Sitting of 8 June 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    Mental Health (Cannabis
    Mr. Bill Tynan: What research he has commissioned on possible links between the use of cannabis and mental health problems. [177285]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): Since 2000, the Department of Health has commissioned five research projects focusing on cannabis use problems and the dual diagnosis of mental health problems and substance misuse. We also continue to monitor the worldwide research and to draw on the advice of a range of expert advisers to inform our policy.
    Mr. Tynan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the current research programmes, but she will recognise that other countries such as Sweden, the USA and Holland have established a link between mental health and cannabis use. Does she agree that our knowledge of the long-term effects of cannabis use is very poor, and will she therefore start a comprehensive research programme, funded by the Government, to ensure that we are not building up a crisis for the future?
    Ms Winterton: I assure my hon. Friend that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs keeps the evidence of harm from all controlled drugs under constant review. There is evidence that cannabis, like any other drug, can cause short-term paranoia and psychosis, but at present there is no clear evidence that schizophrenia, for example, is caused by using cannabis. However, the advisory council keeps that under review.
    Ann Winterton: The United Kingdom's leading scientists know, because of the research undertaken here and elsewhere in the world,
    128
    that the use of cannabis does in fact bring on psychotic effects and cause schizophrenia later in life. Will the Minister concede that the policy of declassifying cannabis, which has sent out mixed messages to the young, will exacerbate the problem, causing tremendous personal problems to young people and great cost to the individuals concerned, their families, the national health service and society at large?
    Ms Winterton: I assure the hon. Lady that the effects of cannabis use are closely monitored and that the evidence is examined by the advisory council, which is independent. Reclassification took place only as a result of the advice received from that council, which continues to keep the matter under review.
    John Mann: Australia and New Zealand adopt a policy similar to ours on the classification of cannabis, but the research from their national addiction centres says that skunk, in particular, creates psychosis. Why are we not copying those good Commonwealth friends, which adopt a similar policing policy, and learning lessons from their health messages?
    Ms Winterton: We certainly look at all the evidence. There is an independent advisory council to do that and we are also investing in drug treatment areas. There has been an increase of 101 per cent. in the amount of money going into drug treatment facilities, which is now £260 million, and the work force has increased up to the target by 2008 of 9,000. As I have said, we keep the matter under review, but we want to ensure at the same time that we provide proper facilities for treating people who suffer from substance misuse.
    Tim Loughton: If the Minister keeps all the evidence under constant watch, she must acknowledge the research that shows that up to 80 per cent. of all psychotic cases in inner cities in this country report a history of cannabis use, and that people's use of cannabis as teenagers can make them seven times more vulnerable to developing psychosis, delusional episodes or manic depression. There are also links with the exacerbation of schizophrenia, which already costs the NHS £1 billion. Why, therefore, when the Government decided to reclassify cannabis earlier this year and spent £1 million advertising the fact, was not a penny spent on highlighting the risks of the link between cannabis and mental illness, and why has the number of drug advisers in our schools been contracting?
    Ms Winterton: It is certainly not true that we do not highlight the harmful effects of cannabis. The extremely successful "Frank" campaign has particularly targeted young people, pointing out to them the serious effects of cannabis.
    There is evidence that cannabis, like any other drug, can lead to short-term paranoia and psychosis, but there is no clear evidence that schizophrenia, for example, is caused by cannabis use. The issue is kept under constant review and monitored by an independent advisory council.
    John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the use of cannabis

    129
    does not necessarily lead to the use of other drugs, it enhances their use because it provides access to them? Is it not time that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) said, we established a proper inquiry into the use of cannabis, the reactions to it and where such use leads?
    Ms Winterton: I assure my hon. Friend that we monitor the effects of cannabis, like any other controlled drug, through the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and we will not stop doing so. We look at the evidence and the research, and we receive independent advice from the council.

