use our best endeavours to have a draft Bill available before the referendums took place, which is a fairly reasonable consideration. This was in order that people could consider it well before the day—we were not going to publish it the day before the referendum—in order that they might see what the powers and functions would be generally. It is a draft Bill; it is not perfect.
Nevertheless, it was never our intention to have the draft Bill scrutinised effectively before the orders were passed; the orders trigger the draft Bill. If the House, in its wisdom, approves today the three administrative orders and the order for the north-east, the draft Bill will be published immediately. It is already available but, technically, it will be published once the orders are approved.
Needless to say, Parliament returns in September, when the Select Committees will be available in the other place to scrutinise the draft Bill. As we have always said, the public scrutiny can start immediately because, subject to the orders being approved, the draft Bill will be published later today.
So our preparations are complete subject to the approval of the orders by the House. We are not making the decision in this House on whether there should be an elected regional assembly in the north-east, and the Government are not making the decision on whether there should be an elected regional assembly in the north-east: the people of the north-east will make that decision. That is what it is all about. We want a fair and vigorous campaign—there will be pros and cons for both parties—but if the House does not approve the orders we will deny the people of the north-east that choice. I hope the orders will be approved. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee and 14th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
11.45 a.m.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion in the name of the Lord Rooker, at end to insert "but this House regrets Her Majesty's Government's decision to lay six orders relating to regional assemblies before the publication of a draft regional assemblies Bill; and before publication of the Electoral Commission's report on the all-postal ballots used in the pilot areas during the elections of 10 June".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister is an honourable man and it must have choked him to death to make this statement today. Yesterday in the House of Commons there was a debate on the orders for elected assemblies in all three regions. Twelve hours later, after burning the midnight oil, using the scalpels and looking into the future, it became obvious to the Government that there was not a cat's chance in hell that they were going to win the referendums in Yorkshire and Humber and in the north-west. The only region in which the Deputy Prime Minister has ever been clear that he might perhaps have a chance is the north-east—and that is where he is now basing his hopes for this completely ridiculous form of local government. He hopes that the north-east will become a Trojan horse for a policy which is rapidly becoming more and more ridiculous as time goes on.
The orders have been laid at the wire of parliamentary time; they could not have been delayed longer. After today, there would have been no one in Parliament to consider them. The Minister said that the draft Bill will be laid once the orders have been approved—but that will be after Parliament is in recess.
The draft Bill will contain details of the powers that will pass to one regional assembly if the people of the north-east are unwise enough to vote for it. But the passing of powers is a matter for Parliament. How can it possibly be that a Bill which indicates the passing of power from Parliament to local government—because that is what the Government have always said this is—is not a matter for Parliament?
It has been a matter of great amazement to me and to my colleagues in the other place that the draft Bill has not appeared before now. Now it will appear during the Recess in order that the people of the north-east of England, during their holidays on the beach, will be able to scour it for information about what the regional assembly might or might not be about to do.
The build-up to these regional assemblies has been quite extraordinary. We have debated in Parliament, both here and in the other place, the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, which turned out, of course, to be the forerunner of the Bill for the referendum. It is clear that, as a result of the European elections, the Deputy Prime Minister has got cold feet. He cannot see how the referendums in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humber could take place "safely"—a word used by the right honourable Nick Raynsford in the other place when he was weaseling his way out. He said that the Government would, of course, listen to what the Electoral

349
Commission had to say if it decided that it would not be possible for those referendums to take place safely—but, of course, there might be reasons why the views of the Electoral Commission should not be taken into account.
Thanks to the chairman of the Electoral Commission, its report on the pilots —which is absolutely germane to the referendum which will take place—will be available at the end of August. It was not due to be available until mid-September. So there is now this possibility, which the Government must make absolutely certain becomes a reality, that Parliament will have the opportunity to debate both the Electoral Commission's decisions and the draft Bill in September. That is very late in the process for this single election.
Government information has been circulated in all three regional areas. I have seen the leaflets. It must have cost a fortune. The elections have been set up; there are No campaigns and Yes campaigns, and people have been spending money well in advance. And it is all for nothing. The Minister says that these elections may take place—something was said about the difficulties caused by party conferences. But party conference dates have been known since last year, so the timetabling of the election has nothing to do with them.
All the evidence that we have had on these elections showed that Yorkshire and Humber and the north-west were going nowhere. Very possibly the election in north-east will go nowhere as well. This leaves people in limbo. People in the north-east, the north-west, and Yorkshire and Humber have been led to believe that this great new part of local government would be theirs for the asking and that they would need only to vote in favour to have an elected regional assembly with great powers over planning, housing, skills, jobs—everything would come pouring in. Now the Government have reneged on that. I am not sorry they have reneged—I think that that is a very good thing. It will come as no surprise to Members of this House to know that we think that regional assemblies are a complete nonsense and are very pleased that the Government will not go ahead with them. It is also reasonable to presume that there is no possible question of these regional assembly elections in those two regions ever taking place, and certainly not before the election.
These orders include all-postal voting in the north-east. We have not welcomed this and it is certainly part of the reason why the Government have had to draw back today. All-postal voting is not an answer to elections, particularly not to election turn-out. It is clear that there are very serious problems with postal voting and that it does not necessarily carry what the Government think it does. But once again, they are hell-bent on going down this route. There is one deposit box for every 50,000 people, scattered across the north-east. If anybody knows the north-east, and plenty here do, they will know that it is a pretty wide county. One among 50,000 people will mean that they are quite far apart.
This is a terrible day for Parliament. I believe that there is an abuse of Parliament here. Yesterday the Government were going ahead with all three referendums. They have now had cold feet and have withdrawn. This is the only opportunity for the House to make any comment on what the Government are doing. I believe that there will be a Statement in the other place this afternoon, but that is too late for anybody to influence matters.
The questions that will be asked in the north-east will be myriad; those asked in the two regions where the referendum will not now take place will, I hope, cover the Government in such embarrassment that they never raise their head on these matters again.
My honourable friend Bernard Jenkin was quite prescient about this. He said yesterday:
"Here we are, with the date for the referendums set, the Government spending millions of pounds of public money on its propaganda campaign, 'yes' and 'no' campaigns set up and running in the three northern regions, but still facing the fact that the referendums may never be held".
I do not know whether the BBC took up what he said, but at seven o'clock this morning it had a very clear idea of what the Government would say today, well in advance of this House and the House of Commons sitting.
The Government are very good at spin; they have always tried to make sure that when they are in a hole, they can dig themselves out through the means of the press having got there first. So there are no surprises. My honourable friend Bernard Jenkin did not think there were any surprises yesterday, and he was right. The referendums will not take place. The referendum in north-east England will be the only opportunity for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I hope that the voters in north-east England now realise what a cynical set-up this is. I recommend that they reject the Deputy Prime Minister's offer of this referendum and put regional government where it belongs—in the ground, and possibly the Deputy Prime Minister with it. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "but this House regrets Her Majesty's Government's decision to lay six orders relating to regional assemblies before the publication of a draft regional assemblies Bill; and before publication of the Electoral Commission's report on the all-postal ballots used in the pilot areas during the elections of 10 June".— (Baroness Hanham.)
11.56 a.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, one might call this cynical, one might call it pragmatic—possibly, probably, both. But let us not lose focus on the importance of addressing the orders before the House. I think we may be a little tempted to look only at the fact that two of them are now off the agenda.
I had the radio on at a quarter to six this morning, when I heard the very distinctive voice of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. I caught the end of what he said, which was something like, "Then you can go and wave a fist at a bureaucrat nearby instead of a central

351
government bureaucrat". He may have been talking about regional government or he may have been talking about something else, but it seemed not a bad way of summing up what your Lordships are being asked to consider this morning.
I thank the Minister for the helpful timetable from him and from Nick Raynsford showing what might happen if the orders are passed and a referendum is to be held on 4 November and with regard to the problems inherent in postponing what will now be a single referendum in the event of a report from the Electoral Commission on the safety or otherwise of postal ballots. I thought that the printed timetable that was circulated was very honest on the Government's part in referring to the problems of running into a general election. That is another argument for a fixed-term Parliament so that we all know where we are.
Will the Minister say more about the position in the north-east if the Electoral Commission makes an unfavourable report about postal ballots? I may have been distracted when he dealt with that point, but I have checked with a couple of people, and I think it would be helpful if he could be clear about it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, perhaps we can talk about it now. We said before today's debate that if the Electoral Commission gave such an account in its reports later this year, we would not proceed with any of them. That still applies, although obviously the report will be more relevant to the north-east. If it is evidence-based, the undertaking not to proceed with an all-postal voting referendum still applies. There is no pulling back from that commitment.
Noon
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that is helpful, although I hope that the Government will take note of what the Electoral Commission has to say about the other areas. After all, experiences in one region should be read as potential risks in another.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, uses the word "regrets". I regret that, procedurally, she has not dealt with the matter as straightforwardly as she did from the Dispatch Box. She made it quite clear that she opposed the order, but, as I understand it, the amendment is not fatal. I regret that the Conservative Benches have not expressed in procedure what we know they really think. They oppose regional government, even though they keep on talking about it and referring to it as local government. We on these Benches will not align ourselves with them, which will come as no surprise to them or others.
Nevertheless, there are areas of concern. The Government are in somewhat of a pickle of their own making. Enough warnings were given about all-postal ballots in June. The powers in the Bill need to be clarified. Those powers need wide discussion, because people need to know what they are voting for. The timetable of this House does not allow us to do a huge amount about that, but I have asked my noble friend
352
the Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrats to try to secure through the usual channels a debate on the Bill as early as we reasonably can in order that we can have a rational, measured discussion of what is proposed.
Certainly, we would welcome extension of the powers beyond those that are set out in the White Paper. We have said often enough that they are far too restricted. I have heard that transport and learning and skills are now far more embedded in the agenda than they were at the time of the White Paper. I understand from my noble friend Lady Maddock that whenever one talks about regional government in the north-east, the question of the A l comes up. Transport is hugely important.
On the ballot, I take the point that when it is not a question of individuals standing, there is less risk of fraud, but the experience in June was one of confusion and inconvenience. The Government show a touching faith in the ability of the Royal Mail, which in SW14 is now taking five days to deliver mail from SW1. If I have not received everything that the Minister sent to me on this issue, I apologise—I know I have not received some of it. Perversely, in London, most ballot papers arrived before information from the Greater London Returning Officer, which shows the kind of difficulties that are inherent in the process.
We heard that one assistance and delivery point per 50,000 people will be set up. However, that is almost the size of a parliamentary constituency even in an urban area. I understand that the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency has 58,000 people—it is certainly more than 50,000. Some rural constituencies are very large geographical areas. Could the Minister pass on any views from local authorities on keeping those points open for long hours, seven days a week, as it will he the returning officers, who are part of the local authority system, who will be dealing with the ballots?
The Royal National Institute of the Blind, which will have briefed many noble Lords on this issue, has argued for longer opening hours. I would certainly argue for more points. I welcome too the change in arrangements for witnesses. On 10 June, I had to refuse to witness the signature of somebody who turned up at a polling station, because it was claimed that that person was known to me. She was not, and I felt that it was appalling not to be able to assist someone to go and vote. She was within yards of the ballot box, but neither the presiding officer nor I, as a teller outside, could help her.
I mentioned the RNIB's briefing. There is not time this morning to go through it in the detail that I would like, but I would like the Minister to say something about making the ballot more accessible and about helping people to read information. We should not have it in 8-point print; I doubt that any noble Lords have the speeches that they read in the Chamber in such small print. I want to hear about how we get information into alternative formats and how people can get to assistance points.
I was pleased to hear that, in Liverpool, the electoral office approached the Liverpool Voluntary Society for the Blind and asked for advice on how best to ensure

353
that blind and partially sighted people know how to vote. Electoral officers there also asked the society to provide awareness training for electoral staff. I mention that not just so that I can crow about the local authority concerned but because it is a useful model that could be followed.
The mock-up ballot paper that I have seen shows a map. It was the ballot paper for Durham, and I do not know how widely it has been made available. I do not know whether it is possible under the terms of the order, but I would press for a far more detailed map. It did not even show towns; there were shapes of districts. One would need to be very geographically and spatially aware to read a map that just showed interlocking shapes and know what the shapes referred to. I know that we are not going ahead with it now, but I also saw maps for Wyre and west Lancashire. They were more conventional and showed the detail. That is what we should have.
As I said, one might say that it was cynical or pragmatic. A Bill will be published, and we will do our best to debate it before, perhaps, the north-east goes to the polls on 4 November. The north-east will not now be distracted by arguments in the media about other regions and will be able to concentrate on its own region. Our fear throughout has been that the Government were going the right way to make the worst of the argument. They must provide the best basis on which voters can decide.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred to voters being "unwise enough" to decide on an Assembly. I know what I hope that the outcome will be, but I would not presume to judge the wisdom of the voters. We should agree to the orders today and leave them to make up their mind.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, these matters affect the whole country. Those of us on these Benches have, with our ecumenical partners, been active participants in the regional institutions set up in recent years. We can bring quite a bit of experience to such matters.
When I was Bishop of Guildford, the south-east of England region ran from Milton Keynes to Canterbury. I am now in Chelmsford, in a region that comes within the area of Essex County Council, has two unitary authorities, and is part of the east of England region, while the economic, social and political realities of our area are determined in London. So there are significant and important questions about the way in which the people are represented in these matters.
As for the issue of ballots, is it wise for us to proceed with postal ballots in advance of the assessments of the Electoral Commission? What is actually going on? What is the real meaning of the announcement that the proposals surrounding regional government are now in retreat? That is very important for the country. We need to know where we are in relation to those issues, not only in the north-east but throughout the country. Where are we going? What is the Government's view on these things? What are we supposed to relate to, in terms of public policy and perception? There are big questions.
354
In the east of England, and especially in the county of Essex, there are major development issues in front of us. Two of the major areas for the Government's housing development in the south-east of England are in my diocese. There are big questions, and people in local government constantly ask me about the shape of regional political practice.
If we proceed to the ballot in the north-east of England, how are we going to interpret the result? I have in front of me the map showing north Durham, east Durham and south Durham. I know the region, because I lived in Durham for nine years. What happens, and how will the result be interpreted, if there is a 30 per cent poll with south Durham voting one way on the issue and north and east Durham voting the other way? What is going to happen? Are we moving into new structures for government in our country on the basis of ballots set up in this manner, without a way of understanding how the Government will interpret how people respond? If we do not have clarity about how the response is to be interpreted, the rest of us who, in the dim and distant future, see the possibility of ballots coming our way, even in the south-east of England—although I find it extremely difficult to conceive that we shall ever arrive at that point in the south-east—
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I am afraid that the right reverend Prelate is misinformed. The latest "state of the nation" survey, undertaken by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, recorded in the south-east the highest score requiring regional government.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, those who represent the people in local government in the south-east of England —and yesterday I was in one of our local borough council offices—are very closely in touch with the views of their people. If ballots were held, the people might express a different opinion.
I want to know how the results are going to be interpreted and what the implication is for the rest of us in the development of these policies. The matter is very serious and significant, and it is very important that the Government respond.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I intervene as someone who strongly supports the Government in their intentions on regional government. The Opposition have again today said that they regard regional government—and I hope that I quote them correctly—as "complete nonsense". I personally believe that that position is complete nonsense.
The fact is that regional government is with us to stay, and the issue is how we have democratic institutions that match that regional administration and government and can hold it accountable. I believe that history will regard us harshly if we try to sidestep the challenge to ensure that our democratic institutions match the administrative reality.
Those issues, however, have been debated at some length in the House already. My intervention today is made as somebody who lives in the north-west region, as somebody who lives in Cumbria, and as somebody

355
who has the privilege of chairing what is known as the Social Responsibility Forum in Cumbria. That body brings together all the Churches of Cumbria, stretching from the Society of Friends—which I hope will not mind being described as a Church—to the Roman Catholics, including even some of the charismatic Churches as well.
Carrying that responsibility last year, and having listened to the very well informed and concerned discussions that have taken place in that forum on a number of occasions among people who are in their professional work closely in touch with a far wider range of the population than simply the churchgoers themselves, I am able to say that the Government's decision not to proceed with the order for the north-west today will be warmly welcomed, with considerable relief. It is a wise decision and I congratulate the Government on having the courage to make it.
12.15 p.m.
I shall briefly highlight some of the reasons why I believe that it is a wise decision. As currently envisaged, the referendum would give people a say on whether they want to be part of an elected north-west regional assembly, but the reality is that they have never been consulted on which region Cumbria should be in. Many Cumbrians, particularly those from the north of the county, feel little affinity with the north-west region as it stands, but see themselves as much closer to areas of the north-east region, particularly Northumberland, which has many similar concerns and issues. Our principal regional hospital is in Newcastle; our television in the north of Cumbria is Border Television and Tyne Tees Television. Those are two examples of the social reality that I am describing.
The voice of Cumbria, on an elected north-west assembly, would be very small—perhaps two to three seats out of about 25. That causes considerable anxiety among many Cumbrians, who fear that their concerns may be marginalised by a metropolitan power base. That relates to the point that I have just made, as Cumbria would have a stronger voice in the north-east, where the population base is much smaller than it is in the proposed, huge, north-west region.
A truly democratic referendum, as I am sure my noble friend would agree, would surely rely on securing a reasonable turnout to vote. That will happen only if people are properly informed about the referendum and feel that they can understand and engage with the issues. Yet the consultation process to date is regarded by many as having been totally inadequate. The Boundary Committee was supposed to leaflet every household in Cumbria early this year to consult on proposals for part two of the referendum—options for unitary local government—yet this was not effectively done.
Publicity for the referendum has so far been poor. Here I must differ from the perceptions of the noble Baroness who spoke for the Opposition. It is our experience, in the Social Responsibility Forum, that few public meetings have been organised. Indeed,
356
Churches Together in Cumbria is having to fill the gap. Much more work needs to be done by the Government to ensure that the issues and options are understood.
The process for counting the vote in part two of the referendum—as things stood—would have been unsatisfactory for the people of Cumbria. The Cumbria and Lancashire votes were to be counted as a single entity because one of the options for unitary local government straddles the county boundary. But the population of Cumbria is less than half a million, while that of Lancashire is more than 1.1 million. The feeling is that Cumbria's voice would not be heard fairly. In an extreme case, even if the entire population of Cumbria were to vote for one option, something else could be imposed on them by the Lancashire vote.
My last point is this. The preferred option of four of the current Cumbrian local authorities—Allerdale, Copeland, Carlisle and Eden—and of many people within the county is for three unitary authorities in Cumbria, based on the pairing of existing district councils, which has not been included in part two of the proposed referendum at all. I do not want to put it too strongly, but this seems to us to be fairly certain to guarantee a high level of discontent, whichever of the two options is chosen.
As he has made the wise decision, I ask my noble friend to take these points and considerations on board in looking to the way forward. For example, he could consider an option put to me yesterday by a noble Lord who is a close friend and colleague. It is a very sensible idea that envisages a statutory requirement for any north-west regional assembly—if it were to go ahead in the way that the Government are proposing at the moment—to have a special consultative committee for Cumbrian affairs.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend Lady Hanham, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we need a debate about this issue in this House as soon as possible. Therefore, I do not intend to detain the House very long today on these issues. Some of the speeches that have been made were of a more general character and we need a debate on the powers of the regions in the Bill that is being published today and on other issues, particularly the issues of boundaries. Noble Lords will know that I have made many speeches in this House about the eastern region, to which Essex does not belong. Essex is much more related to other parts of the country. I shall not go into that today.
I am concerned that over the past year we have had a considerable number of debates on postal voting and the regional assemblies. From these Benches, my noble friend Lady Hanham and I have consistently said that it will all end in chaos. That is where we are today: in chaos. We are in the most chaotic situation. I want to highlight one area.
As most noble Lords know, I am very involved in local government. Local government delivers services. It cares for hundreds of thousands of elderly people in their homes, it looks after children in need, it supports schools, it repairs roads and it looks after libraries.

357
Local government will be in limbo in the two regions that are now being deferred. Noble Lords do not know what has been going on over the past two years in, say, Cheshire. Cheshire does not want to be in a north-western region. Local authorities in Cheshire have been organising a big campaign to which a lot of energy and resources have been devoted. They have had to neglect the basic services areas that I just mentioned.
Lancashire, Cumbria—which has just been mentioned—and the metropolitan areas of Yorkshire have been spending time on this regional assembly, which has now been deferred. What is going to happen? Are they to sit there for the next month or year, or five years, waiting for a possible referendum to the detriment of all the people to whom they are providing services? These people want to know. Why did the Minister not suggest that we have the ballots by conventional methods with people going to the ballot box? There needs to be an end to the doubt about what is happening in local government.
Local government is about services. In the north-west there would probably have been a 75 per cent No vote. Let us have that ballot and let the people in the north-west vote No so that they can get on with their business again. Let us have a ballot in the east of England. There would be a 90 per cent No vote in the east of England. Let us get it out of the way and get on with our business again. This is the real problem. It is uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty.
The Prime Minister's mantra is education, education, education. In local governments throughout the England, it is uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty. That is no good. Local government is for people and services. I hope the Minister will comment on that today. The uncertainty must be ended. It may be ended in the north-east on 4 November. It will not be ended in the rest of the country. Local government must know so that it can get on and support services for the people. I would like the Minister to comment on that area today. Please let us have a debate as soon as possible in September about the whole issue.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I ought to declare an interest as a director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, which has supported the campaign for regional government in England and the two groups in the north-east and in Yorkshire which have been keen on promoting devolution.
This is a sad and strange day. In fact, it is a poor do. There is no greater strength than the advocacy on these Benches for genuine regional devolution. Talking about boundaries is the road to nowhere. It is the road to nothing happening. We know that we have devolved government but the fact is that it is not democratic. The devolved government is there with the civil servants and it is a matter of getting democracy with that.
I cannot fathom the business about postal votes at all. We still have the ballot boxes. They have not been put on the tip. The ballot boxes still exist. So if there is a problem about postal votes in Yorkshire, Lancashire
358
and the north-west, we could vote in the normal way that we have done for donkey's years, by marking ballot papers and sticking them in ballot boxes. This business about postal votes and so on is hogwash. We know how to vote if we are keen to have a vote. We have polling stations and we go to them and register our vote. The biggest problem in all this is the lack of enthusiasm. I do not think that the Government's heart is in this. This is the big problem.
Let us compare this with what happened in Scotland. There was the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Noble Lords will remember the phrase, "the settled will of the Scottish people". What attempt has been made to get the settled will of the folk in the regions of England? Where is the hand of the Government?
On an earlier occasion, I said that, although I had great reservations about this, I was prepared to support it because I did not think that the powers were good enough but it was something to build on and we might be able to improve things as the years go by.
There are now three problems for the Government. If this only concerns the north-east, there is the problem of powers. The powers are insufficient. We have heard all along that they are insufficient. Members of the Cabinet who look after education, health and so on have said that those matters cannot be devolved as they wish to retain the powers and are not prepared to devolve them.
There is a problem about local government because it has been brought into the equation. The Conservative Party conveniently confuses local government and regional government. But, again, there has not been real leadership in defining what regional government is and how important it is.
Moreover, as far as the north-east is concerned, there is a problem because there will not be referendums in Yorkshire and Humberside and the north-west. That is a further handicap to winning a ballot in the north-east. I invite the Minister to respond to this. If one were part of the No campaign campaigning in the north-east, one would be saying, "The powers are not that bright, they are lousing up your local government and, by the way, they are not doing this now in Yorkshire and Humber and the north-west but they think you lot here in the north-east will fall for it". There must be a fair answer to that for the people who are trying to campaign in the north-east because they have their hands tied behind their backs three times now.
I hope that the listening Government and the listening Minister have listened and will have some answers, particularly now that we have a reduced situation of trying to campaign just in the north-east.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I ought to declare an interest in that it appears that I am not going to be a voter in Yorkshire. My second interest is, I suppose, dead. I chaired a group of Liberal candidates in the north-west that produced a booklet on regional government for the north-west. That was in 1965. I suspect that it might he slightly out of date. I know for

359
certain that there are only two copies left, one under my bed and one under the bed of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Noble Lords may be pleased or otherwise to know that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is walking in the Pyrenees so he will not detain us today.
An interesting point arises out of the document that we produced, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd; namely, where you put Cumbria. We put it with the north-east at that time. The other problem is what you do with the south-east of England, which is like a Polo mint—unconnected communities with a hole in the middle which is Greater London. I thought I heard the Minister say that the subventions of cash to the campaigns would be based on the electoral votes in the European elections. For the life of me I cannot see the connection between those two things. These are totally different issues. To assess the amount of money going to various parties on that basis seems to me to be very peculiar. Perhaps the Government could explain that.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall take advice on that latter point. I do not know the background to that but under the order there has to be some basis for subventions to political parties. We are talking about a referendum; there are no personalities involved. The recent European elections were conducted on a party list basis and therefore did not involve counting votes for personalities. They constitute a fair way of conducting the process. A referendum is not like an election. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that that is probably the connection in that regard.
I shall resist getting into the boundary argument. Noble Lords will know that I have expressed my personal views on the matter. I believe that some counties come under the wrong regions. However, we are not discussing regional boundaries. We said that they were never closed but that we had no plans to change them. We have inherited the regions created for administrative purposes by the previous government. We have no current plans to change them. We said that the matter could always be revisited but that it was not a precursor to regional government.
I am very conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, said that this matter was a poor do. I am constantly reminded of his lack of enthusiasm for the original plan. I remember him saying, "I want to be enthused". I could not enthuse him regarding the proposals because they did not go far enough. The noble Lord then said, and repeated today, "I shall take this because I can build on it". I believe that there is general acceptance of that point. I shall not discuss what might happen to the No and Yes campaigns in the various regions as it would be totally inappropriate for a Minister to try to imagine that. Nor will I comment on what parliamentary colleagues will say in the other place later today when Nick Raynsford makes a Statement.
360
I wish to make two points to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. First, there is no chaos. We have a clear policy, which I enunciated this morning, on the way we are proceeding. The legal framework is there. The preparations are made. We are confident about the administration. There is plenty of time. As I explained, because no candidates are involved in the ballots, six weeks are available to deal with the ballot papers, rather than the week that was formerly the case.
As a reasonable person I accept that there is a blight on local government. I accept that, given what the leader of a county council has said in the past and what others have said when talking about local government reorganisation. As I said in my original speech, in September the Government will make a further statement on the way forward following the publication of the Electoral Commission's report, although I cannot say that that will be a definitive statement. Proposals have been made for local government reorganisation in terms of unitary authorities because we are not prepared to have an extra tier of government in those regions. However, we have said that that is part of the regional assembly process, it is not a local government reorganisation for its own sake.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, can we then have a debate on these issues as soon as possible? I hope that the Minister will agree to that.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I know it is a cliché but it is a matter for the usual channels. The usual channels decide that matter. Noble Lords sitting behind me and at the side of me decide what is debated. I am just a humble day-to-day mechanistic Minister who does what he is told and turns up on the right day. When the usual channels have fixed a day, they say, "Turn up and this is the subject".
Obviously, this matter will be debated. A draft Bill will be published today, not a Bill. We have said that we will introduce a Bill to go through a parliamentary process only if there is a Yes vote. That is the position. The Government have published a draft Bill with all the necessary extras. We can debate that at a suitable opportunity.
I say to my noble friend Lord Judd that I cannot say anything about turnout. That is a matter to be decided at the time. We hope that there will be a high turnout. Pilots have indicated that postal voting raises turnout. Raising turnout is good for democracy. I have my personal views about elections. I believe that if there were PR, the turnout would be even higher because people's votes would count. However, that is not the Government's view. I say that before my noble friend the Chief Whip jumps on me. My noble friend Lord Judd referred to the social reality. I fully accept the points that he made regarding the discussions in Cumbria not being a solution. He warmly welcomed our decision not to proceed with the relevant order at this time. Obviously, I cannot foresee what will occur in the future.