    Road Accidents
    Bob Russell: What the estimated cost to the national health service was of treating those injured in road crashes in the last year for which figures are available. [177286]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The national health service has not been asked to identify separately the costs of treating road traffic accident victims. However, where such a patient receives compensation the NHS can reclaim the treatment cost from insurers. Last year, £105 million was recovered for the national health service in that way.
    Bob Russell: While I am grateful to the Minister for that partial answer, in the interests of joined-up government, might it be worth while trying to establish exactly how much the public purse is funding the consequences of road crashes? May I also suggest that he discuss with his colleagues in the Department for Transport and with the Chancellor the Exchequer how investing in making road safety a top priority might lead to a reduction in the burden that road crashes and casualties taken to accident and emergency departments place on the NHS?
    Mr. Hutton: We will certainly look at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, although we need to strike the appropriate balance between that point and avoiding imposing additional bureaucracy and burdens on the national health service. The Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport are committed to reducing the number of road accident events and, in fact, the number of such events is falling.
    Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will probably be aware of the large number of accidents that involve motor cyclists. That is a particular problem in my constituency, which has beautiful countryside where boy racers and others perhaps somewhat older do not exercise good behaviour on the roads. Has his Department discussed the matter with the insurance industry to try to improve motoring standards? It could be argued that that is a primary health care issue because, if motorists—particularly motor cyclists—behaved themselves in the first place,they would not end up in hospital.
    Mr. Hutton: It is very important that the Government do what they can to improve safety on our roads. My
    130
    right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is fully committed to doing that and we in the national health service will do whatever we can to support the work that he is undertaking.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister mentioned compensation and repayments to the NHS in such cases, but what consideration are the Government giving to repayments to the NHS in cases of proven negligence—for example, when it is proven that a person has wilfully ignored a speed limit and a crash has resulted? Is there a way of claiming the money back from such individuals or their insurance companies, or—even better—of extending such a scheme to those who assist and promote the denigration of speed limits?
    Mr. Hutton: If an accident results in injury to an individual and the NHS provides treatment for that individual, statutory provision exists to allow the NHS to recover the costs. We have recently legislated to extend the scope of that scheme to include other types of injuries.

    Foundation Hospitals
    Mr. Eric Illsley: If he will make a statement on the progress of outstanding applications for foundation hospital status. [177288],
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): Applicants for NHS foundation trust status in wave 1a are due to submit applications by mid-June for my approval. I expect to take a decision shortly after publication in July of the NHS performance ratings. I approved 25 wave 1 applications earlier this year. Ten applicants were authorised on 1 April and the independent regulator will make his own decision on whether to grant authorisations for the remainder.
    Mr. Illsley: My right hon. Friend will know that Barnsley district general hospital has applied for foundation status to take effect from October this year, but unfortunately the hospital now faces a financial deficit of around £3 million. To make matters even worse, the primary care trust also faces a deficit of £15 million and has difficulty providing any further financial assistance to the hospital, which has itself undertaken a recovery programme to try to balance the budget. Can he indicate whether the financial requirements for trust status will take account of those deficits? Can the Government take any further action to ensure that the foundation status application will go ahead from October?
    Dr. Reid: Lest anyone should have gained the false impression from the details provided by my hon. Friend that the Barnsley trust has somehow been starved of funding over the past few years, let me remind him and the House that, in fact, Barnsley PCT received an increase in funding of more than 31 per cent. over the past three years. That is much higher than the national minimum. Like every other organization—not just every trust—in the NHS, the PCT has to ensure that it achieves financial balance. Every pound wasted in the NHS means that someone dies earlier than they should or that someone lives longer in pain. Of course, when it

    131
    comes to foundation trusts, we an aware of the huge benefits that foundation status will bring to local providers of health care, so there is the most rigorous scrutiny—not just by myself, but by the regulator—of financial and other matters.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Does the Secretary of State believe that the fact that many trusts are dropping or deferring their applications for foundation status because they do not understand the financial implications of the new system suggests that foundation trusts are unworkable and burdensome?
    Dr. Reid: The answer to both questions is no. Trusts are not deferring in any large numbers and, secondly, applications are subject to rigorous scrutiny by the independent regulator, whose background, as the hon. Lady may know, includes not only knowledge on the medical side, but knowledge of the retail and banking sector. Above all, the regulator is well versed in assessing the financial requirements necessary to embark on freedoms for the frontline of NHS foundation trusts, which will result in far better, move sensitive, quicker and more efficient service to patients. Surely that is what we all want—more patients having more treatment, more quickly and of greater quality than ever before.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: Will my right hon. Friend outline the steps taken by the Government to encourage greater membership of foundation trusts, in view of the disappointing figures on membership of the first wave? On public involvement in health, can he clarify what is happening with the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health? It has been suggested that it will be either abolished or merged with the NHS Appointments Commission. Can he give an assurance that in any future arrangements for patient involvement, the independence of the various bodies concerned with patients will be defended and retained?
    Dr. Reid: There were three points there. The first was about the openness to registration of members of foundation trusts. Of course, the lists do not close and they build up over a period of time. In Barnsley, for example, the trust has recruited more than 2,000 patient and public members. We would all like to see 20,000, but nevertheless, that is 2,000 more people involved in the local trust than have ever been involved before. Secondly, as far as the future of patient involvement and our commitment to it is concerned I can give my hon. Friend the guarantee that we will remain committed. Thirdly, with regard to the arm's length bodies, while we retain our commitment to involvement and to fulfilling their functions, I am going to bear down hard on the number of such bodies and organisations and the amount of money that goes to them. I have authorised a 50 per cent. cut in the number of arm's length bodies, with a 25 per cent. cut in the number of personnel in them. I have also authorised £500 million being taken from them, which will be put into front-line services. On top of all the other increases, another £500 million will be invested in nurses, doctors and better treatment.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: The Secretary of State has promised an independent review
    132
    of foundation trusts. Will he confirm that the review will be held and that it will report after waves 1a and 1b have taken place?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, the review will go ahead and it will be honest, independent and objective. If it concludes that we have made mistakes or that there are shortcomings in the foundation trust idea or status, we will amend the errors. Equally, however, it might conclude that we have not extended enough freedoms to the front line of NHS foundation trusts. In that case, we will act on those recommendations.
    Mr. Peter Mandelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the disappointment felt when Hartlepool's general hospital failed to gain immediate foundation trust status and that the Tees health review may put a question mark over the hospital's long-term future? Will he reassure my constituents that that will not happen and that the town will retain a full and proper hospital service, for their benefit and for that of people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings)?
    Dr. Reid: My right hon. Friend is right to say that a review is under way. In respect of the application for foundation trust status, I shall say only that an initial failure does not mean that reapplication cannot be made in the relatively near future. I do not wish to prejudge matters, but I can tell him that Hartlepool will still have a full and proper hospital service after the review has taken place.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will recall that, during the passage through the House last year of the Bill establishing foundation trusts, the Opposition said that all NHS hospitals needed genuine freedom if the best service was to be delivered. We said that, without that freedom, we would get a two-tier system. However, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) has told the Health Select Committee that £127 million will be available this year to compensate primary care trusts and foundation trusts for the introduction of payment by results, and that the Department has £104 million in capital to support the prudential borrowing limits of first-wave foundation trusts. That adds up to £231 million and to a two-tier system. How will the right hon. Gentleman defend that to his colleagues and to the Opposition? We said that we wanted a single tier of genuinely free NHS hospitals to deliver the best service to patients.
    Dr. Reid: I am deeply moved by the hon. Gentleman's concern about my discussions with my Back-Bench colleagues. I am sure that they will be deeply moved as well by his concern about the two-tier system that could develop. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, in case he has missed the fact in his young life, that there has been a two-tier system in this country for 60 years. One tier has been the NHS, whose patients were treated with disdain by the previous Conservative Government for 20 years. Another tier was available for those who had the money, which allowed them the quick access to hospital care in the private sector that the Opposition have always supported.

    133
    NHS foundation trust status will be allocated over the next few years to every hospital. As a result, every hospital and trust in the country will have far more resources in terms of money, doctors, nurses, equipment and buildings, and far more power to meet patients' needs. However, I am far too much of a gentleman to point out that the hon. Gentleman was the first to tell me that he supported his hospital's application for foundation trust status.