361
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford-cum-Chelmsford, or Chelmsford-ex-Guildford—they call them retreads in the other place but I cannot use that phrase here—raised issues regarding the eastern region. I ask him to take on board the following point. So far as I am aware there has never been any local government reorganisation in this country conducted by either of the parties in power that has been submitted to the people's choice before it occurs. That has never happened. I fully accept that we are to that extent in uncharted waters. As regards the abolition of counties and the metropolitan county councils and the boundary changes that took place in the early 1970s following the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Walker, there was no question of people's choice. Parliament decided and Parliament dictated what was good for people in those matters. In the case that we are discussing we are putting forward proposals and options because of the issue of unitary government. It is a piloting process by definition as it will occur in one region out of nine. The process in London is not quite the same.
We are not in retreat as regards regional government, far from it. We have a regional agenda that will proceed, particularly regarding planning and the housing boards that we have already announced. They are not dependent on elected regional assemblies. I have said that the Bill will be draft only.
A slightly earlier version of the ballot paper and explanatory material that I sent to colleagues at the end of last week had been fully tested by the Electoral Commission in a series of in-depth interviews with voters in three regions. They found the text was helpful in explaining the concepts involved in the move from two-tier to single-tier government and, together with the mapping—which was considered to be clear and helpful—would enable people to make an informed choice. In addition, large-scale maps will be available at council offices, public libraries and at assistance and delivery points. Therefore, larger-scale maps will be available. I do not accept that what is in the order is just a blob. It contains the detail of which councils are covered.
As regards ballot paper size and eligibility, counting officers can assist partially sighted and blind people to vote either in their own homes or at an assistance and delivery point. A tactile voting device is available for voters. Counting officers can make available a copy of a ballot paper in large format by way of example, but not a proper ballot paper in large format because of the security of the ballot.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister finishes with that little section, I want to say that I assume that the returning officer may send out information outside the order. I hear what the Minister said about the Electoral Commission's work, but I urge the Government to think whether there is any possibility of providing more information about the detail of what the boundaries mean, in a way that voters will see without having to go to council offices and so on.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, obviously there will be leaflets through every door, and I hope that they will
362
fully explain the boundaries. People know where they pay their council tax, and that local authority will he either put with another or joined with others.
I want to deal with the point about party conferences. In Committee in another place, we were asked why the referendum date was in November. We could not lay the date order any earlier, given when the Boundary Committee reported. We gave a commitment during the preparations Bill that there would be a 10-week referendum period, and we did not think it appropriate for ballot papers to be dispatched during the party conference season, or for the close of poll to be during the school half-term holidays. That gave us the referendum date of 4 November.
The matter was not decided by the BBC, but by the Cabinet between 9·30 and 10·30 this morning. That was when the final decision was made. It is riot a terrible day for Parliament. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, wants to say that it is a terrible day for Parliament and that she disagrees with what we are doing, that is one thing; to say that it is a terrible day for Parliament but that she agrees with what we are doing—that is what she said—seems a bit of a contradiction.
People can vote by ballot box. The pattern of postal voting is that people are sent the postal ballot paper at home. If they wish, they can go to a polling booth and put their vote in a ballot box. That is part of the process. We do not tend to advertise it, but that is what happens in the pilots. They can put the vote in an envelope and post it back but, if they want to put their vote in the ballot box, they can do so. We said 1:50,000; that is a matter for local offices. If they warn to take account of distances in rural areas and have other boxes, no doubt they can do so.
So far, £1.9 million has been spent on raising awareness. We will now obviously withdraw from all expenditure relating to the referendums in the two regions, as that makes a lot of sense. The draft Bill will be available once the House has decided—in other words, I hope that it will be available before the Statement in the other place, which I understand will be at approximately 1.15.
It is a good day for democracy. We are asking several million people in one of our regions to decide whether they want a different form of government in the region, with its local consequences, from what they have now. That is all that we are asking them to decide, and it is their decision to make. I ask the House to pass the orders without a vote, because we are letting the people decide.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we have had a debate, which is what my amendment was originally about, but it was tabled long before the shambolic events of this morning. In some way or another, we have managed to talk about the Government's mess, and there is no way round it—it is a mess of the highest order. The Government know it; the Minister knows that, at the bottom of his heart, they have now written off regional government. It is sad for those in the north-east, who will be put under a microscope and

363
will be taking part in a very cynical election. They will be guinea pigs for a regional assembly that will never be extended to anywhere else. What a day.
I had considered pressing the amendment to a vote. However, as there are too few Members on the Government's Benches to enable them to win it, I shall not do so.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Government want to lose the vote; it would suit them very well to lose the north-east with it. It has been an interesting debate on a dreadful day—a really terrible day for this really terrible Government.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Baroness not for a moment contemplate the political context in which she has made her remarks? The Opposition love to bandy around criticism of the Government for being arrogant and insensitive. On this occasion the Government, having listened to anxieties that exist, made the courageous decision to change their plans. They are then accused of being in a mess. The Opposition really must make up their mind.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am tempted not to reply to that, but this is not the Opposition's mess. It is the Government's mess. To whom are the Government listening? They made their decision overnight, at the end of an extremely long haul on regional government. They could have made the decision at any time. It was they who laid the orders right to the wire in Parliament. The problem is the Government's fault, not the Opposition's. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
12.46 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that the amendment shall be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
Division called.
Tellers for the "Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order 54. A division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Expenses Limits for Permitted Participants) Order 2004
12.51 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Counting Officers' Charges) Order 2004
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material) (North East Region) Order 2004
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee and 15th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material)(North West Region) Order 2004
Lord Rooker: My Lords, not moved.
Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material) (Yorkshire and the Humber Region) Order 2004
Lord Rooker: My Lords, not moved.

Human Tissue Bill
12.52 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is brought forward as a response to the scandals revealed by the Alder Hey and Bristol inquiries. There can be no doubt that many people suffered when they discovered that the organs of their loved ones had been kept without their knowledge.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may raise with the Minister a matter about which I have given him notice and which refers to exactly the points he has mentioned—the availability of the relevant documents to the House. Usefully, the Explanatory Notes on the Bill refer to the several reports, including those that the noble Lord has just mentioned, and other documents which have led to this legislation.
Two of those documents seem to me to be required reading: the advice to the Government by the Chief Medical Officer for England and the consultation document Human Bodies, Human Choices. But on inquiry at the Printed Paper Office earlier this week I was surprised to discover that neither was available. The clerk on duty helpfully was able to locate the documents on the Internet and to print them out for me. The CMO's advice runs to 48 sheets and the consultation report runs to nearly 200 sheets. On asking whether there was a summary, I was told that there was not. Yet, on reading the consultation document, it is clear that there is a summary. I have not yet seen it.
This is not good enough. I had always thought that it was standard practice for departments promoting legislation to ensure that all relevant documents are available. The Minister's private secretary, whom I telephoned last evening, offered her apologies and indeed those of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. However, I should be grateful if he would explain to the House why the system failed in the present case.
I am told that, following my call to the department, the boxes of papers were delivered at about 6 p.m. yesterday. I understand from discussion with other noble Lords that most of them did not see the papers until this morning. They will be useful in Committee, in September, but ought they not to have been available last week?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we did our best to recover from the situation in which I personally found myself yesterday following the telephone call from the noble Lord. My private office tried as much as we could to help him and remedy the situation. It is unfortunate that the department did not ensure that all the documents were available, and all I can do is apologise to the House. As the noble Lord said, these documents will be particularly useful in Committee. We have tried to remedy the shortcoming and make them available. If any noble Lords are having difficulties over access to the documents, perhaps they could let me know and
366
I will try to ensure that we get them to you as quickly as possible and before the summer holidays. On that basis, I shall continue my speech.
As I said, the Bill is brought forward as a response to the scandals revealed by the Alder Hey and Bristol inquiries. There can be no doubt that many people suffered when they discovered that the organs of their loved ones had been kept without their knowledge. We must not underestimate the pain endured by those who came to realise—often many years later—that the body of the child, husband or mother whom they had buried was incomplete. We must ensure that that does not happen again, and this legislation is key to ensuring just that. However, it does much more than that. This Bill will provide the comprehensive statutory framework needed to ensure the appropriate use of human organs and tissue. It will make consent the clear controlling mechanism for the retention and use of organs and tissue and it will establish a regulatory body to oversee a range of related activity in this area such as post-mortems, tissue banking and the public display of human bodies.
At the same time, we must recognise that many important benefits accrue from the use of tissue both from living patients and following post-mortems. There has been uncertainty in recent years among researchers about whether and when they can use tissue in research, whatever its source, and this uncertainty has undoubtedly inhibited research. So we are legislating in part to provide the protection and confidence needed to support research and development in science and medicine. But this must be a partnership between medicine and society and the partnership must be built on communication, understanding and consent. The Bill will ensure that the rights and expectations of patients, families and society are met, while meeting broader social needs such as the importance of medical research, education, training and public health.
The need for this new legislation on human organs and tissue was recognised some three years ago. Before setting out the detail of the Bill, I think it would be helpful to recall some of the background. In 1999 and 2000 the inquiries at Bristol and Alder Hey left us in no doubt about the scale on which tissue and organs were being retained without the knowledge of families following post-mortems.
The practice was not limited to those particular hospitals or to children's post-mortems. The report of the Isaacs inquiry more recently confirmed that large numbers of adult brains had been retained, again without the knowledge or consent of families, following coroners' post-mortems. A census of organ retention by NHS pathology services carried out by the Chief Medical Officer in 2000 revealed that more than 100,000 hearts, brains, lungs and other organs were being kept. In Northern Ireland the Human Organs Inquiry confirmed that similar practices had occurred there. Part of the tragedy was that, ironically, in many cases the families concerned said that they would readily have accepted the use of their loved ones' tissue or organs for medical research, if only they had been asked.
In the light of all that, we asked the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, to report and make recommendations on the retention and use of human

367
tissue and organs. One thing that had by then become clear, as the reports emerged, was that post-mortem practice had developed over many years in ways that were no longer in keeping with what we have come to expect. While practice was directed at supporting medical knowledge and research, it was, in this area, failing to respect the interests of families. It had become routine for tissue taken at post-mortem to be kept for archives, research and education but without proper discussion with those close to the deceased.
The situation was set out very clearly for us when the Chief Medical Officer reported in January 2001. Sir Liam made 17 recommendations, all of which we accepted in England and Wales. The Human Organs Inquiry made broadly similar recommendations in Northern Ireland.
In implementing Sir Liam's recommendations, we aimed to provide, first, support and advice for those affected; we put in place stabilising measures by means of advice and guidance; we set in train a review that would secure a proper framework for the future; and we are helping to develop professional and public understanding as a way of ensuring that changes in the law go hand in hand with changes in practice and culture.
Therefore, immediately following publication of the report, in April 2001 we established the Retained Organs Commission, whose task was to provide advocacy, oversee the return of organs and tissue to families and give guidance to trusts. The commission closed in April this year, having carried out its responsibilities with admirable sensitivity and commitment.
In April 2003, we published guidance and consent forms for post-mortems, together with advice that helps to clarify the law as it currently stands. We have other work in hand that includes providing information and support to bereaved families, and we are supporting further training and development for health professionals.
The Bill will support and underpin those developments. But the Bill is not just about how we deal with the deceased. The review of the law covered the whole area of the use of human tissue, from the living as well as from the deceased, and its use for transplantation, research and other purposes, such as donation for teaching and education. Those are all important matters, and it was vital that we approached this in a comprehensive, joined-up way to ensure that all research, education, transplantation and other uses can progress confidently and on a sound legal basis.
Regrettably, we have undoubtedly lost opportunities for valuable health research, partly because of the lack of confidence in post-mortem practice but also because of uncertainty among pathologists and tissue banks as to what can be used and for what purposes. The law across the field, as it stands, is unclear, out of date and close to unworkable. It is important that those working in medical research—an area well represented in this House—
368
understand the public confidence and trust that must be established if they are to do their valuable work confidently in the future.
The proposals set out in the Bill have been prepared following extensive consultation. In July 2002, we published a major, comprehensive consultation report called Human Bodies, Human Choices. We received around 250 responses but we also held workshops and conferences with a wide range of interested groups and individuals covering consent, regulation, transplantation, next-of-kin issues and penalties.
We published the results of the consultation in April 2003, and we published the broad proposals in September, following which we held a further round of stakeholder meetings with families, clinicians, researchers, heads of Royal Colleges, anatomists and other organisations, including the BMA, ROC, Wellcome Trust, UK Transplant, Human Genetics Commission, and the Welsh Assembly's Organ Retention Advisory Group. The degree of support and consensus that we found has been hugely encouraging, and we have been able to build on that. I am grateful to all the groups and individuals—some through the pain of their own experience—who contributed to this work.
The Bill, therefore, is about balancing the rights and expectations of families with broader public health considerations. It will make consent the clear basis for the keeping and use of tissue and organs. It will restore confidence so that important health research can proceed with the support of patients, families and the public.
Part 1 of the Bill deals with the question of consent. Here, we are proposing a comprehensive framework in relation to all medical uses of human bodies, organs and tissue and in relation to public display. That should allow us to draw a line under the events of the past and be confident that proper legal and ethical standards will apply in all situations where tissue can be kept and used for the public benefit. The Bill will establish clearly that, other than in cases of a coroner's investigation, the decision about the use of tissue or organs will lie squarely with the individuals themselves. Where the individual's wishes were not given before his death, the role of the family or person closest to the deceased will also be made clear and explicit. And there will be offences relating to keeping or using tissue or organs without consent.
Clause 1 of the Bill sets out where consent will be needed for scheduled purposes. Those purposes include carrying out a hospital post-mortem and the subsequent keeping and use of tissue or organs for transplantation, research, education and training, and so on. For certain, particularly sensitive, purposes—that is, for donation of the whole body for anatomical examination and for use for public display, such as Professor von Hagen's "Bodyworlds" exhibition—the specific consent of the individuals themselves will always be required.
The Bill will not affect the coroner's authority to order a post-mortem for his purposes related to establishing the cause of death, nor his ability to ask

369
for tissue or organs to he retained should they be needed, again, for his purposes. That is made absolutely clear in Clause 11. But once the coroner's work is complete, further retention or use of tissue or organs for scheduled purposes would be subject to the Bill and to the requirement for consent.
In the case of tissue from living patients, we recognise that some purposes are so intrinsic to general diagnostic and clinical care that the consent that the patient gives to the procedure itself can be regarded as sufficient for those other purposes. Those are set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 and include clinical audit, quality control, education and training. Therefore, consent will not he needed in those cases, nor for public health monitoring.
Noble Lords will be aware that, following extensive discussion with the medical and research community, amendments were made in another place that made clear that health-related training and education fall squarely into Part 2 of Schedule 1. Following extensive discussion with a range of medical research interests, including many eminent people in that sphere, amendments were also made in another place to provide for the use, without consent, of residual tissue from living patients in research, provided that the tissue is effectively anonymised and the research approved by a research ethics committee.
I know that some research interests have some anxieties about what is meant here by "anonymised". In fact, the word "anonymised" is not used in the Bill. The Bill states at Clause 1(9)(b) that the person conducting the research should not be,
"in possession, and not likely to come into possession, of information from which the person … can be identified".
Clearly that does not mean that the tissue must be irretrievably unlinked from the medical record. In many cases, it will he vital to maintain that link, and the Bill allows for that.
Therefore, the amendments made were important ones that recognised the practical aspects of the use of samples recovered during diagnostic and surgical procedures. I hope that medical research interests will recognise that we have responded to their concerns in a practical way while preserving the integrity of the new consent arrangements that the public wish to see in this legislation. I would say to those who want to go further in this area that they need to reflect very carefully on how their actions will he seen by a wider public and they need to recognise that the Government must maintain a balance on this issue.
The Bill goes on to make clear that failing to obtain consent where it is required, whether from patients themselves or, in the case of the deceased, from other appropriate people, may be a criminal offence and subject to penalty. There will be safeguards to ensure that people cannot commit an offence inadvertently. For example, a researcher will receive tissue from others, perhaps a tissue bank. He will, therefore, quite reasonably be relying on the regulated system to deliver tissue that has the appropriate consent for the purpose. The "end-user" researcher would not be held
370
responsible if, having asked for tissue with appropriate consent in place, this subsequently proved not to be the case.
The Bill does not set out the form consent should take in any particular situation. Let me state clearly that the Bill does not require consent to be specific to each research project for which tissue might he used. Consent can be broad. Consent to research can be generic and enduring.
As at present, consent can take different forms in different circumstances, and primary legislation is not the place in which to attempt to define them all. The consent arrangements provided for in the Bill will be described more fully in guidance to be issued by the new authority. This guidance will be set out in a statutory code of practice and this will be subject to parliamentary approval. Like other codes and regulations under the Bill, it will be subject to wide consultation and will clearly need to reflect the pragmatic nature of current good practice. Research ethics committees will continue to have a role in considering whether legal and ethical standards have been met in the context of the specific projects that they consider.
The Bill introduces certain new provisions with regard to consent. It provides for an individual to nominate another person to take decisions about tissue or organ retention, storage and use after his or her death. So, for example, I can either make my consent known prior to my death, such as through my donor card or by entry on the donor register, or I can nominate another person who may make those decisions when I die. It is where I have not made my own wishes known, and have not nominated another person, that my next of kin would be empowered to make those decisions and their actual consent would be needed, as opposed to the rather unclear position currently pertaining under the Human Tissue Act 1961.
There is one further important point that I should make about Part 1 of the Bill. Clause 9 deals with "existing holdings"; that is tissue and organs currently stored from a variety of sources for the purposes set out in Schedule 1. That includes all tissue banks and archives. The Bill simply provides for that to be lawfully kept and used. There will be no consent requirement for existing holdings. It has to be recognised that there is immense value in current archives. Thus it is important that we allow for research options to remain open, but for respectful and appropriate disposal to take place where necessary. We have provided for the new Human Tissue Authority to give guidance on the use and disposal of this tissue.
I turn to Part 2 of the Bill. Anything more than a cursory view of this area will show how complex, sensitive and important it is. We are, therefore, proposing a regulatory system to oversee the implementation of this overarching legislation. A new Human Tissue Authority will be created with the task of ensuring that the use of whole bodies, and of tissue and organs, is in keeping with the legal and ethical standards that we expect. The general remit is set out at Clause 14,

371
covering the removal, retention and use for purposes set out in Schedule I, and disposal of all tissue and organs, as well as their import and export.
Clause 16 sets out the licensing role of the authority, which will be responsible for licensing and inspecting anatomical examination, post-mortem practice, and the storage of tissue and organs, whether for research or for human application; that is, transplantation. Licensing for storage will regulate at the level of tissue banks. Licensing will not apply in the case of each researcher who holds a few samples for a particular project.
What will also need to be licensed is the use of bodies for public display. We are all aware of Professor Von Hagen's "Bodyworlds" exhibition of plastinated human bodies, and licences will in future be needed for all such displays, other than where the bodies or parts are of historic interest, being over 100 years old.
The new authority will consist of members appointed by the Secretary of State—including members appointed by the National Assembly for Wales and the relevant department in Northern Ireland—following transparent procedures in keeping with what have become known as the Nolan principles. At least half of the authority will be lay members but, clearly, professional expertise will also be needed.
The new authority will issue codes of practice and it will have the power to vary, revoke or suspend licences where the necessary conditions are not met. There will be powers to inspect premises that are licensed or where there is reason to believe that an offence may have been committed. There is considerable detail in the Bill, naturally, about the procedures for licensing, appeals, inspections and enforcement that follow current best practice in ensuring a fair, transparent and rigorous regulatory system. The licensing sanctions in the Bill are clear and strong, and they are backed with criminal sanctions for carrying on activities without a licence. But while the licensing system will be firm and clear, it will also include the flexibility, through the use of statutory codes of practice, to ensure that it is able to respond over time to technical, scientific and social developments in this area.
In proposing a new Human Tissue Authority we are already streamlining the regulatory arrangements in this area. By reviewing the law and regulation across the whole field, we have been able to bring under one agency matters that are currently dealt with under three. Currently we have the Inspector of Anatomy; the Unrelated Live Transplant Regulatory Authority (ULTRA), which regulates the donation of organs between an unrelated donor and recipient; and some of the duties of the former Retained Organs Commission (ROC). Moreover, the Bill also extends to tissue banks that are currently subject to a non-statutory, voluntary regulatory scheme. This scheme will become mandatory under the EU Tissue and Cells Directive and the new authority will be the competent authority under that directive.
With the announcement today of the next steps on the review of arms' length bodies, we will be able to go even further with streamlining the number of
372
regulatory bodies. This will involve the new Human Tissue Authority being merged with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The merged body will be called the Regulatory Authority for Fertility and Tissue. The merger will take place when the current review of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 1990 is complete. That Act is being reviewed for other policy reasons and it will be sensible and convenient to establish the merged body at that point.
In the mean time, we will continue with the establishment of the HTA and begin work on that quickly. Work on the development of procedures, protocols, and codes of practice for consultation will go ahead as planned. A key factor here is that the EU Tissue and Cells Directive, under which the authority will be a competent authority, must be implemented by April 2006. But we will establish the Human Tissue Authority on this interim basis in a way that will facilitate the later merger. This means looking at shared back office functions, staff and premises and possibly some common membership.
In its comprehensive approach, the Bill also makes provision for dealing with human tissue in particular circumstances, and here I turn to Part 3. For example, we expect that it will play a part in expanding the scope for transplants using organs from donors who have died, where organs are retrieved quickly after death to enable transplantation to go ahead. A provision is included (Clause 44) to make it clear that steps may be taken to preserve organs while it is established, possibly from the next of kin, whether there is consent to donation for transplantation. At the same time we will make it clear—in Clause 32—that commercial dealing in all tissue for transplantation will be illegal. That extends the current prohibition under the Human Organ Transplants Act, which relates only to organs.
The Bill has in addition one provision—Clause 50—which exceptionally applies also to Scotland since it deals with genetics policy, which is wholly reserved to Westminster. This makes it an offence to have human material intending to analyse its DNA without consent or for certain specified purposes. This provision responds to a recommendation of the Human Genetics Commission, which has been concerned in particular about the emerging market for commercial DNA testing for the purposes of discovering family relationships without consent.
Finally, the Bill will allow certain national museums to remove human remains from their collections; for example, in response to claims from the descendants of indigenous people—Clause 52. The statutory constitution of these museums currently prevents them from returning these remains even where they may wish to do so. We will remove this barrier, recognising the consensus both within government and the museum community that museums should be free to respond positively to claims from those indigenous people whose ancestors' remains are currently held in our national museums. On this point, I know that concerns have very recently been raised about ancient human remains in museums—for example, Egyptian mummies—and the possibility of gratuitous claims for

373
their return. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be working over the summer with interested parties to see how best to deal with these.
It has been said that this Bill is complex—some have even suggested that it is convoluted. But, as I have tried to explain, it is a Bill which covers much ground that is currently fraught with difficulties. It repeals and replaces the current incoherent set of statutes—the Human Tissue Act 1961, the Anatomy Act 1984, and the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989, as well as corresponding Northern Ireland legislation. I believe that some of the criticism that has been made is unjustified.
This Bill provides a statutory basis for the other aspects of law that currently can be managed only through common law, such as the uses that can be made of stored surplus tissue. It supports the implementation of the EU directive on tissue and cells and resolves a number of current problematic issues, taking account of distinctions between tissue from the living and deceased, coroners, and hospital post-mortems, tissue from children, adults and mentally incapacitated persons, and use for clinical and research purposes.
It establishes a single coherent regulatory mechanism and provides for a number of discrete areas such as the offence of non-consensual use of DNA, trafficking in tissue or organs, and the returning of human remains.
In conclusion, the Human Tissue Bill provides, for the first time in this area, a comprehensive and coherent approach to the use of human bodies, organs and tissue. It brings together various existing provisions of statute and common law and provides a sounds framework for the future. I believe that it will bring confidence both to those who have been affected by the failings of the past and will reassure our medical and research communities that their important work is not jeopardised. For these reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Warner.)
1.23 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his very lucid exposition of, as he rightly said, a fairly complex Bill. From the outset, the Minister was right to remind us why the Bill is now before us. It is over five years since the Alder Hey inquiry was set up and some three and a half years after Mr Redfearn's report and Sir Liam Donaldson's accompanying guidelines and census were presented to this House and the other place.
Clearly, the unethical activities of Professor Van Velzen were the greatest cause for concern and demonstrated the widest gaps in the then current law, but it is clear from the census carried out by the CMO at the time that Alder Hey was just the tip of the iceberg: the scale of organ retention where consent had not been obtained was immense.
374
The intention behind ministerial statements at the time, to which I responded positively from these Benches, and the Bill now before us, is that parents would never again suffer the anguish that they have suffered in so many cases where their children's organs were retained without their consent, but also that public trust in the post-mortem process and in medical research is rebuilt. Extraordinary collections of children's organs had been built up, not only at Alder Hey but elsewhere.
The question now before us is whether the Bill does the job Ministers promised us it would do and whether it is proportionate in its effects.
This Bill needs to strike a balance, as the Minister said, between the rights and privacy of patients and their families on the one hand, and the importance of ensuring that bio-medical research, monitoring, education and training that saves lives and cures disease on the other can take place with full public understanding of what is involved.
Throughout this process we need to consider the needs of patients, not only to have their wishes respected and consent gathered, but also to have access to the best possible treatments and care that medical research can give them.
However, if these ends are to be achieved, the fundamental provisions of the Bill relating to matters such as consent, accountability, and provisions for training, education and research must be absolutely crystal clear.
A great deal of progress has been made in the Bill since its introduction into the other place. On these Benches we now support its overall architecture and broad content, and I welcome a great deal of what the Minister had to say today.
During the passage of the Bill in the other place Ministers emphasised the golden thread contained in Part 1 requiring consent from an appropriate person for tissue usage, retention and storage except in certain defined circumstances covered by Schedule 1. These circumstances have now been broadened by amendments in the other place, so that several provisions which inhibited medical training and education and scientific research have been changed, leaving the Bill in far better shape than when it started its passage through Parliament. We welcome in particular on these Benches changes which allow tissue for living patients to be used without consent for the purposes of medical education and training.
However, there are still a large number of outstanding issues where the Bill's provisions need to be clarified. First, it is clear from exchanges on Report in the other place that there is some confusion regarding the concept of anonymisation. I accept from the Minister that Clause 1(8) does not refer to the concept. But the Government said that residual tissues could be used for research without consent if the research were approved by a research ethics committee and if the samples were anonymised prior to their use.
However, there are circumstances where it may be desirable to reverse this anonymisation if the results should be, say, communicated to an individual patient

375
for some reason or the identity of a patient needs to be known and the individual traced. The Minister in the Commons, Ms Rosie Winterton, in response to questioning from my honourable friend Dr Harris, said:
"Anonymisation does not mean that the patient and the tissue would be permanently unlinked. Further information could be sought from the records, but the researcher should not get identifying information".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/04; col. 97.]
I shall not enter into whether that is genuine anonymisation or whether it should have some other language, such as pseudo-anonymisation.
However, regardless of the correct term, the process being described has little benefit for patient privacy and negative implications for medical researchers. In that case—and I understand this is the briefing that has been given—if a researcher looking at tissue needs to collect information from a patient's clinical record, he or she must ask a third party colleague to consult the record and relay an answer. The argument is that this allows researchers to access necessary information but in reality it only allows them access if they know exactly what to ask for.
In short, the people who can put this information to the best use for medical research purposes—the researchers at the lab bench examining tissue samples—are the very people who are prohibited from having access to the necessary clinical information. So this approach achieves very little in terms of patient protection, as research being conducted on human tissue will already have been approved by research ethics committees. Moreover, researchers are medical professionals already bound by codes of confidentiality.
So, while this provision of the Bill may at face value sound as though it protects patients' rights, it adds very little. Patient protection could be achieved by giving more responsibility to the research ethics committees and allowing them to approve use of clinical records in conjunction with tissue samples when merited by the research project involved. Ms Winterton also suggested that to make use of information gained through the research process, consent would have to be obtained. She said:
"It is likely that the research ethics committee would say that in order to be able use any information that came from the research, consent would have to be sought from the individual. Research ethics committees would have to consider the matter when granting permission for research in the first place".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/04; col. 97–8.]
The context of that discussion centred on disclosing information discovered through research to the patient, if it had a bearing on the prognosis. However, the Minister's language was unclear. If consent must be sought before information relating to the research can be used for any purpose, that would undermine the changes made to the Bill in another place that allowed for such research without obtaining consent. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that when he winds up.
376
Many other points about anonymisation need clarification. One is whether any distinction will be made between what is considered to be public health monitoring and what is considered to be epidemiological research. We need greater clarification about whether, in a public health circumstance, tissue may be traced back to the individual who donated it, even where consent was not obtained but the research was being done with approval from a research ethics committee. One can think of several examples, such as the SARS virus or another emerging threat, where that might be necessary.
Other issues arise from Schedule 1. There was concern in many scientific circles about the interplay between Parts 1 and 2 when it comes to education and training about research techniques. That is specifically not included in Part 2 of the schedule, so consent will be required although, as the Minister in another place acknowledged, research ethics committees will have approved the research. Again, I should be grateful if the Minister would respond on that.
Then we come to that issue of post-mortems and coroners. There are issues about the duration and extent of the coroner's authority. The Minister, Dr Ladyman, said on Report in the other place that a coroner's authority would last only as long as his functions were required. Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, it leaves open questions about coroners and forensic investigation in to the cause of death. In a sense, that is ironic, given that some of the greatest abuses were uncovered in the Alder Hey report as a result of post-mortems. Under the Bill, it would be an offence to hold on to tissue, including slides and blocks, after a post-mortem examination is concluded, except in the case of ongoing criminal inquiry. If the coroner is satisfied with the findings and can establish the cause of death, no samples are retained.
Unfortunately, coroners are not infallible and, although a cause of death can often be initially established, later discoveries, developments or events can call the original conclusion into question. By prohibiting the retention of tissue, physical evidence of death is destroyed. Cases where such a scenario arises are not unknown; on occasion, a death that is originally ruled a suicide or result of natural causes is later questioned. That is an important area.
All that points to it being vital to align the new coroners' rules with the Bill. It is extremely unsatisfactory that that is not being done simultaneously with the Bill's passage through Parliament.
Some of the Bill's finer points were not discussed in the other place due to lack of time. One of those was concern that, where the Bill mentions DNA, it does not mention the other types of genetic material or tests that can yield the same results. The wording of the Bill should include RNA, which effectively contains the same information as DNA, as well as protein sequencing tests, from which DNA sequences can be deduced. I believe that the Government are considering that, although the Minister did not refer to it.
Those points are not exhaustive of the work remaining to be done. Concerns remain in other areas, including provisions for consent to be applied to those