    NHS Staff (Assaults)
    Helen Jones: What steps are being taken to reduce assaults on NHS staff; and if he will make a statement. [177289]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): In December 2003, the NHS security management service published its strategy to make the NHS a safer place in which to work. The strategy has a comprehensive range of measures to tackle violence against NHS staff. These include the United Kingdom's largest ever training programme to equip NHS staff to deal with violent situations, a national reporting system for physical assaults and the establishment of a legal protection unit to work with the police and Crown Prosecution Service.
    Helen Jones: I welcome the initiatives that the Government have already taken in the area, but will my hon. Friend carefully consider the position of those NHS staff who work in clients' homes or in isolated units? What more can be done to protect them and equip them to cope with any dangerous situations that might arise in the course of their work?
    Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. Top-quality staff doing a top-quality job deserve a top-quality working environment, and that includes those who work in isolated areas. We are doing several things. Such staff will have the same access as any other members of staff to the advice of security management personnel and the same training in conflict resolution. They will also have additional services available, including technological assistance for lone workers that will allow them to report when they face difficulties, wherever they are when they are attacked.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: It is staggering to all of us to think that a patient would ever strike NHS staff, but it does happen. It happens increasingly on Friday and Saturday nights when patients are in accident and emergency, high on drugs or drunk. Can the Minister liaise with his Home Office colleagues to ensure that hospitals and accident and emergency units get community office support and police support to protect hospital workers? Will he send a message out clearly to anyone who dares strike a hospital worker that it is the quickest way of getting from a hospital ward to a prison cell?
    Dr. Ladyman: That is absolutely right. We must have zero tolerance of all forms of violence. We must also ensure that proper security advice is available to all hospital departments, including accident and emergency departments, wherever they are and
    134
    whatever night it is. We must ensure that we deal with every single attack on an NHS staff member with the utmost vigour and that we prosecute such attacks. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that an antisocial behaviour order was recently taken out against an individual that bans him from NHS premises anywhere in the country, and that is the sort of action that we need.
    I have to say that we also need to start ensuring in our political debates that It people appreciate that they should respect NHS staff and that entails an obligation on the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to stop bad-mouthing NHS staff and ensure that everybody is aware of the work that they do.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: Further to my hon. Friend's statement about training, can he outline the extent of that training? Will it cover all NHS staff and will it cover both conflict resolution—to reduce the occasions on which assaults may take place—and how to deal with assaults when they happen?
    Dr. Ladyman: Different types of training will be available. For example, every health body will have to nominate an individual to be responsible for advising on security matters. Those individuals will receive very specific and detailed training in such matters. Individual staff members will get conflict resolution training of the sort to which my hon. Friend refers and we estimate that at least 750,000 people will have access to that training. It will be thorough and it will be available to everybody.

    Health Investment (Staffordshire)
    Paul Farrelly: What investment is being made in the national health service in north Staffordshire. [177290]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): For the current financial year, 2004–05, the four primary care trusts in north Staffordshire have been allocated a total of £478 million, an increase of £41.4 million, or 9.49 per cent., since the previous year. For the next financial year, 2005–06, the increase will be a further 9.06 per cent., taking the total allocation to £521.4 million.
    Paul Farrelly: The NHS is indeed making great strides in north Staffordshire, including a brand new hospital, a new medical school at Keele university and brand new health centres across the whole area. However, after the next election, will it be the Government's policy to continue to invest in that way in the NHS, in north Staffordshire and across the country, or to drive the NHS out of existence within five years?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend makes the point that there is a need for long-term and sustained investment in the national health service to make up for the 20 years of under-investment before this Government came to office. We will continue that investment at the present level for another four years. We will not return to the days of under-investment and starvation of our hospitals with the previous number of nurses, nor do we intend to charge patients to allow them to jump the queues on the basis of how much money they have in

    135
    their pockets to contribute towards doing so. The degree of power and choice for NHS patients should depend not on the size of their wallets, but on exactly what their medical needs are. The Labour party will always defend that principle.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: I pay a warm tribute to the staff at the North Staffordshire hospital, but will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite their best efforts, three out of 10 out-patients at that hospital wait longer than 13 weeks for an appointment? Will he confirm that that hospital has under-achieved in readmitting patients whose operations were cancelled for non-clinical reasons? Will he confirm that, in the past year, MRSA rates have increased at the North Staffordshire hospital? In that respect, will he confirm that the problems that they face are typical of the whole NHS—that more operations are cancelled than in 1997, that the number of hospital-acquired infections is much higher than in 1997 and that far more people are waiting far longer for serious treatments, such as radiotherapy, than before? Is it not the case that, under Labour, administrators are being hired at three times the rate at which doctors are being hired? It is no surprise that, under Labour, taxpayers have paid for a 37 per cent. rise in spending and seen a 5 per cent. rise in activity.
    Dr. Reid: Five minutes ago, Opposition Members talked about their affection for NHS staff. Now, once again, they brand them all as useless bureaucrats. That is the nature of the Opposition's commitment to the NHS. I cannot confirm any of the points that the hon. Gentleman made about North Staffordshire hospital. I can confirm, however, that, under this Government, that hospital has had two new theatres, additional critical care beds, a ward for surgical patients, a doubling in its capacity for cardiothoracic surgery with a new theatre and critical care beds for that purpose, a new catheter laboratory and a dramatic reduction in diagnostic waiting times for cardiac patients and that more than 90 per cent. of patients now receive accident and emergency care within the world standard of four hours. He talks about the national picture, which is represented there, but we have 67,500 more nurses, 14,000 more doctors, the biggest building programme in the history of the NHS, a 10 per cent. cut in premature deaths from cancer, and a 23 per cent. cut in premature deaths from cardiac heart disease. All that would be ruined if that lot ever got into power again.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: The information that we have just heard regarding north Staffordshire is very good news for the people of that area and for the people of Wolverhampton, because North Staffordshire hospital is very close to my constituency and the whole of Wolverhampton. Irrespective of the Opposition's carping, I congratulate our Government on that investment. May I add that we have also had major investment in Wolverhampton? We have a state-of-the-art, 21st-century heart and lung unit ready to be opened as I speak. I want the Secretary of State to assure me that it will operate to full capacity, when we have the official opening.
    Dr. Reid: I can confirm that to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I think from memory that there is a new cardiac
    136
    centre at Wolverhampton, but of course there will be more. The project in the North Staffordshire hospital, which the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) forgot to mention, involves another £350 million to develop a new acute hospital on the site of the city's general hospital and a new community hospital in north Stoke. All that, of course, is representative of the biggest building programme in the history of the NHS. When the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues left office, more than half the buildings in the NHS were older than the NHS. If the Government, by grace of the electorate, survive another term, by the end of it, almost half the buildings in the NHS will have been built by this Labour Government—something to be proud of.
    Mr. John Redwood: How much extra money could North Staffordshire hospital get for its health service if it had foundation status; and what would be the extra costs of the bureaucracy and corporate governance of a foundation hospital?
    Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands foundation status. Such hospitals will not get any extra money. What they will get is greater freedom to deploy their money without constantly having to obtain ratification and permission from Ministers and bureaucrats in Whitehall.