377
with diminished mental capacity. That issue is very delicate, especially as we will have to ensure that the Bill's provisions can be easily matched with what is to come in the Mental Capacity Bill. I recognise that there is provision for regulations to be made, but we need more detail about what those regulations may contain. I am not sure whether a best interests test is the correct one to apply, and those regulations should be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses.
We also need to look ahead to the establishment of the Human Tissue Authority and its interaction with other arm's-length bodies. I note the Minister's statement about merger with the HFEA, but should there not be a limit on the size of the board of the merged authority? Why are there to be two inspectorates, the inspectorate of anatomy and pathology and that for organ tissue for human use, especially when we are trying to reduce the amount of regulation across the NHS?
In conclusion, the fact is that legislation by itself is not enough. As Sir Liam Donaldson said at the time,
"There needs to he a complete sea-change in the way we perceive donations of organs … Patients and relatives need to be in control. We need to give people time to think about consent. They need to know exactly what they are consenting to and they must have the right to say what happens during the post mortem. There needs to he a new contract between patients and the NHS".
I agree with those sentiments, but I am not yet sure that the Bill quite fits them.
My view is that the strongest of the guiding principles originally set out by the CMO is the aspect of a gift relationship. We must be mindful of the needs of medical training and research, but we must never take donation for granted. It follows that we need proper counselling services in place and comprehensive training in the new consent regime—a massive exercise—and a programme of communication to the public, especially about consent, research use and medical training and education. But we have a great shortage of trained pathologists. Has the cost of obtaining necessary consents been factored in? What is envisaged? Are the estimated costs of implementation of the Bill's provisions adequate in those circumstances? It would be useful to hear more about that from the Minister.
I look forward to the Minister's response and to Committee, when I shall continue to be actively involved. I also greatly look forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lord Roberts of Llandudno and Lady Neuberger, and to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, from the Cross-Benches.
1.34 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I hope that what follows is an appropriate contribution to this preliminary debate on a Bill that this Bench strongly supports. It is good to have the prospect of three maiden speeches from such distinguished contributors. If I may single out one, it was a close friend of mine and colleague at Manchester University, Professor Barnabas Lindars, who had the privilege of teaching the noble Baroness,
378
Lady Neuberger, and was present at what I hope it is appropriate for a bishop to regard as her ordination as a rabbi. I mean that with the greatest respect.
I shall begin with a story, a true story, that illustrates one aspect of the downside of things as they stand at the moment, which reflect specifically what the Isaacs report of 2003 revealed in general terms as all too common and regrettable practice. Like some of what we shall be deliberating on later, it relates to areas of human experience that are not always easy to describe or digest.
A priest was taking a funeral in south London a few years ago and found to his horror that the body, revealed when the casket was opened in church, had had two polished shoes neatly placed at one end attached to no legs, which were unaccountably missing from the corpse.
I use that story to show that it was inevitably the pastoral side of the Alder Hey and Bristol Royal Infirmary inquiries that most exercised my colleagues and their clergy in Liverpool and Bristol although, of course, they and my other colleagues on this Bench were and are also concerned about the intrinsic issues. What were the local clergy to do when the family asked for a second and even third funeral for the same child, whose body parts, thought in all innocence to have been buried at the same time as the child, were emerging, one by grisly one, from the hospitals in which it had died? It is very hard to speak those words without emotions running quite deep.
What was being said about who or what a person was, if full burial rites were to be repeated in that way? Who exactly was being buried each time? Yet, pastorally, how could grieving families be denied what to them was an essential recognition of, and closure with, the wrong done to their children? Clearly, such situations should not be allowed to arise again. The way to prevent them is to ensure that consent is always obtained before tissue is removed, retained or used. The ethical principle being brought into play here is that of respecting individual autonomy.
The Bill before us bases itself on this principle and fully recognises the autonomy of individuals by requiring explicit consent for post-mortems, other than those required by the coroner; for the removal of tissue for research or transplant; for the use of cadavers for anatomical examination and for their public display. The Bill rightly requires consent for all those uses and rightly requires accountability and transparency in their use, together with penalties for their abuse. Those are all ways of showing respect for the living by finding out individual wishes and for the departed by honouring those wishes after they have died.
I was glad to hear the Minister's reassurances about the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's plans over the repatriation of human remains. It will need to handle this with some care in getting across the meaning behind those actions to the public, as with other aspects of the Bill. Those include the questions rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, particularly in relation to mental capacity. I wish to

379
express my appreciation for the exception clause relating to religious relics, particularly on behalf of the Roman Catholic community.
In conclusion, let me address the question of autonomy as an ethical principle. The ascendancy of autonomy as overriding in medicine can put a stranglehold on good practice and be a block to important research. Although I fully support the principle of respect for each individual, and his or her very particular wishes and needs, I would always argue strongly for us all as individuals to seek and to serve the common good. Where respect for autonomy turns into a selfish demand for "my rights" or is translated into a set of regulations that cannot be flexible and responsive to circumstances, which change as we all know, and which are as particular and unique as individuals are, then the language of rights must be adjusted. The need for research, training, education, clinical audit and quality assurance, alluded to by the Minister at the beginning of the debate and by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, are all very real and designed to serve the common good.
It was always an abiding concern that this Bill might overreact to the horrors of Alder Hey and Bristol and that those bad cases would lead to bad law—in the context of the many difficulties accruing to conducting research in this country due to regulations that already exist. But it is fortunate, and to be applauded, that the Bill has recognised the need for flexibility in precisely these areas and others; for example, by not requiring consent for the proper use of residual tissue from living patients. Therefore, I believe that the Bill manages to strike a balance between respect for autonomy and serving the common good. Although there may well be areas where we shall argue over various points of detail as the Bill passes through this House, I believe that this laudable and timely package, which is fully responsive to the nuances of our present circumstances, should be wholeheartedly supported.
1.44 p.m.
Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, I wish to mention that I am chairman of the Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Hospital Trust and simply to observe that, while that clearly gives me an interest, I would be the last to claim that it makes me an expert. I shall be very brief, for two reasons. First, the list is longer than anticipated therefore the House may welcome some brief speeches and obviously wants also to hear from the distinguished maiden speakers on the list. Secondly, I had not expected to find myself in this pole position in a debate with so many expert contributions to come. Bearing in mind the talent, medical and other, on the list, I had expected to listen, learn and support rather than inform, instruct and lead. My response, having anticipated a modest contribution at the end, will be to make a modest contribution at the beginning.
There is widespread support for the broad aim and purpose of the Bill, and there is no question about whether it is right to legislate in this area. The questions are about how far the Bill as it stands, despite the improvements, sufficiently achieves those
380
aims and whether it does so with sufficient clarity to avoid replacing one set of problems with another. There remain some real issues, as has already emerged, despite the work that has been done in another place. In particular, there are issues about whether the Bill deals with the most common cause of the distressing experiences that are said to have led to its drafting without, at the same time, introducing unwarranted restrictions that could and probably would eventually harm public health and welfare.
I have an extensive briefing note from the president of the Royal College of Pathologists, Professor James Underwood. Given my position in the debate, I could ruthlessly plagiarise it and use it to make all the points that it contains. I shall not do that; I shall simply say that, having read it and bearing in mind the concerns expressed to me by pathologists at the Royal Brompton & Harefield hospitals, I am wholly persuaded that there will be much need for the detailed examination and amendment at which this House excels, particularly perhaps in respect of Schedule I, on scheduled purposes, but by no means only on that.
I hope in due course to play some small part in the Committee consideration. Meanwhile, I propose straight away to defer to those better equipped to play a larger and more expert part, and to resume the posture of one whose primary purpose, as I have said, is to listen and learn. I look forward to listening to and learning from the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg.
1.47 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I declare my interest as a one-time clinical scientist, current vice-president of the Academy of Medical Sciences and scientific adviser to the Association of Medical Research Charities. I look forward to no less than three maiden speeches. It says much for the attractiveness of the subject of human tissues that it can bring in such a bevy of excellent speakers on the last day of term.
The Bill has been improved enormously during its passage through the other place, not least due to a considerable amount of effort by Ministers and officials who have listened patiently to the scientific community and the medical patient charities. They are definitely a listening Government and long may they continue. The Bill is now much more balanced and offers realistic protection of the rights and interests of patients and their relatives, while allowing research of importance to future patients and the public to continue.
Of course the Bill is not perfect. There are a number of areas where clarification or amendment may be necessary. Perhaps I may highlight some of those areas, although I hope that we will have time over the long recess to consider them in more detail. The Bill very reasonably and rationally distinguishes between tissues and organs taken from dead bodies and samples taken from living patients at operation—appendices, tonsils, cancers and the like. One might think that all that was needed in the Bill was a stringent set of regulations for post-mortem organ retention in

381
response to the Alder Hey and Bristol scandals, and that the useful research of tissues taken at operation could have been left out of the Bill.
After all, if one wants to do research now on such tissues, one must always have ethics committee approval, and that will be given only where consent has been, or will be, obtained from patients, or where the tissues have been anonymised. I am sorry to use such an awkward term. We might ask whether we need the Bill to say more or less the same thing, while introducing an additional bureaucratic layer and some confusion about the exact meaning of the terms "consent" and "anonymity", which are confusing for ethics committees and researchers alike.
Everyone accepts that much important research is carried out on human tissues left over after operations, and I believe that patients and the public are generally content that tissues can be used for the greater good providing that certain safeguards are in place, such as ethics committee oversight and approval; a guarantee of confidentiality, so that no harm or embarrassment could befall them; and wherever possible that consent is obtained. My fears for research and teaching in the Bill—and I reiterate that the Bill has already gone a long way towards addressing many of my fears, but my residual fears—relate to how "consent" and "anonymity" are interpreted.
"Consent" at one time could be taken in the restricted sense, as consent now for current, specific research. In many instances, however, the research could be undertaken years later and be of a type not envisaged at the time, and for which obtaining consent now is impractical. Can consent be taken to be enduring and of a general type for all types of research? We are given some reassurance on that, but it is not absolutely clear how it will he handled.
What about anonymity? Does that mean absolute anonymity, with no possibility of anyone ever being able to break the code? In many research programmes, it is necessary to link findings to tissues and to clinical details in particular patients, and you can do that only if you can find out who the patients are. Will anonymity be taken to mean absolute anonymity? We have heard some reassurance from the Minister, but we need to be absolutely clear on that. On whom will the interpretation at the time be dependent? If it is not possible to remove from the Bill tissues taken from living patients, and I suspect that it will not be, it will be the HTA that will be doing the interpreting. What criteria will it adopt, and what will the as yet unwritten regulations have to say about that? There is much free-floating anxiety in the scientific community and among patient groups about how this will play out. I hope that we will have further clarity on this issue.
Then, there is the question of the High Court being asked to make a judgment on whether public interest is of such overwhelming importance as to outweigh the interests of an individual who cannot give consent. When we dealt in the Health and Social Care Act with the use of data or information about patients used for research where it was not possible to obtain consent, we set up the Patient Information Advisory Group to
382
make such judgments. I wonder whether that type of arrangement might be seen as less legalistic and expensive than the proposal to take such cases to the High Court.
A number of other aspects of the Bill deserve attention. The section on DNA research, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has already referred, needs to take account of other types of genetic research such as RNA, karyotyping and the like, and the problem of how to separate education and training for research from education more generally when those are treated separately and differently under Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule I. No doubt those and other issues will provide many happy hours of thought and discussion over the coming months.
1.54 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, as all other speakers when they first address this House must say, I appreciate very much the warmth of welcome and the kindness of Members on every side. It has meant so much to me and to the other noble Lords who will be speaking for the first time this afternoon. I thank the staff for their helpfulness and efficiency; they give such tremendous support. Thank you—it is beyond all expectation.
I come here as one with a great measure of nervousness. I am sure that I am not the only maiden speaker to refer to that. I have already made many mistakes: I have stood when I should have sat down; I have crossed where I should not have crossed; and I have brought guests into places where they should not have been. I have not, as yet, whispered "Content" when everyone else says "Not Content", but that might happen. I ask, as everyone else does, for the forgiveness and indulgence of the House. Noble Lords will know that no offence is ever meant.
I come from a beautiful part of Wales; the Conwy Valley. That seems to be quite a breeding ground for life Peers. I rather think that we have more life Peers to the square mile than any other part of rural Britain. At the top of the Conwy valley there is the Gwydyr forest area and Gwydyr castle. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, represents that area. Then there is the whole swathe of the valley, and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, represents it. Then you come the historic town of Conwy, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, represents that, and that is where my heart is really. The castle in Conwy was named by John Wesley as the noblest ruin in the whole of Europe. The historic is represented, and now I venture to speak for the premier seaside resort in Wales: Llandudno. I will argue perhaps some other time if noble Lords are not in agreement with that.
It is not only my little patch of Wales. You can look further afield; you can go to Dwyfor in the old south Carmarthenshire, where the greatest of us all, Lloyd-George, or Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, came from. He was nominated to this House in 1945, but did not live long enough to take his seat. That is Lloyd-George country. I am reminded that he was the great advocate of more power for Wales, and a

383
stronger devolution. We will discuss that later when the Richard commission brings its report, as it has already to the Welsh Assembly. I am in a distinguished lineage of all those people.
Not far from Wales, you can cross over to Merseyside and Liverpool. That is where so many Welsh people earned their living and some went on to make their fortunes. Welsh people depended so much on Liverpool over the years, especially the hospitals and medical services of Liverpool. That is where the name Alder Hey comes in. It has already been mentioned, and it will be mentioned many times again. I have in my hand a summary of the report of the children's inquiry there. Liverpool had that tremendous hospital on Merseyside that has done so much for the young people and children of Wales. That time came, that blip, when we discovered that between 1948 and 1995 children's remains had been retained without parental consent. There were hearts, body parts, eye tissues, brains. On 30 January 2001, the report was published, and it makes very disturbing reading indeed.
I was involved with one family, and had taken the funeral service of their three-week old baby in 1980. In 2001, on his 21st birthday, we had a second funeral for those parts of his body that had not been accounted for the first time. There was trauma and shock, and total confusion. Others did not only have two funerals; I know of a little child who had three funerals. Some families do not cope with that. I know one or two families who have not been able to continue as they were before as a family unit. There was an inquiry, and 402 sets of parents replied. They complained to us. I hope that the Minister will see this when the Bill finally passes through this House. They said that they wanted more information about the illnesses, the threat and the death of their children. There must be communication.
Moreover, where consent was obtained, some parents complained of undue pressure to sign consent forms. Parents would also like to know to what purpose the organs of their children were used. Finally, they would like to be communicated with in non-medical language so that they will understand the situation and what has happened. We have all those questions to consider.
For children, the question of consent is with their parents. Adults give their own consent. This is National Transplant Week and it has not had much impact. There needs to be greater publicity and information before people will realise the demand: there is a target that by 2010 there will be 16 million potential donors on the register. But how will that be achieved? I am concerned that people know that they can respond and can consent. In consenting voluntarily, a person does more than just say, "My life might be of benefit to somebody else". He or she also says, "By doing this, I can also play another part in society and in community".
I ask that we support this measure and discuss it further. Later, there will be time to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. But today it is a great pleasure to support this Bill.
2.2 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno. He made a wonderful, compassionate, elegant and humorous maiden speech, to which the House listened with great pleasure and delight. We know that we will hear much more common sense and good advice from the noble Lord in the future.
I have to tell the noble Lord that my experience of Llandudno was not quite the same as his. He of course has a wonderful reputation in the Methodist community and his works in public causes, such as for the blind, are well known, which is a marvellous addition to this House. My experience in Llandudno was on a Friday evening after "Any Questions". As an orthodox Jew, I could not leave until after dark on the Saturday evening, which was quite difficult for me.
I should also tell him that there are other rules that he almost broached during his speech. In brandishing anything in this Chamber—even a document—I believe that one can be called to order, which I found out to my cost in my first week here. I picked up my mobile telephone and offered it to a Member of the House on the other side. I was immediately admonished by not only my Front Bench but also the Front Bench opposite.
It is wonderful that the noble Lord had the good sense to take his oath in fluent Welsh. But I understand that he practised a little beforehand. I did not have the courage to do mine in classical Hebrew. But that would not have been allowed in this House either: Welsh is.
This is a curious Bill, with which I have great problems. Of course, everyone will agree that it has been brought with the greatest of good intentions. I have no doubt that everyone in the House feels strongly that the relatives of people who have lost dear ones need to be protected in the way that other Members have already said. I agree with that.
There seems to be a very major distinction between the tissues and organs of dead people derived at post-mortem and the tissues of people who are living. Like my noble friend Lord Turnberg, I agree that much of the legislation in that respect is unnecessary. I feel very sorry for my noble friend the Minister who has done an outstanding job listening to our concerns. Without him, this Bill would have been a good deal more provocative.
The truth is that this Bill has required a huge amount of change and a vast amount of improvement. Much time has been spent on it in the Department of Health. I believe that initially the drafting was astonishingly faulty. It is extraordinary that the Royal Colleges, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal Society, the Royal College of Pathologists, numerous research and development organisations and every medical school in the NHS have been so agonised by this Bill when the drafting in the initial stages could have been much more focused on the real need.
The truth is that much of the Bill represents a considerable overreaction. Although the Minister will tell us that the medical profession is broadly in line and

385
very happy now with the redrafting, my view is that privately it is not true. Most professionals are deeply disturbed by the Bill. They are very concerned about the impact on research, training and teaching.
There are a number of issues where the Bill is clearly deficient that will no doubt be brought up in detail in Committee. We have already mentioned DNA, but there is no mention, for example, of chromosome analysis. A key area in which I am involved is the Medical Research Council's foetal tissue bank. There is no mention of foetal tissue in the Bill. Yet that is a very important resource for medical research. And who gives consent for that? Clearly, it cannot be the foetus. Is it the mother? But we may want to look at the chromosomes of the father, if there is a translocation, in order to trace genetics in that way, either in an anonymised fashion or however is appropriate. That is the kind of problem that is being missed.
Would we be allowed to use photographs of tissue that had been derived for teaching purposes? That is very serious. I learnt a great deal of my pathology from photographs of slides. But if photographs are going to be used, why not use the slides and review different areas of the histology and cytology?
There is also the curious issue of ancient remains. I mention this as someone heavily involved in the development of the National History Museum. While I doubt that we would want to give back Australopithecus afarensis—Lucy—to Hadar in Ethiopia, we might be persuaded that it is necessary with other more recent remains from Cro-Magnon man. Or would we? Where does one draw the line in the modern museum and those sorts of resources?
Whether we like it or not, the truth is that we are living, to my mind and in many people's perceptions, in a society that is increasingly over-regulated and where we are often at the risk of losing trust and common sense in legislation. That is a real problem and is absolutely true of the health service. It is a matter of deep concern that patients do not trust us as much as they should. That is not because of human tissue research—I do not think that Alder Hey has left a deep scar on my patients. Rather the confusion around the MMR vaccine, concerns about CJD and worries about oral contraceptives are far more important. People are more worried about political statements and about those scientists who advise government. There is a deep mistrust of politicians rather than a mistrust of the medical profession. As every review reports, scientists and doctors are much more trusted than politicians. Noble Lords ought to bear that in mind when we consider these matters and seek to put them in some kind of focus.
In the modern health service we are rightly forced to look at evidence-based medicine. That is what we must both act on and react to. I am afraid that what is happening with legislation of this kind is that we are no longer looking at the evidence, but at the reactions of certain groups—pressure groups, focus groups and some people who are deeply disturbed. What we have not done, again and again, is conduct proper social science in the form of peer review research to look at
386
the real impact of these problems in our society. I think that that is something the Government should commission before introducing Bills of this kind.
For example, I think it is very unwise to introduce an order on the anonymity of donors, as we did the other day, without first having carried out proper social science research to assess exactly what will be the impact on that group. I say that because we might be doing grave damage to all sorts of people who really should not have to face such dangers in the future.
What is curious here is the sudden revelation made by the Government that, in the future, the Human Tissue Authority is going to be linked in some way with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. A year ago I would not have dreamt of wanting to revisit the legislation so ably introduced in 1990 by the government of the day. It was a spectacular Act of Parliament and at the time one that was deeply protective of an important branch of medicine. But it is now clear that the legislation might well need to be revisited since so much has changed.
What we can see is very clear. I have no wish to damage the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, but to be frank, it is an incredibly bureaucratic body. It is very expensive to run. It has cost health service departments and other departments large sums of money. For example, my own unit spends money on at least two salaries in order simply to send our returns and statistics to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which, in the past, it appears that the authority has lost or misused so that we have not been able even to retrace the figures. We have not been able to get the kind of statistics we need for simple research.
Sometimes the authority makes what people feel are quite arbitrary decisions about different ethical issues, but that is a matter for another debate. Moreover, it has what is clearly a very flawed inspection process. Inspections are carried out by people from other units who obviously have a vested interest rather than by those who are independent of the authority.
Above all—and this is my point—let us look at British standing in embryological research. We invented in vitro fertilisation. Embryology in this country led the world. Looking at the research record today, it is clear that that research has been greatly inhibited rather than stimulated. Patients need such research, and it is that which worries me about the Bill now before the House. In that respect, it causes me deep concern.
Some 35 years ago, while waiting to take up a substantive appointment, I was asked by my then boss to do some research on the organism trichomonas vaginalis, a common organism thought to be sexually transmitted in some people. In order to carry out the research I had to review the cervical smears of a large number of women. Around 3,000 cervical smears were reviewed, which was possible because I was regarded as a suitable person as a result of my experience with microscopy. I noticed certain cellular changes in the cervical cells of some of the women, but no changes in others. In order to make sense of this finding, I had to

387
retrace the records of the patients and check at what time they had attended and to find out how long they had had symptoms. The women whose notes indicated symptoms and those who were symptom free fell into two different cohorts.
After a while it was clear that the organism I was looking at took various forms, some of which were large-celled and others with small cells. I do not want to make a long story of this, but that research led eventually to an understanding of the way in which viruses and other organisms can affect the early development of cancer of the cervix. Indeed, that was one of the first observations of its kind. That paper, of all the papers I have produced in my career, received the highest number of recalls for reprint, well over 1,000 from all over the world. I was an unknown research worker, but that paper launched my career. However, I think that it would have been completely impossible to produce in today's climate, even though no one was in any way damaged by that research; indeed, it led only to gain.
I beg the Government to be absolutely clear that that is of paramount importance when we come to consider this Bill in Committee.
2.14 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, it is always difficult to follow my noble friend Lord Winston, but I shall try.
Overall, I welcome and support the Bill. It has gone through significant changes from the original Bill, and the professional organisations and the medical and scientific research community are much happier with it. Much of the credit for those changes goes to the Minister, and I thank him for that. There remain, however, some concerns, many of which, I hope, can be alleviated by reassurance, but some may require further amendment to the Bill. I am encouraged by the comments made by the Minister in his opening presentation of the Bill, particularly in relation to anonymisation and linkage.
Much of what I have to say follows discussions with and briefs from the research councils, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Public Health Genetics Unit and medical professional organisations, all of which still have residual concerns.
The concerns that I have fall within the categories of research and anonymisation; education and training; research involving mentally incapacitated individuals; the timing of when the Bill comes into force in relation to codes of practice and clarification of some of the definitions in the Bill. I also have comments on the constitution and method of working of the Human Tissue Authority, which now, after this morning's report and the Minister's announcement, has changed somewhat.
In relation to research and anonymisation, the Bill must make it clear that reversible and linked anonymisation will be permitted, particularly to allow for epidemiological research of the kind that may well fall
388
outside the category of public health monitoring, as already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
The requirement of identifying information to be withheld from the researcher has considerable practical implications if the clinician or the pathologist involved in the clinical care or the examination of the tissue is also the one involved in the research, which is not uncommon. The Minister made encouraging comments on this and we will discuss it further in Grand Committee.
The requirement for the research ethical committees to give ethical approval for the use of anonymised tissue for research has implications for the capacity and expertise required within the research ethical committees to do this, and that matter will have to be addressed.
In relation to education and training, the changes to Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 are welcome. However, the distinction made between education and training relating to human health and that which relates to the functioning of the human body and disorders requires further legislative and professional guidance. Again, other noble Lords have referred to this.
The introduction in Clause 6 of a provision to enable adults who lack capacity to consent to be involved in research is welcome. However, the Bill as drafted may impede research into conditions associated with emergency medical care and critical care.
I am also concerned that inconsistencies may develop between the Mental Capacity Bill, clinical trials regulations and the Human Tissue Bill. I welcome the fact that the Bill makes consent the fundamental principle underpinning the lawful storage of human tissues. The scope and specificity of appropriate and qualifying consent established by the Bill remains unclear, notwithstanding the clarification given today by the Minister. I shall read carefully in Hansard what he had to say. A broad definition of "consent" on the face of the Bill might be more appropriate, rather than the standards of consent being part of the discretionary powers of the Human Tissue Authority.
Let me now briefly mention concerns in relation to the definitions in the Bill and inconsistencies. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has already mentioned, for example, the definition of DNA and analysis. RNA analysis can yield similar information to that derived from DNA. There appears to be inconsistency in the definition of a "child" as defined in Clause 59 of the Bill and the one defined in Section 8 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969.
Clause 32, which relates to the definition of a "controlled material", excludes material which is the subject of property because of an application of human skill. The interpretation of the case law in this area is not straightforward. Importantly, Clause 11 excludes from the Bill anything done for purposes of the functions of coroners, the major issue which prompted this legislation. The House needs to be

389
reassured that the Coroners Rules 1984 will be amended to have the same effect as this Bill, for it is important that there is consistency.
Clauses 14 and 46 relating to the import and export of tissues will be difficult to implement in practice. Histopathologists routinely exchange histological slides for expert second opinions across the UK, including Scotland, and overseas. Such practice would fall within the scope of this legislation and regulatory system. It cannot be the intention to prohibit it, otherwise it will affect patient care.
I recognise that today is not the right time to go into details of these and other concerns. I hope that we will have the opportunity to do this when the Bill is considered in Grand Committee. I am sure that many of the concerns of the research and professional communities can be alleviated by reassurance. I look forward to further discussions in the future. In the mean time, I wholeheartedly support the general tenet of the Bill and congratulate the Minister on bringing a much improved Human Tissue Bill to this House.
2.21 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I begin by acknowledging, with thanks, the apology that the Minister made in response to my intervention at the beginning of the debate. I hope that by drawing this to the attention of the officials in his department he will make sure that we do not receive all the documents on the morning of a debate.
There have been a number of extremely expert speakers so far, not least the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg, Lord Winston, and Lord Patel. I join my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree in addressing the House as a layman. I spent some years on the council of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, but that was very much as a layman.
It is clear from the purport of the papers and reports that led to the introduction of the Bill that there were very serious breaches of the existing law in the two hospitals investigated—the Bristol Royal Infirmary and Alder Hey in Liverpool. I accept entirely that the practice that was there disclosed turned out to be much more widely spread than had been anticipated. These were serious breaches of the law; there were also serious breaches of best practice by the consultants concerned. That is what they were; no lives were lost as a result of that, so far as I am aware.
When the reports were published and the matter became a matter of public comment, the then Ministers at the Department of Health, by using some very unrestrained language, managed to turn the whole affair into a national horror story. I believe that this was quite unnecessary. I also believe that events subsequent to that have been coloured by those comments. The first comment on the report by the right honourable Alan Milburn, the then Secretary of State for Health, was that it was "gruesome". One wonders whether he had the slightest idea of what happens in a post-mortem examination. Perhaps modern television programmes could have shown him. The fact is that this got off on the wrong foot from the beginning.
390
I do not doubt that many of the relatives, particularly of children who had died and whose tissues had been removed and retained without consent, were very distressed indeed to learn what had happened. I believe that in their distraught reactions, as graphically recorded in the Kennedy and Redfern reports and also in the minutes of the Chief Medical Officer's summit meeting held on 11 January 2001, these people deserve our profound sympathy. There is no doubt that they suffered grievously.
Equally, I have little doubt that it was Ministers' desire to fall over backwards to respond to that distress that led to the Bill, as originally introduced, being seriously out of balance.
The need for balance was expressly recognised on page 1 of the consultation document. I shall read the relevant paragraph because it is quite important. The consultation document emphasises,
"the need to strike an acceptable balance between the rights and expectations of individuals and families and broader considerations, such as the importance of research, education, training, pathology and public health surveillance to the population as a whole".
That is a perfectly fair statement of what Ministers were aiming at. However, that is not what happened. Here I disagree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. One only has to look at what has happened. As soon as the Bill was published, the entire research community was up in arms. As originally drafted, the Bill in a number of major respects appeared to place huge, new obstacles in the way of using tissues and organs for medical research, going far beyond what was necessary to remedy the perceived shortcomings of the existing law and practice.
Happily, as has already been mentioned in a number of speeches, amendments in another place have gone some way towards meeting those representations. However, as has been made clear in today's debate, much more needs to be done if an acceptable balance is to be struck.
With a number of your Lordships, I had the advantage of attending a meeting in the Moses Room earlier this week. It was addressed by Professor Carol Dezateux of the Institute of Child Health and the MRC, by Professor Alex Markham of Cancer Research UK, and by Dr Mark Walport of the Wellcome Trust and others. It was immediately apparent to me that a number of serious concerns remained about the Bill, which it will be for this House to address.
Also present were a number of charities representing patients' groups: the Parkinson's Disease Society; the National Kidney Research Fund; Cancer Research UK; the Primary Immunodeficiency Association; the Tuberous Sclerosis Association; the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths; the British Heart Foundation; the Motor Neurone Disease Association; the Genetics Interest Group; and, I have no doubt, others. I was reminded of the enormously important role that those bodies played in leading this House to a sensible conclusion on the legislation regulating stem cell research.