    Delayed Discharges
    Ms Ann Coffey: What action he is taking to reduce delayed discharges. [177291]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): In January 2004, the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 introduced a financial incentive to avoid delayed discharges. That is supported by the delayed discharges grant. The total number of patients delayed in an acute hospital bed on any one day is now about 2,900—a reduction of nearly 60 per cent. since September 2001.
    Ms Coffey: The figures from my local hospital, Stepping Hill, indicate that the policy has been a great success in relation to acute wards. Essentially, that is because it has led to much better co-operation between local health and social services. However, delays in discharge are now occurring in intermediate and rehabilitation beds. Will the Minister consider making delays in discharge from non-acute beds subject to the same financial penalties as delays in discharge from acute beds, so that there is effective local co-operation for all discharges?
    Dr. Ladyman: The delayed discharges reimbursement system has been such a huge success and has driven down delayed discharges to such a remarkable extent that, to be frank, it would be madness if we were not looking very closely at the suggestion that we extend it, not only to intermediate care facilities, but to mental health facilities. We have started that work and planning, and we shall make announcements to the House as soon as possible.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: Does the Minister agree that in planning hospital discharges, it is important to ensure that the rules governing eligibility for free NHS continuing care are applied consistently and fairly across the country? Why has it taken the Government so long to begin to get to grips with the fact that 28 different sets of rules are applied in entirely different ways, with the result that people are, in effect, subject to a postcode lottery in relation to eligibility for free continuing care—care that should be available to them on the basis of their need, not of their means?
    Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman might at least have started his question by pointing out that he was entirely wrong about the 2003 Act, which is now saving 1.5 million bed nights a year—equivalent to eight district hospitals—and which he is committed to repealing should the electorate ever be foolish enough to put his party into government. He was wrong from the start and he is wrong now. As for NHS continuing care, now before anyone is discharged from hospital they must go through the single assessment process, which includes consideration for NHS continuing care. For the first time, we will know whether anyone is entitled to such care before they are discharged.
    Ms Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): The legislation is making a real difference to reducing delayed discharges and improving the discharge process in Sheffield. Does my hon. Friend recall that, during debate on the Bill, the Opposition spokesperson referred to it as a "nasty and flawed measure" and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson said that it "put beds before patients"? Is not the truth that the measure puts patients' needs first and only the Labour Government are prepared to take the action that puts patients first?
    Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every extra day that an older person in particular spends in an acute setting when they no longer need to be there makes it less likely that they will be able to retain their independence and return home, which is where most of them want to be. Conservative party dogma is that ending up in a care home is the inevitable consequence of old age, but we want to maintain people's independence.
    Mr. Simon Burns: If one strips all the spin and gloss from the Minister's words, one can see that the Government are fiddling the figures, basically by categorising more and more beds as intermediate and placing patients in them to meet their political targets. If his policy is working so well, why has the number of people receiving domiciliary care been reduced by 2 per cent. in the past year and by 10 per cent. over the past three years? Surely, more should be done to make sure that patients whose discharge is delayed receive appropriate domiciliary care after hospital, rather than being sidelined in an intermediate ward.
    Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is another person who was entirely wrong about the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act, and has been made to look foolish for preaching doom and gloom. He said that the success of the scheme is entirely due to the roll-
    138
    out of intermediate care beds, but in the six months since the shadow scheme came into effect we have reduced delayed discharges by another 1,000. How can he tie that purely to intermediate care beds, unless he thinks that we have suddenly magicked up tens of thousands of such beds around the country? The fact of the matter is that he and his party would not match our proposed spending—
    Mr. Speaker: Orler.
    Mr. David Watts: Does the Minister agree that delays are partly caused by lack of funds in social services departments? Does he also agree that the massive increase in health funding has not been matched by increases in social services funding, and will he look at that problem?
    Dr. Ladyman: In fact, since 1997, the average increase in personal social services funding by the Government has been 30 per cent. above the level of inflation. Another 6 per cent real-terms increase is promised for next year, so we are making money available and making sure that it is being used to provide intensive home care. Contrary to what the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said, there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of people receiving intensive care at home—people who would otherwise be forced into care homes.

    NHS Racism
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: If he will make a statement on the findings of Sir John Blofeld's report into racism in the NHS. [177292]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): Our formal response to the Blofeld report into the death of David Bennett will be published in July this year as an integral part of our action plan to deliver race equality in mental health services. While the detail of our response must therefore wait, I want to make it clear that racism and discrimination will not be tolerated in the national health service. Our commitment to change will be through action, not complacent words. These are real issues for people from black and ethnic minority communities, and they will be addressed.
    Mr. Dhanda: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure that he will welcome the remarks made by Sir John Blofeld during his inquiry into the death of David Bennett. One of his findings was that black men are six times more likely to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 than white men. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Sir Nigel Crisp, chief executive of the NHS, on his decision to appoint a director in the NHS with responsibility for ensuring equality for staff and patients alike? Does he share my concern about comments by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that such an appointment would be a waste of money?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Sir Nigel Crisp, who is not only permanent secretary to my Department but chief executive of the national health service, on the robust leadership that he has

    139
    shown, particularly on this question. This week of all weeks, when we are remembering D-day and the liberation of the European continent from the worst and most poisonous racist regime, we should remember the contribution made to the NHS by people from black, ethnic and coloured backgrounds. I must correct myself, because earlier I said that there were 14,000 extra doctors since we came to power. I apologise for my mistake, as the figure is 19,000, and many of those doctors are from black and ethnic backgrounds. It is very disappointing indeed that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) should attack the appointment of a national director on equality and human rights. On the issue of tackling racism, the Conservative party is at best confused and at worst open to the accusation of complacency.
    Anne Picking: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about tackling racism in the health service. We have not tackled it well enough and it is still prevalent. My particular concern is how staff are treated by patients. By virtue of being ill, patients are almost excused for being racist. That is not acceptable and should not be tolerated.
    Dr. Reid: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend said. I know that over many years, before she came into Parliament and afterwards, she has been involved in fighting to make sure that we have public services free of racism, institutional or otherwise. Those on the Opposition Front Bench may have been perturbed by my remarks, but I made them in all sincerity. When we appointed a national director for equality and human rights, the words that were used by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman were that that appointment was "a misuse of resources". It is no good using fine words about combating racism and being committed to equality, and willing the ends but not being prepared to put in the means. If the Opposition will the ends publicly and say that they are committed to them, but then attack the means of tackling the problem, they will be criticised.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Secretary of State recognise—I do not doubt that he does—that the Blofeld committee report has wide implications? Will there be a programme of action, and along what lines will action be taken?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. I made it plain that this would not be a matter of words for us There is a robust programme of action across the national health service led by the chief executive of the NHS and the permanent secretary at the Department of Health under my political leadership. It will include a new national director for equality and human rights. A practical programme of action has been outlined already and will be carried through.
    In answer to my hon. Friend's first question, I have met many people who find themselves in extremely difficult circumstances as a result of the loss of a loved one. In the case of the Bennett inquiry, I met the family and the solicitor representing the family, and I found their sincerity, their profundity on the issue and their contribution to what we are trying to achieve to be first rate. I hope we will continue to work with the family, as well as with others.

    Cancer Screening
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the cancers for which he proposes to introduce NHS screening programmes. [177293]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): We are committed to introducing new screening programmes where it is clear that they will save lives. We will introduce a national bowel cancer screening programme which is currently under development, and a prostate cancer screening programme if and when screening and treatment techniques are sufficiently developed.
    Dr. Cable: I welcome the expansion of screening programmes, but can the Minister be a little more precise about nationwide screening in respect of bowel cancer, which kills 17,000 people a year? When does she expect to be able to roll out a nationwide screening programme, and when do the Government expect that sufficient staff will be trained in endoscopy to enable such a programme to be fully effective?
    Miss Johnson: We have run the first phase of a screening trial based in Nottinghamshire and we are reviewing the results. We are in the second phase of that trial, and as part of it we need to consider aspects such as hard-to-reach groups. We anticipate having some results by 2006–07. In the meantime we are making £9 million available over three years to train more GPs, nurses, surgeons and gastroenterologists to meet the rising demand for endoscopy—that is a key issue—and we have established three national and seven regional centres to train medical staff in endoscopy.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I, too, welcome the expansion of the screening programmes, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is still a problem at the GP level, as GPs have difficulty in deciding whether patients require routine or urgent referrals, particularly in some of the rarer cancers? Will she ensure that better guidance is given to GPs about these matters?
    Miss Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend that that distinction is important. Some 99 per cent. of patients with suspected cancer are urgently referred to specialists and seen within a fortnight, and premature deaths from cancer have fallen by 10 per cent. since 1995–97. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must continue to work with GPs and the royal colleges on improving awareness, particularly of those cancers on which it is more difficult for GPs to decide whether to make an urgent referral.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: The Minister will also be aware of success in screening for aortic aneurisms—a pilot scheme is currently being run in west Sussex, and it saves hundreds of lives. When will she announce her decision whether to expand that pilot scheme nation wide?
    Miss Johnson: In due course.

    Hip Replacements
    Siobhain McDonagh: What the latest estimate is of the cost of a hip replacement paid for by Merton and Sutton primary care trust in (a) the South West London Elective Orthopaedic centre and (b) the private sector. [177294]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The latest national figures indicate that the average cost incurred by the NHS in conducting a primary hip replacement operation is £4,660, and that the average cost outside the NHS is £6,848. South West London Elective Orthopaedic centre forms part of the Epsom and St. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, where a primary hip replacement cost £5,865 last year.
    Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He knows that the South West London Elective Orthopaedic centre is the largest orthopaedic centre in Europe, that the Queen opened it only three months ago and that it has the capacity to conduct 3,150 hip and knee replacements this year. Will he do everything he can to ensure that it is used to full capacity to benefit people in south-west London, and in my constituency, Mitcham and Morden, in particular?
    Mr. Hutton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The centre currently runs with 65 per cent. occupancy, and that figure is expected to rise to 85 per cent. during the course of this year, which is a sensible way in which to build up capacity. I agree with my hon. Friend that the centre is an important new asset for the NHS. and I was present when Her Majesty the Queen opened it. It is a brilliant investment, and I am sure that it will help further to reduce waiting times for patients in my hon. Friend's constituency. Unlike the proposals from Conservative Front Benchers, the service provided by the centre is available to all NHS patients, none of whom needs to make a top-up payment or an additional payment—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Paul Marsden to ask Question 11.
    Hon. Members: Where is he?