391
All those groups want medical research to continue in the hope of finding the causes of diseases with which they are concerned and of discovering new treatments and new drugs. Their spokespeople echoed the concerns of the researchers and the Government must listen to them.
Most of the issues raised will be for later stages of the Bill, but I note that a number of noble Lords have already gone into detail about the various forms of consent and the issues of anonymisation, which the Select Committee on Science and Technology, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has to address in the human genetic databases report. Some noble Lords have also discussed what should be covered by the proposed licensing system and so on.
One of the major issues that we must address and on which there needs to be wide consultation with the research community—I am glad to hear that a lot of consultation has already taken place—is the proposed regulations and the codes of practice that are due to be introduced. Those regulations and codes of practice should, if possible, be agreed and in place before the commencement of the Act. We shall no doubt deal with those and other matters when we come back in September—and, I suspect, in October.
I come back to my first point. Because the Bill fell over backwards to reflect and remedy the severe distress of the relatives, the legitimate concerns of the researchers were seriously underestimated. The result has been that the passage of this Bill has taken the form of a long, hard-fought struggle on the part of the research community, supported by the medical charities and patients' groups, to redress the balance. I do not believe that that is the right way to legislate on such an immensely important matter. The process has not ended and, like other noble Lords, I hope that we shall do our best to return a better balanced Bill to another place, with many of the changes which have already been identified incorporated in it.
2.31 p.m.
Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, it is a great honour to become a Member of this august House, whose work I have always admired for its expertise, its dedicated public service and its collegiality. I, like my noble friend Lord Roberts, am enormously grateful for all the kindness and help that I have received since I have been in this House for not quite two weeks. I am particularly grateful to all those on all sides of the House who have stretched out an arm and said, "Don't go there!" and those who have said, "Sit down now!" Like my noble friend Lord Roberts, I know that no offence was intended, and no doubt I shall make many more such errors.
I am also enormously grateful to the staff, who have been unfailingly kind and courteous and particularly good—for someone without a sense of direction—in getting me from A to B. In the day of my introduction to your Lordships' House, when I was unable to work out where the River Thames was, my daughter was much amused to see me walking straight into the
392
cleaning cupboard from which a member of staff kindly rescued me. She rather hoped, but was not sure, that I would be better able to deal with some of the issues coming up before your Lordships' House than getting around your Lordships' House. One's family has a habit of cutting one down to size; mine has been remarkably effective.
I welcome the Bill and the intentions behind it. Like those who have already spoken. however, I believe that there are ways in which it could he improved. Some of those are controversial, and a maiden speech must not be controversial—though, for those who know me, I do not promise always to be tame and bland. There are, however, three issues to which I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships' House.
First, while I welcome the fact that the Bill is predicated on the issue of consent, it is important that consent is spelled out rather more precisely. In saying that, I am much influenced by what I saw when chairing a committee of inquiry for the Medical Research Council in the mid-1990s, looking at radiation in MRC-supported research in the 1950s and 1960s.
The inquiry was prompted by serious allegations of abuses of patients' rights, most of which were unfounded. But one study that we investigated was measuring the population exposure to strontium 90. This was, of course, long before the incidents at Alder Hey and Bristol. As a matter of course at that time, pathologists removed thigh bones during autopsies on babies and children and sent them for further study and analysis. While the parents had normally given their consent for an autopsy to be performed, they had no idea that that meant that bones would be removed in that way. When the matter was exposed on television 30 years or more later, it caused great and palpable distress to many parents whose babies had died so many years previously. One woman had been refused access to her daughter to dress her in her christening robe for burial, no doubt so that she would not be able to discover what had been done to her daughter's limbs.
The parents that we talked to felt cheated and abused. They had given consent in the belief that it would help to uncover the causes of their children's death. They did not realise that they were implicitly allowing the removal of significant body parts for reasons that were completely different. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, I believe that that raises huge pastoral issues with which we need to deal—certainly where precision around the question of consent might help.
If we require that consent be given to the extraction of tissues, it is important that we make it clear that it is fully informed consent. We must recognise that there is widespread ignorance about what an autopsy involves. I welcome the way that the Bill imposes a duty on the Human Tissue Authority to provide public information about this. However, I would prefer to see greater precision about the nature of that information and how it is to be delivered, particularly as we have now heard the Minister announce that there will be a merger with the

393
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Winston, I was a very independent member of that authority in the old days. The issues with which those two bodies are concerned are rather different and I would like to know how the information will be delivered.
Information does not lessen the importance of the principle that where somebody gives consent, he should fully understand what he is consenting to. While many scientists and doctors—the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, argued for this—urge that consent often be generic and enduring, it is important that that should he only one option for people. People may want to know more precisely to what they are consenting with the gift that they are making of their own bodies and their tissue. If we do not uphold the principle of informed consent, we may well find ourselves back with the scandals of Alder Hey and Bristol.
My second concern—my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has already drawn attention to this—is the way that coroners' post-mortems are at present excluded in the legislation by Clause 11. This would exclude 90 per cent of the post-mortems carried out in the UK. It is not as if these post-mortems have been free of public concern. In my pastoral experience, I found that they can cause considerable distress, particularly if they are much delayed. The exclusion leaves unresolved at least a part of the major issues that led to this legislation—the discovery that tissue, including whole organs, had been retained largely, although not only, as a result of coroners' post-mortems, such as at Bristol. The primary reasons for the post-mortems were to investigate the cause of death rather than research. But if coroners are not included in this legislation, and new coroners' rules do not appear at the same time—as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, suggested—with the purposes and authority of coroners' rules and practices made clear and precise, parents and relatives will still not he able to rely on the law for assurance that they will be fully notified about retained material from coroners' post-mortems.
My third point is one that is of great concern to many of the scientific and medical bodies that have shown an interest in this legislation. I am particularly grateful to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the BMA and the Royal College of Pathologists for their guidance. While the Bill has been amended to ensure that identifiable residual tissue taken from living individuals can be used for medical education and research, there is still real confusion between activities that are categorised as public health monitoring, those that are clinical audit and those that are research. Since the first two can be undertaken without consent using identifiable tissue and the third may not, real problems may well occur.
One has only to sit in on research ethics committees, as I did for nearly two years in the early 1990s, to know that health professionals very often have real difficulty in deciding into precisely which category the studies that they wish to carry out fall. Unless clear and precise definition is provided, either on the face of the Bill or in codes of practice, some people may feel that they are inadvertently committing a criminal offence by categorising as public health monitoring something
394
that ought properly to be categorised as research. Even more likely, and even more worrying, is that other people will be so worried that they might be breaking the law in one way or another that they are likely to discard remaining tissue that could have been extremely valuable for future research.
This is important legislation. No doubt it is capable of improvement to make it even more useful and reassuring to the public and to doctors and scientists alike. I am bound to avoid being controversial at this stage, so I shall end by once again expressing my delight at being able to participate in a debate on a subject of great importance for our society and its attitude to scientific research and informed consent.
2.39 p.m.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and her outstanding maiden speech. It was humane and wise and everything that those of us who have known the noble Baroness for many years, and known of her great contribution through the King's Fund and in other fora, would have expected. We look forward to future occasions where she can be her real and controversial self. The other maiden speech from the Liberal Democrat Benches was also a great pleasure to hear and an example of outstanding humanity in reflecting on these issues.
I have for some years been hoping to see legislation brought forward on the use of human tissues. Ten years ago I took part in drafting the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report, Human Tissue: Ethical and legal issues. That experience left me keenly aware of the patchiness of existing legislation, of areas that existing law leaves unclear and of the importance of consent. I have continued to take an interest in the topic and must declare an interest—a non-financial interest—as the lay chair of the Addenbrooke's tissue bank management committee.
When the Nuffield Council on Bioethics reported in 1995, the government were unfortunately not particularly interested in dealing with gaps in the legislation concerning the use of human tissues. Sadly, subsequent events brought a number of further issues—largely to do with tissues removed post mortem—to wider and critical public attention. However, in my view the present Bill is still disappointing because it does not deal clearly enough with the issues identified well before the events at Alder Hey or Bristol or with the small minority of cases in which tissue is removed post mortem. We should remember the very great difference in the numbers of instances in which tissue is removed from living patients and when that is done post mortem. The difficulties that occurred at Alder Hey arose primarily as a result of lack of legal clarity about the subsequent use of tissues that had been lawfully removed under coroners' authority in order to determine the cause of death.
I ask the Minister why this Bill has been brought forward before legislation to revise the Coroners' Rules. I believe that such legislation is in preparation and has been in preparation for some time. I t is hard to understand why the two pieces of legislation are being

395
brought forward in this sequence. It appears to be the wrong order. Why was it thought more urgent to reorganise the vast range of uses of human tissues taken from patients for clinical reasons than to clarify and limit coroners' authority to determine subsequent use of tissue lawfully removed post mortem? If we are worried about the events of Alder Hey—clearly we have reason to be—our first move should surely be to address those issues rather than to write new laws for the entire range of pathology services for living patients within and beyond the NHS.
Nor, unfortunately, does the Bill as drafted achieve its central purpose of providing clarity about which action will be lawful and which unlawful. It has been widely said that the drafting of the Bill is rebarbative and that the problem, unfortunately, is not just stylistic but structural. The danger, I fear, is that many whose work will be regulated by the Bill will not be able to grasp what it requires because of that unfortunate structure.
Since the Bill proposes considerable criminal penalties, the result is likely to be an atmosphere of intimidation in which professionals and institutions responsible for the custodianship of human tissues used in clinical care and research are fearful of criminal penalties even for actions that they believe to be medically important. If the interests of patients and donors were genuinely—systematically—opposed to those of the research community, it might be reasonable to regulate very tightly all research on tissues taken from the living and accept that very little research using human tissues would or should be done. However, that is not the situation. The study of human tissue benefits present and future patients and we should constantly ask ourselves, when considering the Bill at subsequent stages, whether the interests of patients and public health are secured or put at risk by the drafting.
It may be said—I believe that it has been said—that the nature of the drafting does not really matter because the proposed Human Tissue Authority will clarify what is meant and provide acceptable guidelines for those responsible for the proper custody and use of human tissues. I do not believe that that is adequate reassurance when a Bill criminalises so many complex actions. If we are establishing criminal offences, it should be clear in the Bill which sorts of action will attract fines and prison sentences and which will not. I believe that it is not clear. The constant references to beliefs and intentions in defining offences throughout the Bill makes it particularly important that this legislation be comprehensible to clinicians, pathologists, tissue banks and others whose responsibilities it will shape and govern.
I believe that the structural difficulties reach very deep. They begin with the fact that the Bill is organised round an attempt to authorise and regulate only scheduled purposes while failing to prohibit or to regulate purposes outwith the schedule. There are some sorts of action—I do not wish to name them here—where one has to ask whether action is permissible even if consent has been given with all
396
careful process. I believe that the Bill says nothing about those sorts of action. If we are legislating in this area, it is of great importance that we do not begin by regulating what we think is legitimate and imposing heavy criminal penalties on those who put a foot wrong while failing to impose criminal penalties for things that many of us would find seriously disturbing.
There are other areas of difficulty, and many that need clarification. Despite the wholesale rewriting in another place, as other noble Lords have said, the list of scheduled purposes—that is the scheduled purposes in the two parts of Schedule 1—remains confusing and, I think, incomplete. I offer two small examples of many but they are not small in practice.
First, the schedule tries to draw a very sharp line between education or training relating to research and other education or training relating to human health, the former requiring consent while the latter does not. However, I have yet to meet anyone knowledgeable who thinks that this distinction can be well drawn in all cases. Advanced clinical training is often done by involving students in clinical research. Secondly, the list of scheduled purposes allows for public health monitoring not requiring consent but it does not appear to allow for other research that is important for public health purposes. It does not, in particular, allow for the unconsented use of data and of tissues for secondary data analysis.
There are many well known examples but I give one that I think will mean something to all of us. When new variant CJD first appeared in the early nineties, it was not known whether it was or was not a clinically new disease. The only way in which it could be established that it was a clinically new disease was to look back at brain tissue from persons who had previously died in many European countries from genetic and sporadic CJD. It was, of course, discovered that it was a new clinical disease. It would not have been possible to seek consent from the very unfortunate people who died of the older forms of CJD in order to ensure that the study of these tissues was indeed the study of a different sort of tissue from that of those who had tragically contracted new variant CJD.
That sort of example must give us all pause in thinking about the interests of patients. That is why I am so glad that the medical research charities are speaking up about the importance of that. We must not forget patients. I fear that the list could go on. We are aware that the Bill has been modified in its passage in another place and greatly improved. None the less, I think that a great deal will have to be changed if we are to end up with workable, let alone satisfactory, legislation.
It has been said that this Bill constructs a sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut, but that, unfortunately, it misses the nut. I do not think that we can reshape the hammer to ensure that it really hits the nut because for that we would also need to reform the Coroner's Rules, but I hope that with close attention we may be able to do a little to mitigate the damage potentially caused by hyper complex legislation.
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I, too, compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, on an exceptional maiden speech. Despite being uncharacteristically uncontroversial, she has set out the agenda for our future debates on this Bill. I congratulate her.
After what has been said by so many speakers already, I hardly need to remind the House that universities have a leading role in clinical teaching and research involving the use of human tissues and organs. I declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK.
I fully support the Government's aim of introducing legislation that will prevent a recurrence of the distress caused by retention of tissue and organs without proper consent by providing robust safeguards. In bringing forward legislation to regulate the storage and use of human organs and tissues for purposes such as teaching, research, transplantation, public health monitoring and public display, the Government have rightly placed the primary emphasis on improving public confidence in the ethical and professional standards that underpin such uses.
I warmly welcome the amendments made to the Bill on Report in the Commons. They addressed the majority of concerns articulated by those working in universities and clinical settings regarding the unintended and unduly restrictive aspects of the legislation in relation to the conduct of medical research. Nevertheless, as so many others have said in the debate, further steps still need to be taken, to ensure both that the Bill is effective and that it achieves the clarity and public confidence that we all wish to see.
As other noble Lords have said, a number of concerns have been expressed by the key bodies with an interest in the future of clinical research, including the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Association of Medical Research Charities, Cancer Research UK, the MRC, the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society. Those concerns range from the need to clarify that consent to use tissue for research is both generic and enduring. through to the need to clarify the roles, duties and liabilities of designated individuals named on licences from the Human Tissue Authority.
A concern of which I am mindful is the need for greater clarity regarding the process of ethical approval. It will be necessary to establish who is authorised to grant such approval. Without clearer guidance, research ethics committees are likely to err on the side of caution, with the consequence that research with direct patient benefit would be unnecessarily inhibited.
What unites those various concerns is the need to provide reassurance that the implications for clinical teaching and research have been thought through fully. Despite the improvements which have been made to the Bill, there are still too many issues where the consequences for teaching and research do not seem to have been adequately addressed. One issue of particular importance is the need for reassurance regarding the
398
process by which secondary legislation will be conducted. It is imperative that there is appropriate consultation with the medical and scientific community in that regard. Various steps could be taken to address that need. I support the proposal made by the Royal Society that legislation should explicitly state that the membership of the Human Tissue Authority should include representatives of the scientific research community.
Given the critical importance, however, of the codes of practice in determining the detailed processes of authorisation and consent, and in light of the level of uncertainty which clearly still prevails, I urge my noble friend the Minister to take a further step. In order to provide the certainty required, the most appropriate way forward is for there to be parliamentary debate on how the codes of practice will work. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept that, or at least confirm that the essential secondary legislation and codes of practice will be in place before the substantive provisions of the Bill commence.
Lastly, there is a specific issue which may not have been fully appreciated. The legislation has significant implications for a wide range of staff, and there is a need to consider the role of those not directly involved in clinical research. Non-research clinicians are a vital link in the chain of medical research, due to the role which they play in securing consent to obtain human tissue for future research purposes. We therefore need to ensure that appropriate provision is made for advising such staff on all relevant aspects of the consent process.
Considerable progress has been made in achieving a balance between the rights of patients and their families, and the need for biomedical research for public and patient benefit. I urge the Minister to build on that achievement by providing the comprehensive reassurance and clarity required during the scrutiny of the Bill in this House.
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to start by declaring two interests: first, I chair St George's Hospital Medical School and, secondly, I am a trustee of Cancer Research UK. I should also like to join those of your Lordships who joined up to the lay brigade.
I seek some advice from the Minister. It used to be a House convention that to be allowed to contribute to other parts of a Bill one had to speak at the Second Reading. There were two purposes to that. First, the Minister found out who was interested in the legislation and, secondly, it let interest groups know who they could contact to express their concerns. I just wonder if that convention has withered, because if it has I would not be here this afternoon to speak. Like my noble friend Lord Newton, I would be here to listen and support. But although I would not have spoken I would have attended this afternoon because these issues are so important and crucial and we have had a debate that has been enriched by two maiden speeches of the highest quality. I am grateful for those and there is one to come from the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy.

399
I have the privilege to serve on the Select Committee examining the issues surrounding stem cell research and cloning along with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, from whom I learned so much. As is usual practice with such committees we took evidence and in my naivety I expected enormous resistance from the scientific community to regulation. In fact, the contrary was the case. Time and again the researchers and the scientists who we interviewed said that they welcomed regulation because it enabled them to understand where they stood and how far they could go without contravening the law.
I visited Poland just after the introduction of democracy where, interestingly, there was great concern, particularly among obstetricians and gynaecologists, about the conflict between the Church and the state. It was a pincer movement because the Church banned abortions and the state encouraged them. The Polish people said how much they admired this country because we could debate these issues—everyone could have a shout and even if one did not agree with the outcome of the debate, at least one had had one's say and there was a chance for everyone to have their voices heard.
Today we are listening to the science community which has expressed a view that, again, it is not against regulation but it is against unnecessary bureaucracy—which is so damaging, which saps energy and which erodes the inquiring mind. No one today has disputed the intentions of the Bill and we all agree that a degree of regulation is possibly essential, but it is the degree which concerns us.
In his opening remarks the Minister outlined the history. Without a doubt what happened at the Royal Bristol Infirmary and at Alder Hey was off-limits. More than that it was actually illegal and it shook not only the scientific and medical worlds but society as a whole. The law was there. The problem was that it was not respected or upheld. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, that we have to ensure that we are not taking on issues which are already partly resolved and that we are not simply gold-plating what is already there.
Looking back at what happened, it is interesting that the concern was centred on post-mortem practice, whereas much of the Bill is not about post-mortem practice but ante-mortem practice. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who said that when the issue blew up the Government's response exacerbated the situation. However, the NHS is always diligent and is always trying to put things right. In this case, I know that at St George's every specimen was examined to ensure that it complied with the law and with good practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, spoke of over-reaction. In my view, some other institutions did over-react. Medical students—young people—were paid to telephone parents to inform them that the institution still had body parts belonging to a child. I know of a woman who, 20 years previously, lost a baby in the eighth month of pregnancy and was telephoned. I am sure that she was told as kindly and compassionately
400
as possible but that call reopened a tragedy that she had managed to put behind her. Again, I think that that was an over-reaction. As legislators, do we not have to be careful not to over-react but to get the balance right?
I very much respect the Minister and the department's officials, who I know have been extremely diligent in talking with and meeting groups, and they have sought to achieve that balance. But, as a former health Minister, I also know how easy it is to over-react. When a problem arises, the pressure is enormous and there is a huge clamour for the Government to do something. The classic response is an inquiry, which we know takes evidence chiefly from those affected. It addresses specific issues, sometimes, I believe, without seeing the much wider implications of assessing the unintended consequences.
Among its recommendations, an inquiry will often call for legislation. Quite properly, that is for the Government to design and for Parliament to decide. The role of Parliament is to see the issues in the round and to identify the unintended consequences. I fear that there are several unintended consequences in this Bill, and we must try to put those right in the Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly outlined the generosity of the public in donating organs. In whatever way we legislate, we must ensure that that generosity is not put at risk. The Minister mentioned retaining confidence. Of course, that is crucial. In order to do that, I think that three main areas need to be addressed in the Bill. The first is clarity; the second is proportionality; and the third is practicality. The Bill must work in practice.
With regard to clarity, as noble Lords have said, the Bill started life with a great deal of confusion. Much of that has been reduced by the amendments made in the Commons, but I think that some areas remain foggy. Several of your Lordships mentioned those. They are linked to anonymity, the breadth and duration of consent, and the distinctions between research and training and training for research. I also believe that the definitions of certain terms in the Bill need to be clarified.
Regarding proportionality, one of this nation's great successes has been our ability to invent and discover. We have a proud record of discovery. Twenty-five of the world's 100 top-selling medicines were discovered and developed in the United Kingdom. That is more than in any other country except the United States. Clearly, we want to cherish and enhance that.
I am concerned that a great deal of research is funded through research charities on five-year grants. When I have talked to researchers, they have said that on average it takes about two years to carry out the preliminary work in order to set up a research grant. That clearly leaves them only three years in which to do the work.
If the Bill is enacted unamended, I think that research will probably take longer and I fear that the scientists will think, "Is this really worth doing?

401
Worse, I may infringe the regulations either through ignorance or through inadvertent mistakes. If I do that, there is a possibility that I could be prosecuted. There is even a possibility, albeit a remote one, that I could be sent to prison". Do we really want to criminalise our research community? I think that that is disproportionate. There are other disproportionate measures; for instance, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, having to go to the High Court for permission. However, I am sure that more of that will be explored in Committee.
Finally, I want to talk about practicalities. I am not an academic. I am a Martha rather than a Mary. I like to see practical things happen. I want to cite four examples of where the practicalities, even at this moment, are difficult. First, the current Department of Health guidelines allow 24 hours for next of kin to give consent for removal of tissue. This means that certain types of tissue—for example, brain—will be of limited or no use to researchers as the delay affects their quality. Schizophrenia researchers in Oxford have been unable to acquire a single brain for research since 1999. Will the Bill, when enacted, ensure that such research can be safeguarded? From watching the "Panorama" programme the other night on Alzheimer's, we know how much brain research is essential for our future health as a nation.
The second example concerns a group of doctors in 2002. They were associates of the International Society of Nephrology and decided to set up an international study on a rare kidney condition; a very unpleasant disease which affects many children between the age of five and 15. Two items were required: first, access to the tissue, which was then archived, and secondly, anonymous linkage to the patients, so that clinical progress could be corrected with the tissue appearances.
An application was made to the ethics committee. Ethical permission was refused on two grounds: first, that consent from the patients or their relatives must be sought, which was considered impossible by the British investigating team, as many of the patients had died; and, secondly, that the information about their clinical course could not be released, albeit anonymously, without the patient being identified personally as that infringed the Data Protection Act. The British arm of the study was therefore abandoned and only carried out in other countries. In his opening remarks the Minister mentioned research projects which had been abandoned, and probably this was one of them. If the Bill is enacted with enormous clarity, will it safeguard future studies of this kind?
Thirdly, as part of the QUASAR multicentre study for colorectal cancer, a questionnaire was sent to GPs asking their attitudes to seeking consent from their patients for the research use of archival tissue samples. About 20 per cent of the GPs replied. Of those who did, they either refused to help or said that they would expect payment for the work. A typical fee expected was £50 per patient. A further questionnaire to patients indicated that they did not want to be asked and the study was allowed to proceed without consent. It is worth noting that in its present form the Bill would
402
make most teaching of cervical cytology illegal without consent as a cytological opinion requires histological confirmation of the diagnosis, so the diagnostic process must be complete. Such consent would have to be requested by a GP. Can we he confident that we shall have the co-operation of GPs once the Bill is enacted so that future cytology studies will be able to be pursued?
Lastly, in Leeds a section was introduced into the surgical consent form where the patient was asked to indicate consent or objection to the subsequent use of any residual material for research or teaching. An audit showed that only 48 per cent of specimens received in the laboratory had traceable consent forms. Of those which were found, 40 per cent did not have the "tissue" section completed. This method did not address blood samples where explicit consent for taking the sample is not recorded.
Interestingly, in the Leeds study, of the completed forms, only 0·8 per cent of participants objected to research use. Bearing in mind the generosity and the willingness of the general population to recognise and value research, is it not possible to design some sort of mechanism, possibly using a swipe card so that we are not into mounds of paper, indicating a general consent?
My purpose in highlighting these examples is to question whether the new measures in the Bill will ease rather than exacerbate research. I very much look forward to the Minister's response, to the work the Government will do in Committee—and I, too, have heard the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady 0' Neill, that this Bill has been described as a sledgehammer that misses the nut. Perhaps a little more skill and a lighter touch would he of benefit to our population as a whole.
3.11 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I rise to speak extremely briefly. I feel like an interloper in these debates. I have just worked out that the last time I spoke on a health debate was when the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was a Minister—which was one or two years ago. This debate is very broad and covers many emotive subjects. However, I have a very small point—given the tone of the debate, some might call it slightly insignificant—to raise. I say that especially as the debate has attracted three maiden speakers. We have already heard two excellent maiden speeches from these Benches.
I support the Bill and will do nothing to try and derail it at any point. I am not speaking from the archaeological perspective, as archaeologists who deal with human remains which are more than 100 years old are not really covered by the legislation. Sometimes I think that archaeologists should be covered. I have friends who have gone round on buses touting bones in plastic bags for analysis. However, that has more to do with the financial strictures applying to archaeology than it does with the morals of archaeologists.
The small point I wish to address appears in Clause 52 and regards museum de-accession. The Minister has slightly shot my fox—if I may jump to

403
another piece of legislation—by answering some of the questions that I wished to raise. I thank him and his colleagues in the DCMS for the help they have given on this issue, and especially for the letter of 20 July from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Museum de-accession obviously affects museums in different ways. It is important for many reasons that museums are able to remove human remains. The Museum of London, for example, faces the cost of storing thousands of bones collected during its digs in the cemeteries of London. The issue needs to be resolved. There is also a very real need to meet some of the moral ambiguities created by ethnographical collections, some of which are not very old. It would be not only against agreements drawn up in 2000 between our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Australia but I think morally objectionable to fail to repatriate some of those remains which, in museum terms, have been presented surprisingly recently.
However, Clause 52 causes me some concern. The American example provides some guidance. The Minister said that judicial review proceedings brought by parties seeking the return of human remains is one of the issues we will examine. The clause could cover that issue, and I know that the DCMS is looking at addressing it. In his letter, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says:
"On Wednesday 28 July we plan to launch a consultation document on the future care of human remains in UK museums. Part of this consultation will focus on whether there should be a Code of Practice governing the care of human remains in museums and, if so, who should issue and enforce the Code of Practice".
He goes on to say:
"Adherence to such a Code would give museums some protection against a Judicial Review of a refusal to repatriate human remains to a claimant".
Although that seems to meet many of the concerns that I wished to express, the fact that it refers to "some protection" rather than "full protection" against judicial review, will leave museums in lingering doubt.
On that point I have one small question, which the Minister might not be able to answer now. Considering that the review is taking place in a few days, starting next week, I doubt that it will be able to come to a conclusion before the next stage of the Bill, which will leave some issues unresolved when we debate further aspects. If the Minister cannot give me an answer today, perhaps he could write to me on whether it would be appropriate for secondary legislation guidance to deal with these issues so that any threat of judicial review by parties or even governments seeking the return of, say, mummies or valuable artefacts that have human remains bound to them could be dealt with. That would avoid causing museums, whose financial reserves are limited, a degree of worry.
3.16 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, rarely, if ever, are we privileged to hear three maiden speeches in a Second Reading debate. We have already heard two exceptional such contributions from the Liberal
404
Democrat Benches and I look forward with keen anticipation to hearing the contribution from my noble friend Lady Murphy.
More than 50 years ago, when I was a junior doctor training in the field of neurology, one of the most difficult and sensitive tasks that I was ever asked to perform was to talk to bereaved relatives, seeking their permission to arrange a post-mortem examination on their deceased relative, whether an adult or a child. Such individuals very occasionally refused but most often agreed to that request in the knowledge that the findings at post-mortem would be of no value to the deceased individual but might be of very great relevance to future individuals suffering from similar illnesses because of what might be discovered on examination of the organs. I clearly recall making it absolutely clear to them that the organs had to be removed and studied after death.
What has not come out in much of the publicity surrounding the so-called Alder Hey and Bristol scandals is that, in neurology, if one is to examine a brain in order to determine the diagnosis and the cause of death, the brain must be removed and then fixed in formalin for a minimum of two weeks before it can be sliced, examined and its tissues looked at under a microscope. In those two weeks, of course, the body has been buried or cremated. As a junior doctor I used to tell bereaved families that when the results of a post-mortem were known—and that might take several months, because examination of the cut brain and also the slides derived from the tissues subsequently might take several weeks or months—the general practitioner would be informed. I cannot recall a single occasion in those early years where I or the pathologist involved was ever asked to return the organs that had been examined for that purpose.
Having said that, I am gravely concerned, as others have been, about the distress caused to the parents of children in the Alder Hey Hospital from whom it was found that organs had been removed and stored without consent. I regret to say that a convention appeared to develop over the succeeding years to the effect that giving permission for a post-mortem involved the removal and retention of organs, and that was something of which many people in the general community and many patients were not aware. I agree entirely that informed consent is a crucial issue in this field.
I am talking about neurology, but the same principles apply to many other organs; hearts, kidneys, lungs and so on. If we had not been able to retain brains for examination, we would never have discovered the site of the principal changes in the brain in a disease such as Parkinsonism. We would never have discovered the chemical basis of those changes, which ultimately led to the development of a precursor of dopamine, which was missing from those brains, as a form of treatment in 1-dopa and its derivatives, which has transformed the management of that condition.
Brains too were removed from patients with Alzheimer's disease, who themselves at the time of death were incompetent and incapable of giving

405
consent, with the permission of responsible relatives. Many years ago, in my city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the changes in those brains of patients with Alzheimer's disease were compared and contrasted with those found in the brains of non-mentally impaired elderly individuals who had undergone post-mortem for other reasons. It was those changes that led to the discovery of cells that were responsible for Alzheimer's disease and also for the biochemical changes that showed an absence of a substance called acetylcholine, which in turn led to the introduction of so-called cholinesterase drugs which, although not a cure, have had a beneficial effect in many such patients.
As my noble friend Lady O'Neill said, we would never have discovered the relationship between new variant CJD on the one hand, and bovine spongiform encephalopathy on the other, if it had not been for the fact that the brains were compared with those suffering from sporadic CJD. Nor would we have discovered the fact that a progressive and fatal form of encephalitis was due to the persistence in the brain of the measles virus over many years.
I could give innumerable other examples. It is clear that the development of new and sophisticated techniques of examination has made it absolutely vital that archival material, which has been stored in laboratories over many years, should be made available for research purposes. New techniques may reveal unexpected findings which were not apparent many years ago. Such stored material, including the gross specimens but also the histological slides for microscopic examination, is vital in the training of young pathologist and clinicians in order that they might relate the changes that are seen in sections of the brain on one hand to the clinical symptoms that the patients previously experienced on the other.
One of the best training aids for young neurologists that I have experienced in my professional career, and which I first saw when I worked in the United States in 1953, was the so-called brain cutting session, where the patient's clinical findings were described, the radiological and other investigative findings were described, and then those were compared with the changes that were discovered in the brain. That led to new light being cast on many well recognised diseases such as stroke, and also led to the recognition of conditions not previously known, which in turn had a profound effect on the management of patients subsequently presenting similar symptoms.
Of course, I favour the principle of informed consent. The days of doctor's orders are long past. The practice of medicine is a partnership in which it is up to doctors to recommend to patients what they regard as the most appropriate management of a condition; it is up to the patients to decide whether to accept that recommendation.
The same principle of informed consent must apply to the use of tissues and organs from individuals obtained at post-mortem whenever feasible—I repeat, whenever feasible. Of course, the same principles have been applied to the examination of tissue and fluids
406
from living individuals—not only for the removal of growths, cancer, tonsils and other material, but also for the very common use of the biopsy method where biopsies of tissues of various kinds are taken in order to determine what disease is present.
In my experience while working many years ago on muscular dystrophy and other muscle diseases, we commonly took specimens of muscle and examined them under the microscope—muscle biopsy—with the full informed consent of the individual. That had a profound effect on our recognition of new and previously undiscovered diseases of muscle. I am glad that such biopsy specimens, blood samples and other tissue samples have now been subject to amendment of the Bill in another place so that they may be used for education and training without explicit consent.
However, the issue of research is much more crucial. The Bill requires that such tissues can be used for research only with the approval of an ethical committee, with which I heartily approve. But they must also be subject to anonymisation so that the individual patient cannot be identified. I regard that as totally impractical. If I were to go back to my old department, which I shall not do at my age, to look at biopsy specimens for research, using new techniques of examination for research purposes I would inevitably recognise the samples that had been taken from patients who were under my care.
Will any doctor who carries out research on tissue that has been removed—with their approval and that of the individual—be guilty of a criminal offence? That area must be considerably modified. The whole issue of obtaining informed consent for research in those situations could place an intolerable burden on researchers.
As my noble friend Lady O'Neill and others have said, coroners' post-mortems are very important. They can remove tissues without any consent. In the Bristol inquiry, 90 per cent of the hearts removed were for coroners' post-mortems. Under law, the coroner was entitled to retain those organs until he was satisfied that the necessary investigations had been completed. Once those investigations had been completed, if the organs were to be used for research, the whole question of explicit consent, ethical approval and so forth arose. How, after many months and sometimes years, could such permission readily be obtained? I am sure that the Coroners Rules need to be modified.
There are many provisions in the Bill that are welcome. The establishment of a human tissue authority has a great deal of merit, although I am much less sure about the proposed merger between the HTA and the HFEA. In 1989, when I first became a Member of this House, my baptism of fire was the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I believe that the responsibilities of the two authorities are likely to be very different.
It is crucial that the Human Tissue Authority should include within its membership not only a majority of lay people but also pathologists, scientists and others who may not have the same authority or expertise in relation to in vitro fertilisation, which is a very important issue.

407
Turning to licensing, in a department of pathology at a university, presumably the head of department—a professor—will hold the licence and can delegate work under that licence to other members of his staff. In a regional hospital where consultants are of equal standing and no consultant as a rule supervises another, does every consultant have to have a licence? Is the licensing requirement also applicable to those working in clinical biochemistry, virology, microbiology, immunology and haematology? Must they all have licences from the authority?
Regarding tissue transplantation, I would like to have the Minister's confirmation, which I believe he gave, that stem cell lines, like other tissue lines, are excluded from consideration under the Bill. But what is the position with regard to bacteria? A swab is taken from a human orifice which is then plated on to an agar plate so that the bacteria can grow, as Sir Alexander Fleming did years ago in his laboratory in St Mary's Hospital. The plate was contaminated with penicillium notatum and resulted in the discovery of penicillin. Would every line of bacteria grown in that way need to have implicit consent? Moreover, would the same apply to viruses? Will we have to have a very important matter relating to the discovery of new diseases like SARS dealt with like this? Can the Minister clarify the point?
I believe that this Bill has come back from another place greatly improved, but it is still significantly defective in several respects. We need to know more about its relationship to the Mental Capacity Bill and about the proxy individuals who will be able to give consent on behalf of incompetent individuals. Anxieties remain which have been referred to by many noble Lords today.
I hope that the Minister will use the shining hours of the forthcoming Recess to study carefully the briefings we have received from the Royal College of Pathologists, the BMA, the Royal Society and from the BioIndustry Association. I say that because it could well be that the Government, in their wisdom, may bring forward even more sensible amendments by the time the Bill is considered in Grand Committee.
3.31 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. It is also something of a relief to be sitting where I am rather than in the place occupied by my noble friend the Minister today; that is, in the position where he will have to respond to the noble Lord on some of the very important issues that he and others have raised in the debate. That is because there are issues of real concern that have arisen not out of a desire to curtail research, but out of the well founded wish to ensure that the rights of patients and the proper respect due to human tissue both post-mortem and ante-mortem are honoured. There are also concerns that, inadvertently, significant damage will be done to medical research in this country.
408
I should declare an interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK. In my latter years I have fallen among researchers, but my interest in the health service and commitment to issues of this kind did not stem from a research background. Initially I came to the health service as a consumer representative, a patient representative on the maternity services liaison committee of a district health authority. I also had the privilege of being the first lay member of the Ethics Committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, as well as serving for many years on a local research ethics committee—a pioneer of its kind—at UCH and UCL under the chairmanship of Professor Desmond Lawrence.
I do not seek to minimise the very real dilemmas that can arise out of individual areas of research when trying to balance the interests of the community as a whole, patients in the future and the individual patients who will be affected by a particular piece of research. These are real and difficult issues which I believe must be tackled on an individual basis. The proper place for examining such issues is in the detail of research ethics committees, in particular when we are considering tissue taken from living individuals.
I understood the words of my noble friend the Minister when he said that the Bill introduces a comprehensive regime, one that will deal with tissues both post-mortem and from living individuals. Moreover, we all acknowledge that the Government have made good progress in terms of residual tissue. But I seriously worry whether adopting such a comprehensive approach is beneficial in this regard.
I say that because enormous problems were encountered in relation to post-mortem tissue, which have been eloquently described today by many who have had to deal in a pastoral capacity with the families affected. I believe that the regulatory framework had become completely out of kilter with social and ethical expectations; patients' attitudes had changed. The attitude of "least said, soonest mended" that was acceptable in the 1950s and 1960s was simply not acceptable in the latter years of the 20th century. We saw how that framework could cause great distress even in circumstances where people did not behave inappropriately or against professional standards—although, sadly, in some cases this did occur.
I welcome the fact that we are updating the whole framework. However, I am concerned that in trying to do so in a comprehensive way, as my noble friend described, we are applying—certainly this was true of the Bill when it first started life—a one-size-fits-all solution to vastly differing circumstances, and that we are, in many respects, overemphasising concerns about the appropriateness of consent and issues such as anonymity, especially in relation to living and residual tissue.
I believe that when we refer to informed consent we should pay as much attention to the information as to the tick in the box on the consent form. Information for patients and information for the public is tremendously important; it should not be given only at the time when a piece of tissue is likely to be used or to go into a tissue bank and so on.

409
We have a great deal more to do to inspire public confidence in medical research. We can do so by explaining the regulatory framework; by explaining how ethics committees work; by explaining how professional self-regulation works; and by explaining how professional standards are upheld. The greatest protection for patients will not come from what we do in this House but from high standards of individual professional behaviour in the medical and scientific community. We must do all we can to engender that.
Information is tremendously important when people are being asked to consent. The giving of that information is an ongoing process and it is something to which I hope, in its short life, the HTA will address its attention. It is important that there should be overall education on these matters.
The issue of anonymity has been eloquently described by many noble Lords in their distinguished contributions. When consent has been dispensed with in respect of residual tissue, I cannot see the logic in saying that the counterpart has to be anonymity. I can understand and support the fact that approval from a research ethics committee has to be in place. I also believe that appropriate measures about confidentiality should be put in place in those circumstances. But I fear that the fetish about anonymity could cause tremendous damage to important pieces of research which are in the public interest, and perhaps in the interest of individual patients, without giving any additional protection whatever to the patient.
We sometimes lose a sense of proportion on these matters. Anyone who works in a hospital sees terrible breaches of confidentiality all the time. I had the misfortune to be in an A&E department with a member of my family some six months or a year ago. Apart from the fact that you could read on the board the names of everyone who had come in and their supposed diagnosis, I ended up knowing more about the drug-taking habits of the young man who had come in slightly after us than I would ever have wished to know or he would have wished me to know. When I was on a post-natal ward, I knew about the future contraceptive behaviour of the neighbour in the next bed, because curtains are not good barriers to auditory communication. One constantly heard all sorts of things that breached confidentiality.
We need to address those sorts of issues. We should not say that it is inconceivable in any circumstances for researchers—very well regulated, it is to be hoped, by their own professional standards—to be able to make connections that could be crucial for the research in which they are involved and for future health and discovery. That is the key. I agree absolutely with appropriate confidentiality, but I think that blanket anonymity is the wrong way forward.
I look forward to discussing these issues at what will obviously be an animated Committee stage. If the end of the 20th century saw the death of deference, it is important that we do not allow the beginning of the 21st to see the death of proportionality and common sense.
3.41 p.m.
Baroness Murphy: My Lords, first, I should also like to express my gratitude for the very warm welcome I have received from all sides of the House. As a political and parliamentary novice, it has exceeded my hopes and aspirations. The induction programme which we are now given has truly been a great help. I commend it to those of your Lordships who have not had it in the past—it is really very good.
I have also made terrible mistakes already. I thought at one point that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, was going to ask me to dance, but he was merely pointing me in the right direction towards where I should be standing.
I know that it is customary on an occasion such as this to demonstrate one's wit, but the Human Tissue Bill does not naturally lend itself to wit in any but the worst taste. I think it was Marilyn Monroe who said, "I don't mind making jokes, but I don't want to look like one". So I fear that the House must wait for another occasion for my Victoria Wood impressions.
Rather as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was put on early hoping to be late, I have been put on late when I was hoping to be early. Many of the points that I wanted to address have been very eloquently covered already, so I will be brief.
I welcome the Bill in its recently amended form. I think that there is now a sensible balance between protecting the rights of patients and their families and the need to safeguard good clinical practice and research. I want to highlight what a mess the current legislation is.
I spent a good many years in clinical and academic research practice with mentally incapacitated older people, trying to devise ethically sound ways in which to conduct research into their disorders and also to enable post-mortem neuroscientific brain research. I particularly welcome the guidance on consent for use of materials post-mortem. In the absence of legal clarity, my teams and I had to devise a scheme and operate in practice broadly what is now proposed. I can tell your Lordships that it is eminently practical and will be generally welcomed by clinicians and relatives. Further clarification will be needed, in regulations and the code of practice, particularly when we come to the Mental Capacity Bill but, overall, it is workable, and I believe that it can be made to work clearly. At the moment, we do not have that clarity.
As chairman of a strategic health authority, I am very pleased to see the amendments that protect clinical education, training and research use of tissue that is incidentally removed during investigations or surgery and which would otherwise be discarded. I think that that is very helpful.
Before mentioning three matters which I believe need further scrutiny or to be addressed in regulations, I shall comment on the impact of the passage of this legislation through Parliament. After the Alder Hey story broke, which noble Lords will remember was a direct consequence of the Bristol babies inquiry, there was much resentful talk in hospital corridors and canteens of how the whole profession was being

411
unfairly blackened by the behaviour of one over-zealous, cavalier pathologist who was perceived to be at the dysfunctional end of a spectrum of clinical practices which, at best, were designed to protect relatives' sensibilities and, at worst, were casually thoughtless.
Since then, the climate of professional opinion has been broadly won round to supporting the Bill. That is in part due to the leadership of the senior officers of the Royal Colleges of Pathologists and of Paediatrics and Child Health in particular, but also, crucially, due to the debate about the culture of professional practice that has been stimulated by the passage of the Bill through Parliament. That has been a very good thing.
I turn briefly to three matters that remain unresolved in my mind. First, having listened to the Minister's introduction, I am not quite clear about where we are in relation to coroners' practices. My understanding of the Bill was that coroners' activities would be excluded and would be looked at later, perhaps in response to the recommendations of the third Harold Shipman inquiry, which were published last week. I am now simply not sure whether I am reading the Bill in the right way. I am told by Professor James Underwood, who I know has briefed many noble Lords here today, that not all coroners follow the existing good practice, published by the Chief Medical Officer in 2001, in relation to consent for retaining and using tissue in research after it is no longer required for post-mortem. There is still a large hole in the Bill that needs to be addressed much more clearly. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to clarify those rather vague areas.
The second matter is the so-called "altruistic" genetic testing and other testing that is carried out on mentally incapacitated adults. It is carried out not for the patient's sake, but generally for the benefit of other current and future family members. I understand that the interpretation of the patient's best interests will be addressed in regulations. It will be crucial that those regulations weave seamlessly with the forthcoming Mental Capacity Bill. Some of those tests can be extremely uncomfortable, but they may be highly important to the family's interests. Very often, those incapacitated adults would want to participate in a process, whether painful or not, that would assist their relatives. Dr Ainsley Newton, a genetics ethicist from Imperial College, has provided me with some very challenging case examples which will need to be looked at very carefully by those who draw up the regulations.
The third and final matter is anonymity; that is, the requirement on a researcher not to possess any information which might identify individuals to whom tissue belongs and the relationship between the individual's best interests and the best interests of public health. However, such eloquent examples were cited by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, that I shall not labour that point, save to say that unless this matter is cleared up, we will be in grave danger that the Bill might preclude the kind of excellent research that they described.
412
To conclude, the Bill addresses complex aspects of human biology and medical practice, which are undoubtedly difficult to draft into practical legislation without risking unintended adverse consequences. Overall, the Bill is in good shape, and the minor difficulties are surmountable without trespassing on its fine purpose. It will be a fitting memorial to the Bristol infants' brief lives.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, who has just made an excellent maiden speech, not least because she is a noted campaigner for the health of older people, which is of special reference to some of us in your Lordships' House. Her expertise has been as a doctor, an academic and a manager, and she is currently chairman of the North East London Strategic Health Authority. That expertise was well demonstrated today in her maiden speech. There is no doubt that her presence in your Lordships' House will greatly enhance the House's reputation, and we all look forward in great anticipation of hearing from her again in future.
I join in the general welcome that the Bill has received, although in passing I must say that I am surprised or astonished at the regular and sustained criticism from almost every research academic who spoke in the debate. But perhaps one should not be surprised at that. There is no doubt that it has been necessary to bring this Bill forward, but we need to remind ourselves that it is deeply disturbing that it was necessary to do so.
We are faced with examples of a tiny minority of the medical profession, who had become so desensitized to human life and experience that they collected vast amounts of organs and tissue which could never possibly be put to any use. They were presented to the general public as if they were some collection of macabre memorabilia. That did huge damage to the medical profession; how far the damage has been done and has affected people's confidence in organ transplantation, for example, is a matter for speculation. Fortunately, the evidence so far seems to suggest that the effect has not been as bad as it might have been.
I confine my remarks today to a topic that has not so far been discussed—the question of organ transplantation, and the vexed question of whether we should maintain the present system of opting in, or move to what we used to call opting out. I am not sure that it could be described as spin, but the phrase "opting out" has now been changed to "presumed consent"—which certainly sounds a lot better than opting out.
I strongly believe in presumed consent and have done so for many years—indeed, since 1970, when I was the co-sponsor with Tam Dalyell in the House of Commons of a 10-minute rule Bill on the subject. At that time, there was unrelenting hostility to the possibility of moving towards presumed consent. That Bill did not proceed any further and, since then, there have been many other attempts to further the law in

413
that regard, which, again, foundered for one reason or another. But it is my opinion that the tide of opinion is changing; people are much more open now about expressing their support for presumed consent.
On 19 November 1970, I took part in a debate on organ transplantation—during which, incidentally, I made my maiden speech. Looking back, comparatively little has changed in almost seven years. It may be—and this is my own opinion—that people such as the British Medical Association have now come out much more strongly in favour of presumed consent. Many organisations, such as the National Kidney Research Foundation and others, have also said that they are in favour of presumed consent. So the tide is turning.
The odd thing is that there has been very little change in statistics. The waiting list for the number of people for kidney transplants has hardly changed. In 1997, the figure was 5,500; currently it stands at 5,750; but what is incontrovertible is that the shortage of organs for transplant still exists, and the gap has not shrunk in any way. Very ominously, it is forecast that the rate of kidney failure will increase significantly in the next 15 years. Therefore, if for no other reason, I regret that the Government have not taken the opportunity to move in that regard, and rejected the amendment in favour of presumed consent when it was moved in the House of Commons.
I believe that the Government's reasons for not doing so are twofold, and I understand them both. First, they argue that there is no evidence that presumed consent will increase the availability of organs. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Government say that the Bill is about consent. I accept that. Given that the Bill's intention is to try to restore the confidence of the general public in the medical profession, I think that it is a step too far for the Government to move from one part of the Bill that emphasises the importance of consent to a different part of the Bill in which we presume consent.
However, I believe that there is strong evidence that, where presumed consent is available, organ availability is better than it is in the UK; and I understand that the Bill refers to England and Wales. In another place, Dr Harris, who moved the amendment, among other things, said:
"The average donation rate, in donors per million of population, is 25 per cent. higher in countries with opt-out than in countries that have an opt-in system".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/04; col.50]
That is backed up by scientific analysis and research. He went on to mention an interesting case involving two different centres in Belgium, where the law had been changed. One centre operated on the basis of opting in and the other on the basis of opting out. There was a considerable increase in the number of organs available in the opting-out centre. This is not simply an academic exercise; we are dealing with people's lives.
On the second issue, as I have already conceded, it is incongruous and perhaps even contradictory to have a Bill that provides absolute consent in so many areas but presumed consent in another. However, my experience is such that I believe that that ought to be done.
414
There has been some criticism of the fact that the Government applied a three-line Whip in the House of Commons whereas other parties operated a free vote. In the context of this Bill, however, it was legitimate to do that. The House of Commons is actually not very good when it comes to free votes. Sixty MPs voted for the amendment for presumed consent and, even more interestingly, 250 MPs did not vote at all. I have not had the opportunity to go through the names of those who voted against presumed consent to find out which party they belonged to. Quite clearly, however, a considerable number of Members—some Liberal Democrat, some Conservatives and some of no party—voted against presumed consent. The figures probably show that there is still a balance in the Commons and that no one has yet made up their mind. So I am not too concerned about the issue of a three-line Whip.
It is an incontrovertible fact that things cannot be allowed to drift. I have been engaged in this discussion for more than 30 years, but it has gone on for longer than that. In the mean time, people are dying or experiencing a much less good quality of life because of the lack of organs for transplant. We have to do something about it.
In the House of Commons, Frank Dobson, the former Secretary of State for Health, said that he had always voted against presumed consent. Indeed, he did so in the Commons on the last occasion. He suggested that perhaps there ought to be a Green Paper to revisit the issue of the best way to do this. I am never quite sure about Green Papers. They sometimes remind me of the story of the late Harold Wilson—Lord Wilson—who said, referring to Royal Commissions, that they took minutes and lasted for years. I would not want to bring in a system that meant we were doing something simply for the sake of it and fobbing off the argument for some time. We need urgent action. We urgently need to look at this.
Perhaps the Government could set up a special panel to take advice and try to gauge public opinion. The onus is on the Government to see whether we can move forward. I know that they will have a big campaign to try to encourage voluntary organ donation and so on. We have reached the point at which we must take decisive action and remember those who really matter in all this; that is, the patients. Having said that, I commend the Bill to the House.
4 p.m.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I declare an interest at the outset as a former member of the Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust and in my former capacity as what I shall describe, since this is a medical debate, as the midwife to the birth of one of the largest and most successful medical schools in the country; namely, the Imperial College School of Medicine, of which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is a distinguished member.
One might well imagine that at this stage of the debate there would be little more to say, and one would be right. We have heard three outstanding maiden speeches from the Liberal Democrat Benches and our

415
Benches. I endorse the compliments that have been forthcoming from every side of the House. The House can retire for the Recess in the certain knowledge that many more such splendid contributions can be expected in years to come.
There has been general agreement that this is a very much better Bill now than when it started, and we are grateful to the Government for that. However, we are equally agreed that there is room for further improvement. I seek to make no excuse for what happened at Alder Hey and Bristol. People were caused needless and inexcusable levels of distress. However, it is a well known adage that hard cases make bad law. These are undeniably bad cases but we must all strive, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and my noble friend Lord Walton and others have pointed out, to ensure that these cases do not make bad law. That is a danger. The Bill appears to be light in coherent and thoughtful elucidation of principle and heavy on detailed—and often ambiguous and unhelpful—regulation.
I shall take a rather broader view. Good health is probably the most important element in what we recognise as quality of life. In pursuit of that, I am sure that there is not one Member of your Lordships' House who has not had occasion to consult a medical doctor. I suspect that the same is true of virtually everyone in the country. I wonder how many of us stop to ponder where the medical knowledge from which, I hope, we benefited came from.
At one level, the answer is relatively simple. It came from the study of countless other patients—our parents, our grandparents and their grandparents back for countless generations. I suppose that it might be hoped that by today we would know all that there is to be known about the human body. Sadly, that is far from the case. Human beings are probably the most complicated organisms ever to have populated the Earth.
Over the centuries medical knowledge has advanced in different countries and different cultures on parallel, but often quite different, tracks. That was because until the last century this progress was almost entirely empirical and reflected local ways of dealing with local problems, some of which worked and some of which did not.
Modern science and modern instrumentation have revolutionised understanding of the complicated physical, chemical and biological processes that take place in our bodies; detailed imaging and analytical processes and tools have now give some glimmerings of how they work. However, every new technique that offers new understanding simultaneously opens up and illuminates new areas of ignorance. Understanding of the human genome begins to put on a scientific basis what, of course, we have all always known; namely, that we are all different. That implies that in minute ways our bodies may function slightly differently and that they can respond quite differently to the same drug or exposure to infection. But more importantly it carries with it the prospect and, indeed, the possibility that we can cope with these much better than ever before.
416
The point, simply put, is that there is still an immense amount that we do not know about the human body and the various pathogens that affect it. Nevertheless, by and large, each successive generation has had the benefits of a higher level of medical knowledge than its predecessors. That beneficial progress has to a large extent depended on the ability of the medical profession to make, to collate and to store observations made on our bodies. I believe that we have a moral obligation to ensure that that progress does not stop.
The advance of medical knowledge and the improvement of medical practice depend on the ability of our medical schools and medical research institutes to make observations on living and dead tissue and on their associated conditions. Anything that we do to inhibit that may inhibit the progress of medical research which is for the benefit of all.
It is particularly important that the potential uses of human tissues or data should not be too tightly prescribed. You can never tell in which direction the next important life saving discovery lies. I recall years ago a colleague in Cambridge completing a government questionnaire in which he was asked to explain what research he would be doing in five years' time. He responded, "I don't know—and if I did I would be doing it now". The noble Lord, Lord Winston, gave us a vivid example from his own early research career of how his work might have been inhibited. We simply cannot tell where the next brilliant idea will take us or guess what lies round the corner. I must say that I am terrified by some of the provisions of the Bill as it stands. Having embraced the general principle of the use of human tissues for appropriate research, let us not strangle it by regulation. A real danger arises if the regulation is undertaken by people who simply do not understand the problems.
It goes without saying that most of us do not wish detailed medical information about ourselves to be publicly available. It is for that reason that data and samples should be anonymised and not attributable, as far as possible, to individuals by name. However, important information will be lost if samples and data relating to the same individual cannot be related to each other. It is for that reason that the voluntary Biobank project will be so important.
Although access to information for research is important, for reasons that I think are generally accepted, it cannot be unregulated. Medical research is subject to the general oversight of ethics committees. Their working is not perfect but there is little argument that they play an essential role. Furthermore, we must accept that particular individuals may have religious or ethical objections to some aspects of medical research. They may wish to withhold permission to use their data or samples in particular ways. I believe that it is absolutely right that those wishes should be respected.
In conclusion, we have today heard a great deal about the rights of individuals but relatively little about their obligations. I personally believe that we should move slowly towards a situation in which everyone receiving medical attention should do so with

417
the glad expectation that observations made on them and samples from their bodies should be made available anonymously for medical research in order to help others unless they expressly indicate to the contrary. I accept that there is a major hearts and minds job to be done but this is the direction in which we should move.
It would not be right for us now to withhold from medical researchers the information that will bring to future generations medical progress such as we have ourselves enjoyed. In this, as in so many walks of life, the debt that we owe to our parents has to be repaid to our children.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I declare an interest as a psychiatrist, and as a psychiatrist married to a consultant pathologist who works in the NHS. I join other noble Lords in saying what an interesting and enriching debate it has been, particularly because of the quality of the three maiden speeches. The speeches of my noble friends Lord Roberts of Llandudno and Lady Neuberger, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, have been a great delight to listen to—very thoughtful, informed and well articulated.
Those speeches reminded me very much of why I so enjoy this House, and how I have from time to time found it a substantial contrast to another place, where I worked for some time. Indeed, I well remember a debate in that place for which I was in the Chair, and therefore the Speaker and unable to speak, as is the curious meaning of our terminology in such places. I listened to many colleagues speaking with much less knowledge, understanding or appreciation of the issues than has been evident in your Lordships' House.
That leads me to substantial anxiety about this Bill and what has happened, and to enormous sympathy for the Minister as he not only winds up the debate but tries to take through the House a Bill that is so inordinately problematic. In that regard, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, expressed what many of us feel, not only so far as the poor Minister is concerned. She also brought a great air of reality for those of us who work with people in the health service, and about what happens away from the rarefied atmosphere of those who devise human rights legislation or even Bills of this kind.
The Minister said that the Bill was to deal with previous legislation that was unclear, out of date and unworkable. It was also to respond to some very difficult incidents. Although those are very commendable propositions—there is little doubt that the legislation is out of date; I do not dispute that—the very number of civil servants who have come along to assist the Minister may be an indication of the complexity of the Bill in its present form. It may indicate that the matter is not simple, and that the Bill does not make it particularly so. No matter what is done with the Bill, the issue will be extremely complex. That creates the problems for his aspiration for clarity and workability.
What led us to the Bill? It was the problem that practices of presumed consent that had been around and developing for some time were no longer
418
acceptable in the current climate, in some cases for good reason. Also, some practitioners had pushed themselves well beyond what was accepted even by their colleagues as conventionally appropriate. When the matter came to public concern, there was profound anguish on the part of those affected, particularly the families. That was referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and my noble friend Lord Roberts.
Thereafter, it seems that the question of anguish and pastoral concern largely disappeared from the reality. In the vast majority of cases, we were dealing with people who had difficulty overcoming the bereavement that they had suffered. I have seen little evidence that their need for assistance in overcoming their bereavement has received much attention. Frankly, if, as parliamentarians, we think that passing a piece of legislation and setting up a regulatory authority will in any way deal with the anguish that there was in the past or will be in the future, we are sadly mistaken and rather infatuated with the power of Parliament. The fact is that those people have suffered and will suffer.
What happened was that their grief, which had not been fully overcome, was revealed, was laid bare, and in some cases was created not just by the events themselves but by the attempt to address the events—when people were going around telling the families things that they did not wish to know and provoking more grief for them. We have to be very careful with what we do. The first rule of medicine that we teach junior doctors is "First, do no harm. Thereafter, with a bit of fortune you may do some good". This whole business and the reaction to it has opened up the possibility that we can do harm, and we should be careful.
The question of remains—as we sometimes euphemistically describe them—was brought home clearly to me two or three weeks ago in Peru. I was in Ayacucho in the Andes, where it is said that some 70,000 were "disappeared" by the army, the Shining Path and the MRTA. Of those 70,000 only a few of the remains have been made available. I was present for the handing over of some five sets of remains to families. It was only the fourth handover since the disappearances happened many years ago. I was struck by the meaningful nature of that handover and how important it was.
But we must be very careful about reifying the notion of people and personalities into their bodies. Subsequently I have substantial questions about the notion of funeral services for body parts. When someone who is still alive has an amputation we do not have a funeral for their limb. In fact, we strongly believe that that person should not be regarded as any less a person because they have lost a limb or two or whatever. Yet, somehow when the person is dead and gone, some body part that remains around almost indefinitely qualifies for a funeral. I am not sure that psychologically and spiritually that that is the best way of dealing with it and there may be issues for colleagues such as the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Roberts to address from a spiritual and psychological point of view

419
as to whether that way of addressing the matter is necessarily the best way of doing so. There is a profound paradox within that—that we are making the body parts into the persons themselves, rather than assisting people to deal with the real problem, which is not the remaining body part but the remaining grief and anguish inside themselves.
This leads me to the whole question of understanding what is going on. It is clear to me that in the drafting of the Bill there was a profound lack of understanding of what actually happens. For example, it was suggested that pathologists were not seeking consent. Of course not. In the vast majority of cases the pathologists never meet or see the patient. How could they possibly be obtaining content? The clinical worker obtains the consent—the person with the patient, the person who is often with a grieving family or with a person in great difficulties or distress over an operation. In any case it is not the pathologist who seeks the consent, although, not infrequently, clinical workers go on to carry out research, publish a paper and do not even put in the title of the paper that it was the pathologist who produced the diagnosis upon which the clinical worker had based the paper. They should not be doing that but such things happen.
Understanding what is going on is very important. The Bill has emerged from a tragedy over the way that post-mortem material was dealt with. Many fewer post-mortems are now carried out. The vast majority are carried out as coroners' cases. In fact, in Northern Ireland the paediatric pathology service virtually collapsed after all of this because people did not wish to do that type of work any more. Indeed, some of the pathologists personally suffered badly as a result of what happened. Therefore, it seems very difficult to see how there can be other than a detrimental outcome.
I asked the Minister whether he was aware of what happened in Northern Ireland. In expectation (which is always a dangerous thing) of what Parliament might decide with regard to this piece of legislation, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland introduced regulations and arrangements on the question of consent before the legislation had been dealt with here. I understand, although I am open to correction, that the result of that was that many clinicians working with patients filled in the relevant form with the words "No consent". It is not entirely clear to me whether that meant that no consent was asked for or whether it meant that consent was not given when it was asked for. However, no consent was given.
It is now impossible to have a complete cancer registry in Northern Ireland for the past 12 months because it was not possible to acquire the necessary material. I know that attempts are made within the Bill to ensure that that does not happen in the future, but it has already happened. When people's consent has not been obtained, one cannot then go back and get it.
420
Therefore, as I understand it, there is now a lacuna in Northern Ireland, and that says something about the anxiety that the Bill has created. It has not been possible to bring through the legislation in a reflective, calm fashion because it deals with emotions that are difficult and painful. That is why we have great sympathy for the Government and for the Minister as he tries to work on the Bill. He is dealing not only with a piece of legislation but with people's feelings on all sides, and we appreciate that that is very difficult.
One result was that when the inquiry was conducted in Northern Ireland, the health Minister at the time attempted to ensure that no one with any medical knowledge and qualifications was seriously involved in it. I think that that is an unhappy reaction. It may be helpful seriously to consider whether we can make certain that that does not happen in the future by ensuring that, for example, the Royal College of Pathologists is represented on the Inspectorate of Anatomy and Pathology or in some other way in order to make it clear that such marginalisation of those who are involved is not acceptable in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, raised the issue of presumed consent. That is an important and difficult matter, and obviously the Government have decided not to go down that route. That is not surprising because this Bill is going in completely the opposite direction. The whole basis of the Bill is that the presumed consent on which people operated in the past requires not only to he regulated but reversed. Therefore, I suspect and fear that, by following the direction which the noble Lord has struggled manfully to do for some 30 years, he may have some more hills to climb.
I believe that the noble Lord was right to say that the real concern of the public was based on what he eloquently and floridly described as the macabre nature of the collections rather than the proper use of the material. I think that the overwhelming majority of the population is prepared to accept the latter.
Let us put ourselves in the position of some of the relatively young (although it does not make it any easier when you are older) medical or nursing staff who try to obtain consent in the context of a tragic death, or let us consider the vulnerability of someone undertaking an operative procedure. Any of us who have done that know how difficult it is and, as I said, it does not necessarily get easier with the passing of the years or with experience.
What is the easiest thing to do in those circumstances, when a person knows that, if he does not follow the procedure properly, he could face criminal convictions? The easy answer is: do not do it. What mileage is there in doing so? What mileage is there in putting oneself through that and in trying to explain to the family exactly what will happen to the brain, as was eloquently described earlier? It is not an easy or pleasant procedure or one to which a pleasant description can be attached. It is not the kind of thing that you talk about over tea, unless you happen to be married to a pathologist.

421
Therefore, the easiest thing is to ignore it and not to try to seek consent. It is too difficult. But the result is that the material is then not available for the work to be done or for the research to be undertaken. We are dealing with human beings who are under clinical pressure. What is the incentive for them to put their necks in the noose? It seems to me that it is much easier not to bother. I wonder whether criminalisation is the way to ensure that people fulfil the proprieties of regulation. When we are trying to move away from criminalisation in so many areas, I find it strange that this is the kind of sanction that we think appropriate when dealing with these issues.
The difficulty is that by not seeking the consent of the patient because of anxiety and fear, we may end up doing the opposite of what the patient and the family want. When one feels anxious and says, "I'll not go down that road; they are terribly upset", who knows, a week or two later it might well have been that they would have said, "If only the body of our loved one had been used, there would have been some value in the tragic loss or the pain that I have gone through". Paradoxically, by going down that particular road, which heightens everyone's anxiety and I am not sure addresses all of the problems, we end up with the opposite of what we want.
The whole question of regulation and whether it is the best response to every problem that arises was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and others. There is a tremendous tendency for us to follow a pattern: if there is a problem and public anxiety, we set up a committee. Any good committee that does not come back with recommendations of regulations, legislation and someone to be appointed to ensure that the problem never happens again can be quite sure that it will never be appointed to a future inquiry. However, that said, it is a brave Minister who will stand up and say, "I have heard all of that but I do not think that it is appropriate". We have almost got ourselves on a treadmill in which our way of responding to every crisis is to produce more regulation. Of course, the more regulations that are produced, the more guarantee that people will break them because there will be so many regulations it will he impossible to get up in the morning and have your breakfast without doing so.
None of us, having worked on and thought through the debate, can be in any doubt that we are dealing with an extraordinarily complex and delicate set of issues. None of us can have anything other than sympathy for the Minister and his colleagues. They have tried to deal with some of the issues and now know that they have much more work to do. There is no doubt in my mind or, I think, in the minds of other noble Lords, that this is not brought forward by a government with malign intent. On the contrary, it is brought forward by a government with a concern to address some very real issues. What they have discovered is that by the moves that have been undertaken, they have unearthed even more issues. I am sure that all of us would wish them well and promise them our involvement and co-operation insofar as we can as we proceed through the Bill in the autumn.
4.27 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a debate of remarkable quality, enhanced, I need hardly say, by three very distinguished maiden speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Murphy, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. We hope that all three will play a full part in our further deliberations both in Committee and on Report. I congratulate them very warmly.
As many noble Lords remarked, the Bill is born of real and widespread human distress. It is of small comfort only that the distress was wholly unintended but in seeking to ensure that the mistakes that caused it should never happen again, we need to cleave to some basic principles. Every speaker today has articulated those principles well. They are: respect for the individual; the wider good of society; and clarity in the law. In looking for what has gone wrong over the past 30 or 40 years—things have gone very wrong—nevertheless, we do not need to overstate the case. In particular, we should not be over-critical of the medical profession. Post-mortem practice has developed over a period of years within a legal framework that in the early 1960s appeared adequate but with hindsight today looks woefully imprecise.
The good of society, as exemplified by the ever-widening body of medical knowledge, has never been a goal to be pursued regardless of ethical principle or at all costs. Yet the imperative of furthering clinical research, as a means to that public good, has given rise to unthinking routines which have served to overshadow something equally important and precious; namely, the right of every individual to regard his body as his own, to do with as he wants.
The Bill before us seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between society's good and the rights of the individual; and in so doing it aims to restore what Alder Hey, Bristol and the Isaacs inquiry eroded—trust between medical practitioners and the public.
In subscribing fully to those aims, I have no hesitation in welcoming the Bill; and I welcome in particular its emphasis on informed consent and on unambiguous regulation of the uses of human tissue across the entire spectrum of research, transplantation and teaching. I welcome the pragmatic approach which the Government have adopted to existing tissue banks, which, as many noble Lords have remarked, are of incalculable value for research in the field of public health in particular.
Subject to points of detail, which we shall discuss, I support the provision in Part 3 of the Bill relating to transplantation, DNA analysis and the de-accessioning of human remains by museums.
The amendments made in another place have without doubt corrected a number of features in the first version of the Bill, which, with the benefit of reflection, appeared unnecessarily restrictive, especially those relating to the use of residual tissue from living people for research and training purposes.
The Government are to be congratulated on listening to the concerns voiced by MPs of all parties; but at the same time one cannot help thinking that the

423
five-month delay between Committee and Report stages in another place might have been avoided had the Bill been the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny. That scrutiny need not have taken very long, but it would have enabled the major players in the scientific community to make considered comments on the Bill, as opposed to commenting on a consultation document. In that way I suspect that the unintended anomalies, such as the original provisions on residual tissue and tissue trafficking, might have been identified and dealt with earlier and more rapidly.
Having said all that, and despite the very welcome improvements made to the Bill, it will not have escaped the Minister's notice that the prevailing view emerging from the debate is that we are not there yet. From the speeches made today, I think we can single out four or five principal issues which are likely to raise their heads in Committee.
The first issue relates to research carried out on tissue from living people without consent. We need to look at whether in these situations the requirement for anonymity contained in the Bill is either necessary or desirable. There is a good deal of research—as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in particular—particularly epidemiological and genetic-related research, which requires clinical information to be correlated with data obtained from tissue specimens. Indeed, there is a real sense in which the value of the tissue falls to negligible levels unless some sort of linkage can be maintained with the donor.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made the very telling point that medical confidentiality, rather than complete anonymity, may be all that most people would wish to see preserved in circumstances of this nature. I think we need to look at that and, in particular, whether it would be beneficial for the avoidance of doubt that the ministerial assurances given both here and in another place about reversible anonymity should be translated on to the face of the Bill.
Equally, the requirement for anonymity should also be questioned in relation to doctors who wish to carry out research on their own patients. The Bill at present would appear to prohibit that, and that is surely a serious concern. It is a concern that chimes in with a theme of a number of speeches, which is that, in several important respects, the measures in the Bill appear disproportionate to the mischief that they purport to address.
In that vein, we shall also need to examine whether the definition of appropriate consent needs to be refined. When consent is obtained for the use of human tissue in research, it is not possible to state in advance the precise purpose for which the tissue may have future use. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, made that point. To revisit the patient or his family to obtain updated consent is simply impractical.
The Minister gave some reassurances on that point. My view is that the Bill should make it explicit that generic and enduring consent, although not mandatory, should nevertheless be legal in appropriate circumstances.
424
As the Bill stands, consent is required when education or training involving human tissue relates to research techniques. On the other hand, when the education or training relates to disorders of the human body, no consent is needed. We should closely consider whether the distinction between the two sorts of education and training serves a useful purpose. In fact, the relevant wording in Schedule 1 runs rather wider than education and training in research techniques. It appears to cover training in the methodology of research, such as the use and evaluation of statistical tests. I cannot believe that that is what is intended but, if it is, we should pay heed to the warnings sounded by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege about the risk that researchers might be criminalised unwittingly as a result of a narrow definitional distinction. I am worried about that and about where it might lead.
The last main area of contention concerns coroners. There are two problems with Clause 11. One is that it ducks the whole issue of retained organs as it relates to coroners. We are simply asked by Ministers to await publication of the new coroners' rules sometime around the end of the year. That is not at all satisfactory.
The other problem, related to it, is the wording of the clause. The phrase,
"anything done for the purposes or functions of a coroner",
is too vague. The obvious question is: how far does a coroner's legal protection extend? Does it extend only to a coroner's core functions, which are the investigation of the circumstances and causes of a death, or does it extend more widely to anything at all done by the coroner within the ambit of the coroners' rules?
My view is that, beyond the coroner's statutory, core functions there is no reason why the rules and provisions of the Bill should not apply, especially in relation to the obtaining of consent from families for tissue to be retained in tissue banks for research purposes, after a post-mortem has been completed. I hope that it will be possible to build some meaningful provisions in to the Bill on rules for coroners. However, at the very least, families should be entitled to be informed if tissue from a dead person is retained following a coroner's post-mortem, and they should have a right to know the reasons.
Openness and informed consent should be the principles that guide us as we debate the Bill. I freely concede that if we are tempted to add to the exceptions already agreed to the consent principle, we should do so with care. That is why I cannot personally reconcile myself to the concept of presumed consent in the context of organ transplantation, despite the sincere and committed speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. It is surely difficult for us to countenance the risk of repeating the errors of Alder Hey and Bristol, where it was precisely the presumption of consent that led to the distress of many thousands of families.

425
We cannot say that we believe in the principle of consent as the bedrock of the Bill and, in the same breath, say that we do not need consent in that very sensitive and important area of activity. No doubt we will debate the matter further in Committee. But if confidence in the medical profession is to be as we would wish it, we cannot afford to take further risks, and this would be a big one.
One of the principal tests of the Bill's success will be whether, when it is in force, we see a better understanding on the part of patients and the public of why human tissue is of such value to medical research; why such research is for the good of us all; what pathology is; and how ethical standards are upheld and safeguarded. Those are the ways in which the consent of patients and families to donate tissue and organs for transplantation and research will become increasingly forthcoming. If that can be achieved alongside a new sense of confidence within the wider research community, this Bill will have done its job well. In common with all noble Lords, I very much hope that we can complete that virtuous circle.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, this has been an interesting, stimulating and thoughtful debate. As I come to respond and to think about the future stages of the Bill, I find the attractions of reshuffling extremely attractive.
We have had three very distinguished and lively maiden speeches. Like other noble Lords, I look forward to the future contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Murphy, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno. When listening to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, I was very impressed by the robust way in which she did not don rose-tinted spectacles about the present legislative position and recognised, from her own practical experience, the problems that had to be tackled.
I am also grateful for the many supportive remarks made in this debate about the road that we have travelled in getting this Bill—in my view—in pretty good shape. The debate recognised the importance of the principles on which it is based and, with perhaps one or two dissenting voices, of the need to provide a secure framework, which retains the confidence of the public, for medical and scientific research. I wish to correct a slip of the tongue in my opening remarks. I said that the provision for preservation of organs was in Clause 44; it is in Clause 48. I apologise for that mistake.
I remind the House again of the public concerns aroused by the report of the inquiry on Alder Hey and the Isaacs report. The latter did not just cause concern about organs and tissues from the deceased but has also had an impact on the public perceptions about organs and tissues from the living. We cannot duck out of that. Arguing the distinction between tissue from the deceased and from the living overlooks the fact that the public do not always make that same distinction. People legitimately want to know how, if I may put it this way, bits of their body are to be used by professionals. The public still feel that way, however
426
much goodwill they may have towards medical researchers and the benefits of medical research for future generations.
I reiterate the importance of the Government's role of trying to maintain a balance between the needs and feelings of patients and their relatives and those of medical research, bearing in mind the contributions that can be made to future knowledge for the benefit of future generations of patients.
A number of noble Lords have asked why we cover tissue from the living and do not just concentrate on the coroner's area and tissue from deceased people. That assumes that the present arrangements are satisfactory. As I have said, and as a number of noble Lords have said, they are not satisfactory. They are muddled, and they cause concern for many medical researchers. A lot of attention has been given in this debate to the problems that some aspects of this Bill might cause for researchers. The present structure of legislation causes just as much, if not more, concern to researchers because of the uncertainty that it creates in their minds. If we do not bring greater clarity through this Bill and the statutory codes of practice, we will damage research by that failure. Doing nothing is not an option.
Many interesting and important points have been raised, and I will try to deal with as many as I can. I will write to noble Lords before the Committee stage on those issues that I fail to deal with. Noble Lords have raised the need for consent for research to be generic and enduring. We agree; as I tried to make clear in my opening remarks. While research ethics committees may, in individual research projects, sometimes ask for specific consent, as they rightly do at present, the Bill simply establishes the baseline. That clearly allows for consent to be broad and durable.
Many noble Lords have mentioned the issue of research using residual samples where the Bill allows for research without consent, provided ethical approval is given to the use of anonymised samples. The questions are twofold. First, does anonymised mean permanently unlinked? I have already tried to indicate that it does not. The Bill allows samples that are anonymised in ways that will retain their linkage to the clinical record. Secondly, is it in fact necessary for such samples to be anonymised in the first place? We maintain that it is. While we recognise that it is part of the duty of professionals to maintain confidentiality in their handling of patient information, we believe that the use of tissue samples is not an identical issue, especially the use of those samples for research when the patient has not given consent.
Through the consultation that has been taking place, we saw that people were happy for tissue to be used, but they wanted to be involved. They wanted to know what was to be done with that tissue. First and foremost, that means consent as the basis for the use of the tissue. People want knowingly to contribute and to be involved. In the situation, however, where tissue is to be used without consent, without people's knowledge, research ethics committees will represent their interests by ensuring that it is done on an ethically

427
acceptable basis. More than that, it is for the protection of the patient as well as the researcher that it should be done on an anonymised basis. The researcher will have their tissue; certain clinical details and other diagnostic information. There is no reason why the researcher should also know the name of the person that the tissue has come from.
I have listened carefully to this debate, and I have heard little evidence that the knowledge of the name itself is essential to research. There may be some practical issues; there may be some systems to be changed and adapted in the way that the research is done, but the critical issue in these circumstances is that without consent, the researcher does not have the name. That will protect the researcher, who should not be put in a position where they might find themselves with tissue, clinical details and identifying names, and then discover new information about the person through their research. There is no need for that to arise. If the researcher is the treating doctor, and such new information might arise, there is no justification for not seeking consent. Again, let us be clear, tissue can be used in research if consent is sought, or if it is ethically approved for anonymised use. That provides a sensible balance.
Frankly—I say this in the most helpful way that I can—the research community needs to reflect very carefully on how it will appear to the public if it pushes too far for legislative amendments in this area. That would simply give the public the impression that they are to be bypassed in terms of obtaining consent about how tissue will be used.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he can clarify one issue for me. Supposing, during the course of research on a number of samples, one discovers a risk of cancer in certain patients. One might need to recall one's own patients to re-examine their smears or take another biopsy. How does that fit with the notion of anonymisation? I do not understand that and would be grateful for clarity.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am prepared to write to my noble friend about that matter, but we are in areas of great detail that are Committee stage issues. Perhaps I may be allowed to use the time available to respond to the points that were made in the debate, which is what I was trying to do, and to set out the Government's position as clearly as possible. I should be grateful if I could be allowed to deploy those arguments as I have listened extremely patiently to the points made by noble Lords.
A number of noble Lords raised issues around the codes of practice. We should be clear that the codes of practice will be consulted on and can be debated in Parliament before they are introduced. Certainly, some of those codes will be subject to affirmative resolution, which must happen before the legislation is brought into operation. There are considerable opportunities for the detail of the consent and other arrangements to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny
428
and public consultation. That will cover many of the concerns and points alluded to by my noble friend Lord Winston.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, raised the issue of the HTA's code of practice and whether it will define the limits of criminal offences in the Bill. That is not the case. Human Tissue Authority codes of practice will give practical guidance on matters within its remit and will set down the standards that it expects to be followed. Clause 28 makes it clear that failure to follow the code does not render a person liable to criminal proceedings.
Noble Lords asked whether research ethics committees will be able to manage the workload indicated by the processes involved. The research projects to be covered by research ethics committees are not different from those that are already being conducted and are already subject to REC approval. There should be no significant increase in case load. Indeed, RECs should benefit from the availability of clear and consistent guidance in that area.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of retaining material following coroners' post-mortems, noting that it can be extremely important to retain that material for future research or diagnosis in the family. We agree entirely, but we must add that if the tissue is no longer required in respect of the coroner's needs—investigation of the cause or circumstances of death—the retention for scheduled purposes must be subject to the consent of the family. The Bill provides for that.
Noble Lords will be aware that Ministers at the Home Office have confirmed that amendments to the Coroners' Rules will be forthcoming this year. They will make clear that the coroner should inform the pathologist of what material is to be retained and for what period under his authority. The rules will also make clear that the family must be informed of any such retention. But where there is no requirement on the part of the coroner, consent is required.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, asked why the Bill is coming before the coroners' legislation. We are working closely with colleagues in the Home Office on that. As I said, the revised Coroners' Rules will be brought forward. I assure noble Lords that we will ensure that those new rules are wholly consistent with the Bill.
Noble Lords have raised a wide variety of issues and I shall try to address as many as possible in the time available. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the subject of the costs of implementation. We have made provision for implementing the Bill and I think that the details are set out in paragraph 83 onwards of the Explanatory Notes. He also asked whether the Bill would affect the tracking of infectious diseases. It will not because it provides specifically for the use of tissue from the living or residual samples for use in public health monitoring, which includes epidemiological studies to track the prevalence and spread of disease.

429
A number of noble Lords asked why RNA has not been linked in with DNA in the relevant provisions of the Bill. What we are most concerned about here is the kind of case where unscrupulous people obtain a tissue sample with a view to testing it for paternity, for example, without consent. While the direct testing of DNA is within the scope of the offence, so too would be the use of RNA in its scope if it is used as the means of analysing the person's DNA. However, I shall write in more detail to noble Lords about this rather complex issue.
My noble friend Lord Winston asked a number of questions about foetal tissue and the position with regard to photographs. Foetal tissue is treated in the Bill as tissue from the woman from whom it came. Her consent will be required, which must be right as a matter of law. In practice, guidance may ask that the genetic father's view may be sought when possible, but as a point of lawfulness it must be a matter for the consent of the woman. The Bill does not deal with photographs, but with the material itself and its uses for scheduled purposes. Photography is subject to professional GMC guidance, but we are concerned here with the lawful use of the tissue itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, raised a number of points. I have to say that I refute his suggestion that the Bill represents an over-reaction. We have consulted extensively on this legislation with stakeholder communities and, as I said, there will be continuing consultation on codes, regulations and licensing procedures. We believe that the Bill strikes a reasonable balance and is not an over-reaction to the very serious concerns that have been expressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked about the definition of "child" used in the Bill and whether it was inconsistent with the definition set out in the Family Law Reform Act 1987. We believe that there is no inconsistency. Clause 2 provides for competent children to be able to give consent to the use of their tissue. However, unlike in the case of medical treatment, the Bill does not contemplate a competent child's refusal to the use of tissue being overridden by their parents or a court. We believe that the Bill is consistent with the rules in place in relation to medical treatment, but does not replicate them exactly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, raised a number of issues, including the need to retain brains at post-mortem for research purposes and whether the Bill will safeguard future studies where data are needed. The Bill will support researchers who need organs for research purposes by making clear the consent process that will be needed and by enabling them to work within a clear framework. The Bill does not affect matters covered by the Data Protection Act. As I said, the Bill provides that research can proceed wherever consent is given or where research ethics committee approval is given for the use of anonymised samples.
On the subject of swipe cards, we certainly envisage that once electronic patient records are introduced, mechanisms can be used to record each patient's
430
consent on that record so that it will be clear and available to all health professionals with access to it.
The noble Baroness also asked about the teaching of cytology and whether that will require consent. Clinical education and training using tissue from living patients does not require consent under the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, raised a number of issues. On occasion I found myself grappling to understand the technology involved. However, I shall certainly better my education on these matters and write to the noble Lord. He asked whether consent to use post-mortem tissue should be obtained wherever feasible. The Bill does not inhibit any use of the research that the noble Lord described; indeed, it supports such research. Cell lines are excluded from the Bill—a point raised by him and a number of noble Lords—because it applies only to human cells coming directly from a human body. That does riot include bacteria or viruses.
My noble friend Lady Hayman made a number of points. However, her confession about some of the confidentiality breaches in her personal experience did not help her case; certainly it would suggest that we need to take very great care to ensure that tissue does not get into the wrong hands or is used without proper consent.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Hughes about securing improvements in organ donation. Despite those sympathies, however, I cannot accept that the Government will take the issue forward in this Bill. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, John Reid, made it clear in another place that the Government believe that it is not the role of Parliament to remove from individuals the right to exercise their own choice about donation, or to impose on individuals a requisition of their bodies after death.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, raised a number of issues. We recognise the need to maintain a link between samples and medical records and the Bi11 does not inhibit this. He referred to the UK BioBank, which is an important development with enormous potential. Samples for the BioBank are collected only with consent and its processes are highly consistent with what is proposed in the Bill.
I enjoyed greatly the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who raised the issue of criminal sanctions. Ultimately, there has to be some sanction in this area which inspires public confidence.
In conclusion, and after listening to the debate, I believe that we are still right that a fresh, coherent approach to the law in this area is needed if we are to give confidence to the public and to the professions. We will achieve this with the Bill as it deals comprehensively with the keeping and use of human tissue and organs, from the living and from those who have died. In the Government's view it does not jeopardise research; indeed, it strengthens the framework within which research can be conducted with confidence.

431
I shall study carefully in Hansard all the comments that have been made in the debate and consider the documents to which reference has been made. I hope to do so on a sun lounger. We shall need to scrutinise the Bill carefully in Committee but, when we do so, we must recognise that much of the detail referred to today will rightly appear only in regulations and codes; it should not, I suggest, be written onto the face of the Bill. In its urge to scrutinise, the House can sometimes slip a little over the line by trying to put excessive detail into the legislation itself. No doubt we will have many spirited debates on the issue, but I thought that I should lay out my position right at the beginning.
I believe that the Bill will bring renewed confidence in the contribution of medicine and science to society and in our own contributions to that endeavour.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Human Tissue Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 13,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 14 to 16,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 17 to 38,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 39 to 50,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 51 to 53,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 54 to 61,

Schedule 7,

Clause 62,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 63 to 66.—(Lord Warner.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes past five o'clock to Tuesday 7 September next, half-past two o'clock.

  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster Scots Culture
  Ulster Scots Culture
  Northern Ireland: Ministerial and Civil Service Flights
  Northern Ireland: Ministerial and Civil Service Flights
  Northern Ireland: A6
  Northern Ireland: A6
  Language Implementation Body
  Language Implementation Body
  Northern Ireland: Sports Funding
  Northern Ireland: Sports Funding
  Waterways Ireland
  Waterways Ireland
  Ards and Down Area Plan
  Ards and Down Area Plan
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Sick Absence
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Sick Absence
  Northern Ireland: School Funding
  Northern Ireland: School Funding
  North-South Ministerial Council
  North-South Ministerial Council
  Support Vehicle Project
  Support Vehicle Project
  Army Recruitment
  Army Recruitment
  Gulf War Veterans
  Gulf War Veterans
  Hazardous Waste Disposal: Government Operations
  Hazardous Waste Disposal: Government Operations
  Gulf War 1990–91: Destruction of Chemical Weapons
  Gulf War 1990–91: Destruction of Chemical Weapons
  HMS "Endurance"
  HMS "Endurance"
  MoD and Environmental Tectonics Corporation
  MoD and Environmental Tectonics Corporation
  Black Watch Regiment
  Black Watch Regiment
  Queen's Guards at Buckingham Palace
  Queen's Guards at Buckingham Palace
  Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 1
  Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 1
  UK Government Websites: Guidelines
  UK Government Websites: Guidelines
  Civil Servants: Numbers
  Civil Servants: Numbers
  Vehicle Operator and Services Agency: PG9
  Vehicle Operator and Services Agency: PG9
  Crossrail: Funding
  Crossrail: Funding
  Office of Rail Regulation and the Strategic Rail Authority: Business Appointment Rules
  Office of Rail Regulation and the Strategic Rail Authority: Business Appointment Rules
  A23: Fatal Accident Sites
  A23: Fatal Accident Sites
  Transport Direct: Website
  Transport Direct: Website
  Pension Schemes: New Entrants
  Pension Schemes: New Entrants
  Government Departments Relocation: Property Commitments
  Government Departments Relocation: Property Commitments
  Sports National Governing Bodies: Income from Sale of Media Rights
  Sports National Governing Bodies: Income from Sale of Media Rights
  Local Authorities: Sports Income
  Local Authorities: Sports Income
  Step into Sport Programme
  Step into Sport Programme
  Youth Sport Trust: Funding
  Youth Sport Trust: Funding
  UK Sport
  UK Sport
  Contracts for Difference
  Contracts for Difference
  Boundary Committee Local Government Reviews
  Boundary Committee Local Government Reviews
  Parental Leave
  Parental Leave
  London Development Agency: Funding
  London Development Agency: Funding
  Credit and Hire Agreements
  Credit and Hire Agreements
  Recreational Craft Regulations: Engine Life
  Recreational Craft Regulations: Engine Life
  European Space Agency: Aurora Programme
  European Space Agency: Aurora Programme
  Prison: Segregation
  Prison: Segregation
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  National Firearms Register
  National Firearms Register
  International Arrest Warrants
  International Arrest Warrants
  Sentencing and Imprisonment
  Sentencing and Imprisonment
  Alcohol: British Nationals and Islamic Law
  Alcohol: British Nationals and Islamic Law
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Upper Nile: Shilluk Area Ceasefire
  Upper Nile: Shilluk Area Ceasefire
  Sudan: Darfur
  Sudan: Darfur
  UN Culture of Peace
  UN Culture of Peace
  Anticoagulant Rodenticides
  Anticoagulant Rodenticides
  NHS: Blood Tests
  NHS: Blood Tests
  Obesity Among Children
  Obesity Among Children
  Rivers and Waterways: Recreational Activities
  Rivers and Waterways: Recreational Activities
  Waterways
  Waterways
  CAP: Sugar Regime
  CAP: Sugar Regime

  Southern Africa: Food Crisis
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Hilary Benn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  There continue to be significant humanitarian needs in southern Africa, but the widespread humanitarian crisis that began in 2001 has eased. The countries with the most acute needs are Lesotho, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. Since 2001, my department has provided humanitarian assistance totalling over 136 million dollars for the six countries covered by the UN consolidated appeals for southern Africa—Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland.

  Total availability of the cereals harvest in the region, including South Africa, is forecast to be around 22.7 million metric tonnes this year. This is around the same level as the past five-year average for the region. Late rains and increased plantings have helped to increase production levels in Mozambique and Zambia in particular, while output in South Africa is slightly down on last year. Zambia has overtaken South Africa as the biggest regional source of grains for WFP programmes in southern Africa this year. However, production in Malawi, Lesotho and Swaziland has declined compared to last year. And throughout the region, many poor people are unable to secure enough food regardless of the national or regional production level.

  The UN has recently released the latest crop and food supply assessments for Angola, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique and Swaziland. The biggest shortfall is again expected to be in Zimbabwe. The Government of Zimbabwe's refusal to allow the UN to complete its assessment in the country makes it difficult to quantify food aid needs, but the Government's forecasts of a bumper harvest are not taken seriously by the main agencies working there. The cereal shortfall after domestic production in Zimbabwe is likely to be in the region of around 600,000 to 1 million metric tonnes. Despite claims to the contrary, the Zimbabwe Government are expected to import cereals to cover this shortfall although it is difficult to say how much of the gap they will be able to cover. Pockets of extreme vulnerability are likely to remain beyond the period of the UN consolidated appeal (which ends in December), particularly among socially marginalized groups.

  DfID is discussing humanitarian needs with the UN in order to prepare for periods of greater need over the next 10 months. We will respond to further funding appeals in close co-ordination with the vulnerability assessment committees operating in the region.
  WS 36
  Zimbabwe

  DfID has spent £67 million on humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe since September 2001. DfID's support for humanitarian relief will be funded through a protracted relief programme worth £18 million over the next two years. This will work with NGOs to provide support to approximately 1.5 million of the poorest households in the country, particularly those affected by HIV/AIDS. The programme will provide targeted food aid, low-cost agricultural inputs and rehabilitation of water points support to stop people falling into acute distress.

  Zambia

  Although Zambia is expecting a good cereal harvest this year, Zambians remain vulnerable due to risks associated with access to food, HIV/AIDS and adverse economic conditions, factors that are common throughout the region. DfID recently began a £10 million programme supporting CARE International to help some of the most destitute and poorest groups in Zambia to manage these risks more effectively and is supporting the Government's efforts to establish a vulnerability monitoring system in the country.

  Mozambique

  In Mozambique, DfID's poverty reduction budget support programme has allowed the Government of Mozambique to steadily improve their disaster management capacity and end the previous pattern of annual emergencies. We continue to support targeted food aid and nutritional supplementation programmes as well as seed and input fairs in Mozambique, a method that gives farmers their choice of appropriate agriculture inputs while supporting the private sector and local economies.

  Malawi

  In Malawi, we are working with the UN to support school feeding programmes to feed over 100,000 pupils in five districts. In addition, through the Malawi Social Action Fund, DfID will provide £4.95 million to vulnerable people through a cash-for-work programme from which 100,000 households are expected to benefit.

  Swaziland and Lesotho

  In Swaziland and Lesotho, we continue to support targeted food aid programmes through the World Food Programme and supplemented by support for seed fairs with FAO. We are also supporting nutritional monitoring work in Lesotho. We are spending £2 million in Lesotho to support the Government's food security priorities as part of the poverty reduction strategy process. This will include the establishment of a national food security policy, which will be aimed at sustaining and promoting livelihoods.

  Longer-Term Response

  In response to the International Development Select Committee's report of March 2003, DfID is working with governments, the UN and the NGO community to improve our of understanding and response to the problem of food insecurity in southern Africa. We have produced a regional hunger and vulnerability strategy which outlines the regional dimensions of food security in

  WS 37
  the region and forms the basis of a regional programme of support, which is currently being designed.

  We are also working with the regional UN office in Johannesburg to encourage better joint programming among UN agencies and NGO partners in the region. And we are supporting the vulnerability assessment committees in Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe so that they can better track vulnerability trends and allow countries and the international community to respond more effectively.

  Ghana
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Hilary Benn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Ghana successfully reached completion point under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative (HIPC) on 13 July 2004, becoming the 14th country to do so.

  Under the arrangements agreed when Ghana applied for HIPC status, Ghana will have its debt reduced in net present value terms by 2.2 billion dollars. In addition, many bilateral creditors have indicated their intention to provide additional relief beyond the enhanced HIPC initiative (estimated to total about 500 million dollars in NPV terms). Between 2004 and 2013, Ghana could save approximately 230 million dollars annually in debt service costs.

  Debt relief, together with bilateral assistance beyond HIPC relief, will lower Ghana's debt-to-export ratio to 84 per cent, and its debt-to-government revenue ratio to 130 per cent in 2004. It is estimated that Ghana's debt will remain sustainable (by HIPC definitions) for a wide range of scenarios covering the next 20 years.

  Ghana applied for HIPC status in 2001 with the strong encouragement of the UK, and in particular of my right honourable friend the Member for Ladywood, then Secretary of State for International Development. Since then the Government of Ghana have begun to implement their poverty reduction strategy, maintained sound macroeconomic management, and undertaken some important structural reforms as agreed at decision point.

  Completion point is good news for Ghana and an opportunity to move further and faster with its poverty reduction programmes.

  Ministerial Gifts
  Baroness Amos
  The Prime Minister has today published a list of gifts received by Ministers. The list provides details of gifts received by Ministers valued at more than £140 for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. Copies of the list have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Ministerial Travel
  Baroness Amos
  Expenditure on ministerial overseas visits for 1996–97 to 2003–04 is estimated as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure £million

  1996–97

  7.9

  1997–981

  6.4

  1998–99

  4.9

  1999–2000

  4.6

  2000–01

  4.7

  2001–02

  5.6

  2002–03

  5.7

  2003–042

  5.2

  1May 1997 to 31 March 1998

  2The figure for 2003–04 reflects payments made so far for travel undertaken in the period; a few bills have yet to be submitted to departments for payment.

  A list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The list provides details of the date, destination, purpose and costs of individual visits made by the Cabinet Ministers.

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments: Annual Report
  Baroness Amos
  The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments has submitted its sixth report to the Prime Minister. The report provides an account of the work of the committee in advising the Prime Minister on business appointment applications from Crown servants on the acceptance of outside appointments after leaving government. The report covers the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2004. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Prime Minister is very grateful to all the committee members for giving their time so freely to it.

  In addition, the Prime Minister has asked Sir Patrick Brown to undertake a review of the business appointment rules taking account of the work already done by the committee and referred to in its report. The rules were last reviewed in 1996. Since then there has been a greater emphasis on interchange with the private and other sectors. The review will have the following terms of reference:

  To review the business appointment rules to ensure that they are compatible with a public service that is keen to encourage greater interchange with the private and other sectors, which is essential for effective delivery in today's public service. The review will consider the operation of the system, taking account of practice overseas. It will also consider the current machinery for dealing with applications and the necessary resources.

  Interception of Communications Commissioner and Intelligence Services Commissioner: Annual Reports 2003–04
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have today laid before both Houses the annual reports for 2003 of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the right honourable Sir Swinton Thomas and the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right honourable Lord Justice Simon Brown. Some sensitive information has been excluded from the reports of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner in accordance with Sections 58(7) and 60(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

  Advisers in post:

  Appointing Minister

  Special Adviser in post

  Expertise

  The Prime Minister1

  Jonathan Powell

  Chief of State

  Sally Morgan

  Government relations

  Policy Directorate

  Andrew Adonis

  Education

  Arnab Banerjee

  Economics

  Patrick Diamond

  Education and cross-cutting policy issues

  Matthew Elson

  Transport

  Julian Le Grand

  Health

  Roger Liddle

  Europe

  Alasdair McGowan

  Devolution, local and regional government

  John McTernan

  Social exclusion

  Geoffrey Norris

  Industry and business

  Carey Oppenheim

  Children and families

  Nicholas Rowley

  Environment

  Justin Russell

  Home and Legal Affairs

  Matthew Taylor

  Acting Head of the Policy Directorate

  Communications

  David Hill

  Hilary Coffman

  Darren Murphy

  Diary Management

  Katie Kay

  Events and visits

  Jo Gibbons

  Angela Goodchild (p/t)

  Implementation Group

  Kate Garvey

  Sarah Hunter

  Liz Lloyd

  Media Monitoring Unit

  Chris McShane

  Research and Information Unit

  Joanna Nadin

  Catherine Rimmer

  Strategic Communications Unit

  David Bradshaw

  Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State

  Joan Hammell

  Ian McKenzie

  Paul Hacket (p/t)

  Chief Whip (Commons)

  Sue Jackson

  Fiona Gordon

  Chief Whip (Lords)

  Margaret Ounsley

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Bill Bush

  Nick Bent

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Michael Dugher

  James Connal

  WS 40
  I am grateful to the commissioners for their reports and the work that has gone into preparing them.

  Special Advisers
  Baroness Amos
  Listed below are the names of special advisers in post at 19 July 2004, the special advisers' pay ranges for 2004–05, the number of special advisers in each pay band by department and the total cost of special advisers for 2003–04.

  All special advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers providing advice on the full range of their appointing Minister's departmental responsibilities. Where a special adviser has a specific expertise this is indicated.
  WS 41

  Appointing Minister

  Special Adviser in post

  Expertise

  Secretary of State for Education and Skills

  Robert Hill

  Lisa Tremble

  Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Nicci Collins

  Stephen Hale

  Hazel Phillips

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Ed Owen

  Communications and the EU

  Michael Williams

  UN; human rights; Asia, Africa and the Balkans

  Secretary of State for Health

  Richard Olszewski

  Steve Bates

  Paul Corrigan

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Matt Cavanagh

  Katharine Raymond

  Huw Evans

  Sophie Linden (p/t)

  Leader of the House of Lords, and the Lord

  Matthew Seward2

  President of the Council

  Mark Davies

  Communications

  Joe Dancey (p/t)

  Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor

  Garry Hart

  Philip Bassett

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Alex Evans

  Beatrice Stern

  Communications

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Owen Smith

  Adam Higgett

  Leader of the House of Commons, Lord

  Greg Power

  Parliamentary procedure

  Privy Seal and Secretary of State for Wales

  Phil Taylor

  Parliamentary procedure

  Andrew Bold

  Welsh affairs

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Jim Godfrey

  Communications

  Roger Sharp

  Deborah Lincoln

  Women and equality

  Emily Thomas (unpaid)

  Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland

  Andrew Maugham

  Sam White

  Iain Gray

  Scottish affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer3,4

  Ian Austin

  Communications

  Spencer Livermore

  Chief Secretary

  Nicola Murphy

  Jonathan Ashworth

  Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

  Chris Norton

  Tom Clark

  Minister without Portfolio

  Martin O'Donovan

  Blair McDougall

  Pay bands for 2004–05

  The pay bands and pay ranges for special advisers for 2004–05 are as follows:

  Scheme Maximum

  £133,628

  Pay Band 4

  £80,178 to £96,213

  Pay Band 3 and Premium

  £59,867 to £93,005

  Departments

  Pay Band

  0

  1

  2

  3

  4

  No105

  1

  5

  5

  13

  2

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Chief Whips' Offices (Commons and Lords)

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Constitutional Affairs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Culture, Media and Sport

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Defence

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Education and Skills

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Health

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Home Office

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  WS 42

  Pay Band 2

  £47,038 to £61,785

  Pay Band 1

  £36,348 to £48,456

  Pay Band 0

  Up to £36,347

  Advisers by Pay Band

  At 19 July 2004, the number of special advisers in each pay band by department is as follows:
  WS 43

  Departments

  Pay Band

  0

  1

  2

  3

  4

  International Development

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

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

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

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

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Office

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Trade and Industry6

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  HM Treasury7

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Transport

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Work and Pensions

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Minister without Portfolio

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  23

  26

  22

  4

  Paybill costs

  The cost of special advisers in 2003–04 is £5.3 million8.

  1Plus Lord Birt, who is appointed as the Prime Minister's unpaid strategy adviser.

  2In addition, Matthew Seward also works part-time for the Home Secretary.

  3In addition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed Ed Miliband (Chairman), Paul Gregg, Shriti Vadera, Michael Jacobs and Stewart Wood to the Council of Economic Advisers on special adviser terms.

  4Plus Sue Nye appointed as an unpaid adviser.

  5Plus two special advisers who are paid beyond pay band 4, but within the scheme maximum.

  6Plus one adviser who is unpaid.

  7Plus the five members of the Council of Economic Advisers who are employed on special adviser terms (one in band 4, three in band 3 and one in band 1). One of the members of the council works part-time.

  8This figure includes salary, severance pay and an estimate of pensions cost.

  Human Rights: International Instruments
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
  The interdepartmental review of international human rights instruments announced on 7 March 2002 by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg has been concluded.

  In the course of the review, the Government have ratified the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture; signed and ratified Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights; ratified the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, relating to children in armed conflict; and extended the European Convention on Human Rights to the Cyprus Sovereign Base Area. We have decided to accept the optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, which will help us to assess the effects of individual petition to the UN generally. By accepting the protocol we are also confirming the United Kingdom's commitment to women and equality issues, spearheaded by the Minister for Women, Patricia Hewitt. We will also sign Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights; ratify Chapters A and B of the Convention on Participation of Foreigners in Public Life; withdraw the general reservation relating to immigration entered under the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women; and modify the reservation relating to the Throne and the Armed Forces entered under the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. Finally we will dispense with a group of reservations now obsolete.
  WS 44
  I have placed in the Library a fuller report of the review.

  Infant Death Convictions
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)
  I announced in January a review of cases of parents and carers convicted of killing an infant under the age of two in the past 10 years.

  This followed the Court of Appeal's decision to quash the conviction of Angela Cannings. The court's judgment questioned the safety of convictions depending exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a serious disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts.

  In May, I announced that my office had notified the legal representatives of five defendants that it may be appropriate for the safety of their clients' convictions to be considered further by the Court of Appeal or, if appropriate, the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Since that time, as part of the process of ongoing review, my office has written in similar terms to the legal representatives of 19 further defendants.

  The fact that a case has been referred to legal representatives of the convicted person does not amount to a positive determination that their conviction is unsafe. Should any appeals result from this review, it will be for the Crown Prosecution Service to independently decide whether to contest the appeal.

  I aim to complete the review in September, when I will report fully to the House. The review is continuing to be accorded the highest priority, to bring to an end this period of uncertainty for all those involved.

  Strategic Export Control Decisions
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  Enhanced statistical information on strategic export licensing will, from July 2004, be released on a quarterly basis, instead of once a year through the annual report on strategic export controls, as at present. The first quarterly report on strategic export controls will be published on the Department of Trade and Industry and Foreign and Commonwealth Office websites (www.dti.gov.uk and www.fco.gov.uk) on 28 July. This report will contain information on export licensing decisions taken from January to March 2004.

  From now on, statistical data will be published on the FCO and DTI websites three months after the last decision in any given quarter. Until now, decisions taken in one calendar year have been reported in the annual report on strategic export controls in the middle of the following year. Information on the earliest licensing decisions reported in the annual report was not therefore made available until some 18 months later.

  From 2004, the annual report, which the Government have a statutory obligation to produce, will summarise information already provided in quarterly reports, as well as describing export control policy developments. It will be produced in hard and electronic copy. The hard copy will include a CD-ROM containing all of the licensing data published in the quarterly reports for that year. The Government intend to publish the next quarterly report, relating to decisions taken between April and June 2004, in October.

  The introduction of quarterly reports reflects the Government's commitment to further improve the openness of their strategic export licensing system, which is already acknowledged to be among the most transparent in the world.

  The Government's most recent strategic export controls annual report was published on 7 June.

  Iraq: Export Licence Applications
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a further licence to export military list goods to Iraq. The arms embargo against Iraq remains in place under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1483 (22 May 2003) and 1546 (8 June 2004). UNSCR 1483 (2003) includes an exception for "arms and related materiel required by the [Coalition Provisional] Authority to serve the purposes of this and other related resolutions".

  Accordingly, prior to the handover of power on 28 June and the Coalition Provisional Authority ceasing to exist, Her Majesty's Government considered it appropriate to grant exemptions for the export of military listed goods for use by Iraqi police forces, Ministry of Justice personnel, Ministry of Oil security
  WS 46
  personnel and Iraqi security forces. The licence is consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. Future applications will continue to be assessed on a case by case basis against the UN embargo and consolidated criteria, taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time.

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a licence to export military list goods to Iraq. The arms embargo against Iraq remains in place under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1483 (22 May 2003) and 1546 (8 June 2004). UNSCR 1483 (2003) includes an exception for "arms and related materiel required by the [Coalition Provisional] Authority to serve the purposes of this and other related resolutions".

  Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government consider it appropriate to grant a licence for the export of assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols for use by a private security company, contracted to provide support for personnel working under contract with the Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) certified the requirement for these weapons prior to the CPA ceasing to exist on 28 June. The licence is consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. Future applications will continue to be assessed on a case by case basis against the UN embargo and consolidated criteria, taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time.

  Berezovsky and Zakayev
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  Russian citizens Boris Abramovich Berezovsky and Akhmed Iliasovich Zakayev were granted asylum in the UK last year, as is public knowledge.

  The grant of asylum to these two persons was made after due assessment by the relevant authorities of their cases and of the UK's obligations under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees and domestic law. They did not enter the UK at the invitation of Her Majesty's Government. A grant of asylum does not imply support from the UK Government for an individual's views, activities or statements.

  We take very seriously the requirement for any person granted asylum in the UK to comply with the conditions of the UN convention under which refugees are recognised, and with the provisions of UK law. Recipients of asylum receive cautions not to take part in criminal activities, or activities such as support for or encouragement of terrorist organisations, or activities endangering national security or public order. Where individuals granted asylum breach these conditions we would not hesitate to take action against them and have strengthened the law to enable us to do so more effectively.

  British Council Trustees: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  Copies of the British Council Trustees' annual report and accounts for the financial year ended 31 March 2004 have been placed in the Library of the House. During the period the Council received £165.5 million grant in aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Pre-trial Cross-examination: Visual Recordings
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  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 which 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 are 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.

  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 which 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.
  WS 48
  The report recommends that Section 28 of the 1999 Act, which 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 which 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 which 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 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 though 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.

  Charity Commission: Departmental Report 2004
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  I am today announcing that the Charity Commission will be publishing its departmental report for 2004 on 23 July. Copies of that report will be available in the Library.

  Planning Policy Statements
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to publish in August new planning policy statements on both sustainable development in rural areas and renewable energy in England. These will be the first in a new series of planning policy statements that are being introduced as part of the Government's programme of reform to the planning system. The new planning policy statement 7 (PPS7) will replace existing planning policy guidance note 7 (PPG7), The Countryside—Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development, published in February 1997. The new planning policy statement 22 (PPS22) will replace existing planning policy guidance note 22 (PPG22): Renewable Energy, published in February 1993.

  A draft of PPS7 was issued for public consultation in September 2003. The key policy aims of PPS7 are to plan for and facilitate good quality, sustainable development to support thriving rural communities and businesses, while protecting the beauty and character of the countryside.

  A draft of PPS22 was issued for consultation in November 2003. The final document will be an important step towards facilitating the delivery of more renewable energy developments and thereby meeting this Government's commitments in respect of global warming and climate change.

  Local planning authorities will need to have regard to the policies in PPS7 and PPS22 in preparing their local development documents, as should regional planning bodies in the preparation of regional spatial strategies. The policies may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications.

  Copies of both PPS7 and PPS22 will be made available in the Libraries of the House following publication. They will also be made available on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Copies of the responses to the consultation exercises will be made available for inspection through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's library and lists of those responses will also be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Lord Rooker
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to publish in August planning policy statements detailing the process by which Parts 1 and 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 are to be implemented. Planning policy statement 11 (PPS 11) sets out the implementation process of Part 1—Regional Functions—and replaces planning policy guidance 11—Regional Planning—published in October 2000. Planning policy statement 12 (PPS 12) sets out the implementation process of Part 2, Local Development, and replaces planning policy guidance 12, Development Plans, published in December 1999. These planning policy
  WS 50
  statements are integral to the Government's programme of reforming the planning system.

  A draft of PPS 11 was issued for public consultation in October 2003. PPS 11 provides government guidance on the new arrangements for regional planning. The new procedural arrangements will better deliver policy at the regional level by giving more weight to what is currently regional planning guidance by replacing it with a statutory regional spatial strategy (RSS). The new local development documents will have to be in general conformity with this RSS, and the RSS will be made part of the development plan.

  A draft of PPS 12 was issued for public consultation in October 2003. PPS 12 provides government guidance on the new arrangements for the preparation of local development documents, which will comprise the local development framework. The local development framework is largely a portfolio of local development documents which collectively deliver the spatial planning strategy for the local planning authority's area. Local development frameworks are intended to streamline the local planning process and promote a proactive and positive approach to managing development.

  Copies of both PPS 11 and PPS 12 will be made available in the Libraries of the House following publication. They will also be made available on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Copies of the responses to the consultation exercises will be made available for inspection through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's library and lists of those responses will also be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Primary Care Dental Workforce Review
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  The Secretary of State's Written Ministerial Statement on 16 July set out the Government's plans for rebuilding National Health Service dentistry, ensuring better access to NHS dental care and improving oral health in England. The plans included a significant increase in funding and a substantial programme of action to increase dental workforce capacity. These improvements will be made against the background of the move to local commissioning in October 2005.

  The views of a wide range of organisations were helpful to us in drawing up our proposals. For example the British Dental Association and representatives from the NHS and higher education were among those who contributed to the report of the primary care dental workforce review which was completed in 2002. Although time has moved on, the report is important contextual information about the perceived needs as seen in 2002. The report assisted our thinking as we developed the comprehensive plans announced last week. We are therefore publishing the report today. It is available on the department's website at www.dh.gov.uk/publications. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Bennett Inquiry
  Lord Warner
  My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  This Statement follows publication of the independent inquiry into the death of David (Rocky) Bennett, and my Written Statement on 12 February at col. 77WS, which set out the action being taken to deliver race equality in mental health services, and respond to the recommendations of the inquiry.

  I wish to inform the House that, further to the reply given to the honourable Member for Gloucester (Mr Dhanda) by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health (Dr John Reid) on 8 June at col. 138, our response to the inquiry will not be available in July, but will be provided later this year.

  I want to reassure the House that this delay is because we want to ensure that our response to the inquiry report recommendations can be set alongside our wider programme of action to improve mental health care for black and minority ethnic communities. This will be published in the autumn, following our consultation on the framework in the report, Delivering Race Equality. We need more time to consider the significant issues raised during our consultation on this document. We also want to ensure that we properly address the recommendations of the inquiry report.

  In the mean time we must ensure that NHS staff have the skills they need to provide services, without discrimination, for people from black and minority ethnic communities. I am pleased to inform the House that the NHSU will be giving priority to developing and delivering this training for NHS staff, starting with staff in mental health settings.

  Further information about progress on the national work we have started and to which I referred in my Statement of 12 February is now availablel. This includes information about the programme of work led by the National Institute for Mental Health to support the development of effective services for people with mental health problems from black and ethnic minority communities; and guidance on best practice to support the safe and therapeutic management of aggression and violence in mental health inpatient settings.

  1Details of the NIMH(E) programme, including key publications, can be found at: http://www.nimhe.org.uk/priorities/black.asp. NIMHE's guidance Developing Positive Practice to Support the Safe and Therapeutic Management of Aggression and Violence in Mental Health Inpatient Settings: Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide has been developed to support mental health service providers and enable them to review their current policies and procedures relating to education, training and practice in the safe and therapeutic management of aggression and violence. It can be found at: http://www.nimhe.ore.uk/whatshapp/item display publications.asp?id = 441
  WS 52
  I would like to draw particular attention to the publication yesterday of our health and social care standards and planning framework. It sets out the local action needed to commission services for the public to take forward the NHS Improvement Plan through effective partnership working. It sets out the national framework for PCTs and their partner organisations to take account of different needs and inequalities in their local populations. It commits us to providing national data year on year on the experience of service users from black and minority ethnic communities. It sets out how PCTs should support access to assessment, treatment and care for all those at risk, paying particular attention to the needs of those from black and minority ethnic communities and other groups that may be hard to reach.

  I would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate my view that there is no place for racism or discrimination in the NHS. Discrimination, both direct and indirect, does exist. It is unacceptable; it contradicts the basic value of equity that is the cornerstone of the health service. We are committed to rooting out racism, tackling the inequalities that exist, and ensuring that the experience of people from black and minority ethnic communities is improved.

  NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service: Annual Report and Accounts
  Lord Warner
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  The annual report and accounts and any accompanying Comptroller and Auditor General report for the Counter Fraud and Security Management Service 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.

  Blood Donation and vCJD
  Lord Warner
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  My Statement on 17 December 2003 informed the House of the first case of possible transmission of vCJD via blood transfusion and the actions taken as a result of this case to protect future blood supplies. I promised then to provide updates on any major changes.

  My Statement of 16 March 2004 indicated that the Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissue for Transplantation (MSBT) had met at my request to consider whether further measures were needed. The recommendations were to exclude from donating blood anyone who had previously received transfusions of whole blood components since January 1980. These measures were introduced with effect from 5 April 2004.

  MSBT met again on 29 June to review experience of these measures. The committee recommended tightening the exclusion criteria for two groups who have similarly received transfusions of whole blood components since

  WS 53
  January 1980: previously transfused apheresis donors; and donors who were unsure if they had previously had a blood transfusion.

  Apheresis donors are a small pool of committed donors who make frequent attendances to donate blood, where machine processing removes only certain blood components and the rest is returned to the donor.

  When actions were taken in April 2004 to exclude certain donors, neither of these groups was excluded until any potential impact on the blood supply became clearer.

  In the light of experience since the exclusions came into effect, MSBT has now advised that these groups can be excluded without adverse impact on the blood supply. These new exclusions will take effect from 2 August.

  In a separate development, a second case of possible vCJD prion transmission via blood transfusion has now been confirmed. A patient in the UK received a transfusion of blood in 1999 from a donor who subsequently developed vCJD. Though the patient died of causes unrelated to vCJD, abnormal prion protein has been found in spleen tissue. This patient had a genetic type that differs from that so far found in patients who have developed vCJD.

  I understand that a detailed account of the case will be appearing soon in the medical journal the Lancet. This new finding was referred to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) and MSBT for expert advice. SEAC agreed that this second patient with apparent vCJD infection added to the evidence that the vCJD agent can be transmitted by blood. MSBT concurred with this view, and has advised that no additional public health measures are required to protect the blood supply. This confirms the precautionary approach set out in my Statement of 17 December.

  NHS: Reducing Bureaucracy
  Lord Warner
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  On 20 May at col. 61 WS, I announced the completion of the initial stage of the review of my department's arm's length bodies (ALBs). I made it clear then that there is considerable scope to improve efficiency and reduce bureaucracy in the ALB sector and I laid down the following parameters for the review:

  a 50 per cent reduction in the number of ALBs;

  a saving in expenditure by ALBs of £0.5 billion by 2007–08; and

  a reduction in posts of 25 per cent in the same period.

  The next stage of the review has now been completed and decisions taken on a reconfiguration of the ALB sector and its functions. Some of these functions provide reassurance to patients about standards in an increasingly devolved health and social care system. Others provide functions that can literally be life
  WS 54
  saving. The reconfiguration will enhance these essential functions while eliminating overlaps and devolving functions where possible. It will not put the safety and welfare of patients in jeopardy. The changes are summarised below and explained in a report, Reconfiguring the Department of Health's Arm's Length Bodies, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  I want now to move to detailed discussions with all interested parties about how to implement these changes. Some changes will require primary or secondary legislation and the parliamentary scrutiny that goes with that. Some statutory consultation will be required on specific changes.

  Last week, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's overall plans for releasing resources to the front line. The ALB review contributes to those plans. It will also lift the burden that the central overhead can place on frontline staff. The way in which we achieve the ALB reductions will be linked to the analysis undertaken for the Gershon efficiency review. The changes I will be making reflect the Prime Minister's wider Civil Service reform agenda and will also deliver the expectations of the Lyons review on public sector relocation.

  The ALB review covered the work of standalone national organisations sponsored by the department to undertake executive functions. Thirty eight of these existed in the baseline year of 2003–04, although the review also looked at four prospective ALBs. A list of the bodies can be found in the report. The decisions I have taken so far will reduce the number of ALBs by almost half to 20, in the following four main categories.

  Regulation

  ALBs in this category regulate, inspect and hold specific parts of the system to account. They often have their own primary powers and extra independence from direction by the Secretary of State.

  The Healthcare Commission (whose statutory name is the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection), the Independent Regulator of National Health Service Foundation Trusts and the Commission for Social Care Inspection will continue to regulate providers and their services. The Healthcare Commission will take on the main role of the Mental Health Act Commission, which will be abolished.

  A new Regulatory Authority for Fertility and Tissue will be created to encompass the work of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority.

  The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals will continue to oversee the statutory health professional self-regulatory bodies and the General Social Care Council will continue to regulate social care workers. The Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board will take on the role of the Dental Vocational Training Authority, which will be abolished.

  The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency will continue to regulate medicines and healthcare products.
  WS 55
  Standards

  ALBs in this category establish national standards and best practice.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) will take on the work of the Health Development Agency (HDA) in order to link standards work on both the prevention and treatment of ill health. The HDA will be abolished.

  Public welfare

  ALBs in this category are focused primarily on the safety, protection, well-being and involvement of patients and public.

  The National Clinical Assessment Authority (NCAA) will be brought into the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) which will also support high-quality, independent ethical review of all research that could affect patients. The NPSA will take on the lead national perspective on hospital food, cleanliness and safe hospital design. NPSA will also take over responsibility for the national confidential inquiries from NICE.

  The Health Protection Agency (HPA) has taken on functions from the Public Health Laboratory Service and will take on the role of the National Radiological Protection Board under the Health Protection Agency Act 2004. The PHLS and the NRPB are to be abolished. The National Biological Standards Board will also be abolished and its functions taken on by others, primarily the HPA.

  The regional functions and staff of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse will be transferred to existing mainstream structures as soon as possible. A further announcement on this will be made shortly. Centrally the NTA will continue in existence until we are confident that a detailed programme of mainstreaming drug treatment within the NHS is successfully in place. A review of progress will take place in 2006 to agree any further action needed to ensure drug treatment is fully mainstreamed into the NHS including agreeing the future of the NTA's national functions.

  The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will be abolished. Patients forums will remain the cornerstone of the arrangements we have put in place to create opportunities for patients and the public to influence health services. Stronger, more efficient arrangements to provide administrative support and advice to forums will be put in place after consultation. The NHS Appointments Commission will appoint forum members. A clearer quality framework for forum activities in monitoring and reviewing health services will be established and communicated to forums as quickly as possible.

  Central services to the NHS

  These ALBs provide services involving economies of scale and focused expertise.

  A new Blood and Transplant Authority will be created to encompass the services provided by the National Blood Authority and UK Transplant, which will be abolished.
  WS 56
  The NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) will be reconstituted to oversee the proposed NHS redress scheme and manage the financial compensation element at national level. Further details on how the scheme will operate will be published later this year, and implementation will require primary legislation. The NHSLA will also take on the functions of the Family Health Services Appeal Authority (Special Health Authority) which will be abolished.

  The NHS Appointments Commission will be reconstituted as an executive non-departmental public body with wider powers to make public appointments. It will also make appointments to patients forums and to research ethics committees.

  The NHSU is subject to a more detailed study, within the overall ALB review process, which will be completed shortly. The NHS Modernisation Agency will have most of its budget and staff devolved to the NHS, with a smaller core remaining within the department for the present.

  A new Health and Social Care Information Centre will be created to reduce burdens on the front line by co-ordinating information requirements across a wide range of bodies. The new centre will retain some of the information-related functions of the current NHS Information Authority and will take on the statistics and information management functions of the department. The NHSIA will be abolished. To build on the progress and momentum achieved to date, and reflect its sheer scale, the national programme for information technology will become a time-limited executive agency for three to five years and will incorporate the IT functions of the NHSIA.

  A new NHS Business Services Authority will be created to replace the NHS Pensions Agency, the Dental Practice Board, the Prescription Pricing Authority and the NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Authority, all of which will be abolished.

  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency will be reformed. The role of the NHS Logistics Authority will be market-tested. It is anticipated that the function will be contracted out and that the NHS Logistics Authority will be abolished.

  A dental special health authority will no longer be created.

  NHS Direct and NHS Professionals will retain their ALB status for two to three years. In the mean time, we will work with both organisations to consider how they may prepare to transfer to independent status as bodies established on foundation principles to operate in the public interest.

  A small core estates team will be brought into the department and NHS Estates abolished.

  Releasing resources to the front line

  In 2003–04, ALBs spent a total of £4.8 billion, including operating costs of £1.8 billion, and employed around 25,000 staff.

  The principles outlined in Sir Peter Gershon's efficiency review will be applied to the ALB sector to generate more than £200 million in cash-releasing savings for the front line, for example by sharing back

  WS 57
  office services and by carrying out activities more efficiently. No ALB will be exempt from the need to improve efficiency. In addition, £150 million to £200 million will be released to front-line control by devolving functions from ALBs. The scope for achieving full cost recovery for regulation will be investigated and taken forward.

  The department's commercial directorate is scrutinising the business processes and procurement activities of many of the central services ALBs to establish the full scope of the efficiencies to be made, especially in relation to the money (about £3 billion) that is spent by ALBs on behalf of front-line organisations on NHS supplies, temporary staff and litigation services. The commercial directorate's work on the NHS supply chain is already well advanced, suggesting savings of approximately £150 million to £200 million in the period to the end of 2007–08.

  We are confident that expenditure on ALBs can be reduced by at least £0.5 billion by 2007–08. Savings of this magnitude will be associated with a reduction in the number of posts in the ALB sector of about 25 per cent.

  The ALB review will now move to implementation. Over the next three to four months my officials will work closely with the devolved administrations, ALBs, staff interests and other stakeholders to draw up implementation plans and to resolve outstanding issues on allocation of functions. These plans will include decision points on new ALB functions and processes, staffing levels, budgets, location and time scales for transfer. A small team in the department will oversee this process. These arrangements will ensure delivery of the saving of £0.5 billion by 2007–08 and the reduction of posts within ALBs.

  S4C: Independent Review
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell) has made the following Statement.

  On 3 March this year, I announced the appointment of Roger Laughton, Head of Bournemouth University Media School, assisted by Meurig Royles as Welsh language assessor, to carry out an independent review of S4C.

  I am today publishing Mr Laughton's report of his review and copies have been deposited in the House Libraries. I welcome this very thorough analysis of S4C's current position and the challenges facing the authority in the digital age. The report's conclusions and recommendations raise a number of issues relating to the Government's digital action plan, BBC Charter review and Ofcom's review of public service broadcasting, which will need to be addressed in the context of those initiatives. My department will liaise with the authority and with other interested organisations to consider Mr Laughton's recommendations in detail and I will notify the House of the resulting conclusions in due course.

  Digital Switchover
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  In my statement of 19 May I said that I would report further stages in establishing the plan for switchover. I am pleased to say that much progress has been made in the discussions between the Government, Ofcom and the public service broadcasters.

  While the broadcasters have not reached a full consensus on the optimum timetable, some—including the BBC—have suggested that 2012 may be the most appropriate date for the completion of switchover. This could mean beginning the switching sequence as early as 2007. This would be subject to agreement on a detailed plan, including resolution of the remaining issues raised in the discussions. Ofcom plans to include reference to this timetable in the draft digital licences for Channels 3, 4, 5 and Teletext which they expect to publish for consultation later this summer.

  We continue to believe that an ordered process leading to the earliest practicable switchover remains desirable given the advantages to consumers, the broadcasting industry and future growth of innovative new services. We believe that switchover should be broadcaster-led but that the final decision on timetable should balance these benefits against the need to ensure that the interests of the most vulnerable consumers are protected. I have therefore asked Ofcom's independent consumer panel to consider what measures might be necessary to ensure this protection and to report to me later this year with their advice. We will also take advice from leading charities. The Government's final endorsement of a timetable will be subject to being satisfied that adequate measures are in place to meet this objective.

  The BBC, in its 29 June publication Building Public Value, proposed that 2012 should be the target date for switchover. The BBC made clear its willingness to be a "leader and co-ordinator across the industry" and to "take a special responsibility for bringing the final cohorts into the digital television universe". I have asked the BBC how it proposes to take this forward.

  The Government remain committed to ensuring that switchover is planned and implemented in a way which is platform and broadcaster neutral. Consumers must have clear, unbiased information about what is available on each platform and from each provider so that they can make an informed choice. In particular, people who buy television equipment now should know that switchover will take place during the expected lifetime of television sets bought today. We are therefore engaged with retailers and manufacturers—who also need to plan ahead—to see that good clear information is given to consumers currently planning to buy a television or an item of recording equipment. We expect this information to spread through retail outlets from September, identified by the switchover logo.
  WS 59
  As an early step towards switchover, we are proceeding with a technical trial in two villages—Ferryside and Llansteffan—in south Wales. The residents have responded overwhelmingly in favour of taking part in this trial. If, as we expect, this switchover trial is successful, this community will be the first in the UK to go fully digital next spring.

  We expect further progress on these matters in the coming months and I will report to the House on material developments as they occur.

  Civil Legal Aid
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
  My honourable friend David Lammy, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement in the other place today.

  With the agreement of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the Legal Services Commission (LSC) has today published a consultation paper entitled A new focus for civil legal aid—encouraging early resolution; discouraging unnecessary litigation.

  The main theme of the paper is to refocus the civil legal aid scheme away from contested litigation and to encourage early resolution of disputes. With a limited budget, we need to ensure that legal aid funding is targeted on the most needy cases and in the priority areas. The proposed changes are also required to update the LSC's funding code in the light of new initiatives, for example, changes in handling clinical negligence cases and the new Independent Police Complaints Commission. The changes to family legal aid complement the proposals announced in our Green Paper entitled Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities.

  The main proposals are as follows:

  to restructure the levels of service for private law family cases to encourage the early and amicable resolution of family disputes wherever possible. A new level of service called Family Help will replace the existing three services, and will build upon the work already done through the FAInS (Family Advice and Information Service). This proposal will be piloted through FAInS providers before full implementation;

  to introduce wider powers to refuse funding for divorce (ancillary relief) cases on the grounds that private funding mechanisms may be available, for example, using the value of the assets in dispute;

  to introduce stricter controls over multiple and repeat applications in private law family cases and to limit funding to one certificate per client at any time;

  to remove from scope low priority categories of case, such as legal help for drafting divorce and judicial separation petitions and changes of name;
  WS 60
  to revise the financial eligibility limits to achieve uniform income limits across all levels of service. The upper limit for qualifying for legal representation in court would be reduced, to the (lower) level for legal help, as adjusted for inflation. However, there should be appropriate safeguards and exemptions in place to ensure the most vulnerable applicants are protected;

  to remove the current rule which disregards £100,000 of equity in an applicant's home in assessing financial eligibility for legal aid. Again, there will be exemptions for the most vulnerable clients;

  in clinical negligence cases and complaints against the police, a requirement that redress is initially pursued through the appropriate complaints procedure before funding for litigation can be considered.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library of both Houses. It is available on the LSC's website: www.legalservices.gov.uk.

  MCSI Inspection of Courts Services: Annual Report 2003–04
  Lord Filkin
  The MCSI Inspection of Courts Services Annual Report for 2003–04 has been laid before Parliament yesterday. This document gives full details of the MCSI's performance for that year. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Court Service and Magistrates' Court Service: Annual Reports 2003–04
  Lord Filkin
  The Court Service annual report and accounts for 2003–04 has been laid before Parliament today. This document gives full details of the agency's performance and expenditure for that year. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The magistrates' courts' business returns annual report 2003–04 has been laid before Parliament today. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Estate Agents
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Gerry Sutcliffe) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On 23 March, the Government welcomed the publication of the Office of Fair Trading's (OFT's) comprehensive analysis of the estate agency market in England and Wales and the effectiveness of the Estate Agents Act 1979. The Government now propose a package of measures building on and strengthening OFT's proposals. We plan to give enforcers the

  WS 61
  regulatory tools they need to tackle rogue agents without unnecessarily driving up costs to house sellers, and to provide a cost-effective means by which consumers may win any justified compensation from estate agents through a free independent redress mechanism such as an ombudsman scheme.

  The Government intend to use the Housing Bill presently before Parliament to provide for such a redress mechanism.

  Estate agents have a key role in the housing market. For most people buying a house is the most expensive purchase they ever make. It is vital that this market works well and that consumers are adequately protected against unfair practices. Our proposals will mean that consumers have better information, that enforcement activity is directed on those agents who deliberately flout the law and that industry schemes to provide redress are available within a competitive environment.

  The key elements of the Government's proposals are:

  A consultation document later this year on how the OFT's proposals could be brought into effect and what more could be done to strengthen the regulation of estate agents.

  Taking a power in the Housing Bill to require estate agents to belong to any industry redress scheme approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State. The power would be linked with marketing homes with home information packs (HIPs) and its exercise would be subject to detailed evaluation and consultation once government and industry have drawn up detailed proposals.

  Working with stakeholders to develop methods to evaluate trends in consumer detriment in this market and the case for an industry qualification and national quality standards for estate agents.

  In its report, the OFT concluded that the estate agency market works well in many respects and the market structure is competitive, with businesses able to enter and exit the market with ease. But consumers could make average savings of around £300 on each house sale if they did more to shop around and negotiate fees.

  However, the report highlighted significant consumer dissatisfaction with estate agents' services, ranging from serious uncorrected abuses which the Estate Agents Act should deter (for example, failure to pass on offers or declare a personal interest) to, more commonly, quality of service issues (for example, delays and inadequate communication). Much of estate agency business is conducted orally with relatively little documentation so the process is not transparent and it is consequently difficult for enforcers to detect and substantiate that abuse has occurred in order that it might be dealt with.

  The OFT's broad approach to the problems it has found in the market is:

  to ensure a baseline of protection for consumers by making the present regulatory regime more enforceable. The OFT recommends that estate agents should be required to maintain written
  WS 62
  records of offers, that these should have to be copied to those making the offer as well as sellers, and that the enforcement agencies are given enhanced powers to access these when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the Act has been breached. Breach of statutory undertakings given under the Enterprise Act 2002 should become trigger events enabling enforcement action, and the OFT should be able to ban a person who has committed certain offences, not just when he has been convicted of them (as is currently the case);

  to promote quality of service and redress beyond minimum standards by creating incentives for members of the industry to sign up to recognised codes of practice with free systems of redress. The Consumer Code of Practice of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents Company Ltd (OEA) has now completed stage one of the OFT approval process (the code is meeting the OFT's core criteria on paper) and is seeking to complete stage two of the process (it will need to show the code is functioning effectively in practice) in order to obtain OFT approval. However, at present it only covers around 40 per cent of agents. While the OFT hopes that its promotion of the scheme—should it be approved—will boost its membership and profile, the OFT recommends that powers should be obtained to establish a statutory redress mechanism in the event that voluntary methods do not realise the anticipated improvements.

  The OFT's recommendations also cover such matters as making the statutory terms used in estate agency contracts clearer, extending the definition or an estate agent's personal interest in a deal and bringing the definition of estate agency in the Act up to date.

  There have been calls for the introduction of a positive licensing system as a way of improving standards and increasing protection in this market. The OFT specifically addressed the question of whether positive licensing, which could include a fitness test and training or competence requirements, would improve regulation in this market. It rejects it for a number of reasons:

  A requirement for estate agents to obtain licences before they engage in business would not deal with the main identified causes of serious problems in this market. These tend to concern the way existing agents conduct their business and are consequently unlikely to be detected by a screening test in advance of granting a licence.

  Estate agents clearly need to understand their obligations under the legislation but their role is primarily that of salesmen and intermediaries. Evidence from cases where estate agents have been banned suggests that misconduct results from a lack of integrity rather than deficiencies in their knowledge or expertise.

  Positive licensing would adversely affect the benefits consumers receive in terms of downward pressure on prices which results from the ease with which new businesses can enter the market and increase competition. It would also be costly

  WS 63
  to administer and these costs would ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher fees.

  The OFT's conclusion is that positive licensing would raise costs and inhibit competition without delivering enough improvements to justify this. In its view, a more effectively enforced negative licensing system combined with the OFT's new powers under the Enterprise Act will be effective in dealing with malpractice.

  In considering our response to the OFT's report, the Government have consulted stakeholders and taken into account the representations we have received. We will continue to consult fully as we take this work forward.

  In large measure, the Government agree with the OFT's analysis which identifies a number of clear problems and the case for action to deal with these. We believe that the recommendations potentially offer an effective and proportionate basis for tackling the problems identified in this sector.

  However, we believe that it may be necessary to go beyond the OFT's proposals in tackling consumer detriment in this market. In particular we wish to take further views on the question of enforcement and to see what can be done to build on the OFT's initial analysis. It is clear that amendments to the legislation are necessary to improve protection in this area. The Government are therefore proposing to consult later this year on a package of measures which will bring about real improvements in this sector. Our proposals will cover:

  Making estate agents' dealings with consumers more transparent by requiring them to copy to buyers the written offers they have passed on to sellers and to keep clear and comprehensive records of each property transaction. This will give consumers more confidence that they are being treated fairly.

  Giving the OFT and local trading standards departments the comprehensive armoury of regulatory tools they need to investigate consumer complaints properly, address unfair practices and drive the rogues out of the market. We will look at whether they should have powers to demand the on-site production of administration records, files and copies of correspondence when they have reasonable grounds to suspect estate agents have not complied with the provisions of the Estate Agents Act.

  Allowing enforcement action to be taken where specified offences have been committed, regardless of whether the offenders have been successfully prosecuted.

  Widening the range of circumstances in which OFT can consider the fitness of agents and the range of sanctions available to them.

  Widening the circumstances in which estate agents have to disclose their personal interest in property transactions.
  WS 64
  Modernising the Estate Agents Act so it is relevant to developments in estate agency practices, such as Internet enterprises, and making it clear that consumers are protected.

  Making estate agency contracts more transparent so consumers have a better understanding of their liabilities and are not ambushed by clauses in small print or unclear language.

  Making it easier for the OFT and trading standards officers to addressing flyboarding abuses by requiring agents to identify specific properties on "for sale" boards.

  Encouraging estate agents to improve quality of service by subscribing to and developing codes of practice that will meet the standards required to obtain OFT approval.

  In addition, an OFT consumer information campaign will alert consumers to how they can get best value for their money by shopping around, negotiating fees and checking whether agents subscribe to consumer codes of practice, such as the OEA's code of practice.

  In the consultation document, we will also raise whether there are other ways going beyond the OFT's recommendations in which enforcement could be improved, for example whether some of the OFT's powers could be delegated to local authorities, whether the OFT's internal procedures for dealing with cases involving estate agents can be streamlined, and what could be done to improve communications between the OEA, the OFT and other relevant bodies to facilitate enforcement action being taken when there are serious complaints about estate agents. And we will work with the OFT and trading standards to ensure that the best use is made of their new enforcement powers. Updating the regulatory system on its own will not be sufficient to tackle unscrupulous behaviour unless it is effectively and speedily enforced and problems in this sector are prioritized and the necessary resources allocated to them. We are confident that the OFT and local trading standards offices will rise to this challenge but we will want to work with them so that consumers benefit from real improvements in behaviour in this sector.

  The Government have noted calls for positive licensing of estate agents but we agree with OFT's analysis that this is not justified. We believe that stakeholders have underestimated the potential impact of the OFT's recommendations as an overall package for addressing mischief in this sector. These recommendations can address the most serious problems without imposing unnecessary costs on businesses or inhibiting competition (both of which would result in higher fees). But we are also committed to going beyond the OFT's proposals, for example in making it possible to require estate agents to belong to an industry redress system.

  The Government agree that access to free, independent redress is important in the estate agency sector and offers a proportionate means of dealing with consumer complaints about quality of service issues. The OEA is currently seeking approval for its

  WS 65
  consumer code of practice from the OFT which would enable member agencies to demonstrate a clear commitment to higher standards.

  The Government are concerned, however, that by itself this would leave many consumers unable to obtain redress without resort to the courts. Housing markets are local so a seller may not have the option of engaging an estate agent who subscribes to a redress scheme. A buyer who wants a particular property may also have no choice as he will have to deal with the estate agent or agents selected by the seller.

  The Government are also conscious that with the introduction from 2007 of HIPs as provided in the Housing Bill estate agents may well play an increasingly pivotal role in housing transactions. On the other hand, the Government are concerned that any redress scheme should not impose an unnecessary burden on the industry or significantly increase barriers to entry, neither of which would be in consumers' interests. Proposals for a redress scheme need to be reconciled with the fact that there are no positive licensing arrangements for estate agents.

  The Government also accept that there are advantages in redress arrangements being run by the industry rather than the state. The Government believe that a way of reconciling these different considerations is for Parliament to provide a power to require estate agents to belong to any redress scheme approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State. Under the proposed arrangements, enforcement would fall under the present statutory arrangements in the Estate Agents Act: that is, that Act would apply to breach of the duty to belong to the scheme as it currently applies to a person who has engaged in an undesirable practice under the Act, so that enforcement action, including prohibition from acting as an estate agent, could be taken against any estate agent who failed to comply with the duty. The Government consider that the Housing Bill represents an opportunity to deal with this matter and propose to bring forward amendments to the Bill in Committee in another place to provide for such arrangements. In recognition of the fact that this is a new proposal on which the Government have yet to consult, we would not propose to exercise the power until it was clear what industry scheme or schemes would seek recognition, what arrangements they would have for providing redress including the fees they would charge estate agents, consultation had been carried out on the detailed arrangements and a full regulatory impact assessment had been done. Subject to those considerations, the Government hope that the arrangements will be brought into effect before the introduction of HIPs in 2007.

  We encourage those in the industry who wish to do so to subscribe to more wide-ranging codes of practice and to seek approval under the OFT's consumer codes approval scheme.

  Turning to other steps the Government intend to take in respect of this market, we want to improve the evidence base so as to gain a better picture of just how much consumer detriment there is in this market and
  WS 66
  how much our proposals improve it. We plan to invite the main stakeholders to join us in trying to devise a methodology for this. Such a better evidence base might establish the need to take further steps in future.

  We also plan to work with stakeholders on the scope for devising and promoting a recognised qualification for estate agents. We see benefit in this as something that, if properly done, could provide a career incentive to raise standards. We also note that the British Standards Institute, the UK national standards body, is considering developing a service quality standard and associated Kitemark for the provision of residential estate agency services and we shall follow with interest progress on this.

  Consumers deserve a better deal from estate agents than, as the OFT's report shows, in many cases they have got. The Government's proposals will go a long way to providing consumers in this vital market with a much better deal.

  Regional Development Agencies: Annual Reports and Accounts 2003–04
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My honourable friend the Minister for the Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have today laid before Parliament the annual reports and accounts for 2003–04 for the eight regional development agencies (RDAs) outside London. Copies have been placed in the House Library. The Government welcome the contribution that the RDAs have made during this year to driving forward economic development in their respective regions.

  Also published today are the RDAs' reported tier 3 outputs for 2003–04. These results are evidence that the RDAs continue to play a valuable role in improving the economic performance of the English regions and, through working with their partners, the RDAs are making a real difference to the individual regional economies concerned. The figures cover the creation and safeguarding of jobs, the amount of brownfield land brought back into use, the number of businesses added to the regional economies, the number of learning opportunities created and the amount of private sector investment attracted benefiting deprived areas, all as a result of RDA activity.

  Press releases on the tier 3 outputs have been issued in each region. Copies of the output results have been placed in the House Library, and are available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/rda/info.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Lord Bassam of Brighton
  An updated measurement of the level of compliance with the regulatory impact assessment process is today being placed on the website of the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit.
  WS 67
  An exercise in June 2004 to establish a snapshot of the level of compliance, based on consultations carried out in the 12 weeks to 16 June 2004, showed a compliance rate of 96 per cent. We will continue to keep this under regular review and will report back to Parliament as appropriate.

  Central Office of Information: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04
  Lord Bassam of Brighton
  Copies of the Central Office of Information's 2003–04 annual report and accounts have today been laid before Parliament, and copies have placed in the Library.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Lord Bassam of Brighton
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has today announced in response to a request from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman) that he has agreed to extend her jurisdiction to include the role of the Government Actuary's Department in relation to the prudential regulation of insurers prior to this function being transferred to the Financial Services Authority in April 2001. This will enable the Ombudsman to conduct a full investigation into Equitable Life. The amendment to the legislation to make this change will be made as soon as possible.