    Hepatitis C
    Mr. Peter Luff: If she will make a statement on her policy on the treatment of hepatitis C. [177296]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): In recent years, increasingly effective treatments for chronic hepatitis C have become available. In January 2004, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommended a combination of pegylated interferon and ribavirin for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe chronic hepatitis C, which successfully clears the infection in around 55 per cent. of patients.
    Mr. Luff: My own father died of hepatitis C when I was eight years old—he probably contracted the disease in Palestine during the first world war—so the Minister
    142
    will understand my personal grudge against the disease, and my concern for the 250,000 people in England alone who have the disease and do not know it. Why are the Government not showing more urgency in dealing with the looming hepatitis C crisis? Why, for example, does the advisory group on hepatitis website state this morning that the agenda and minutes of meetings
    "will be available starting with the meeting due to be held on the 8th October 2003"?
    More importantly why is the action plan, the publication of which was promised by the end of 2002, still not available?
    Miss Johnson: I understand why the hon. Gentleman is particularly passionate about the subject. I shall correct one figure that he gave: we estimate that about 200,000 people in England, 0.4 per cent. of the population, are infected with hepatitis C—in some cases, the infection clears spontaneously. On current action, we have, as I said, improved the drug treatments. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department of Health will publish a hepatitis C action plan, which will highlight the need for prevention and for increased identification and treatment of infected patients.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Where? When?
    Miss Johnson: I am just coming on to that subject. The plan will be forthcoming over the summer and into the autumn, and it will lead to more diagnoses of hepatitis C, which will allow more people to be considered for treatment.

    NHS Estates
    Roger Casale: What plans he has to review the criteria and procedures by which the NHS acquires and disposes of estates. [177297]
    The Minister of 'state, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The latest guidance on the conduct of land acquisitions and disposals is contained in the Department's "Estatecode", a copy of which is in the Library. An updated version of that code was published last year. The guidance is kept under regular review.
    Roger Casale: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recognise, however, that the wider public interest concerns—not least the quality of our urban environment—that are often involved in the disposal of NHS estates should be properly taken account of by the executives, who may be legally constrained, who undertake such disposals? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to review the guidance notes?
    In the meantime, will the Minister consider examples of best practice such as the St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust in south-west London, which is disposing of the former Atkinson Morley's hospital site and is working with Merton council and local residents on projects such as a competition, to ensure that the best quality design is user? That not only gives us the money that we need to invest in the NHS, but is in people's best interests from the point of view of wider concerns such as the safeguarding of our green spaces.
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I pay tribute to his work in representing his constituents on the development of the Atkinson Morley's site. I understand that the trust is in the process of submitting a revised planning application for the use of that land in order better to reflect some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and his constituents. I am sure that he and they will welcome the fact that because it is metropolitan open land, there are restrictions on the extent to which it can be redeveloped. We always try to identify best practice across the NHS, and some of the work done by trust in my hon. Friend's constituency certainly counts as that.

    Hip Replacememts
    Martin Linton: What the estimated cost is of a hip replacement operation paid for by the NHS in (a) an NHS hospital and (b) the private health sector. [177298]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The latest figures indicate that the average cost of a primary hip replacement operation incurred by the NHS was £4,660 and that the cost outside the NHS was £6,848.
    Martin Linton: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on the Atkinson Morley's site.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show why our health service is the n most cost-effective in the world and why thousands are coming back to the NHS every week?
    Mr. Hutton: Certainly, the NHS is a very efficient health care system, as has been confirmed by international evidence and research. The costs of administering our national health service are lower than those of any other country or private sector provider.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Of the hip replacements carried out in the NHS, how many are conducted by foreign-trained consultants, who are often foreign based and only temporarily based in the UK? Where the NHS is required to take action against such a consultant, how can it do so if they have returned to their home base?
    Mr. Hutton: I shall provide figures for the hon. Lady on the specific point that she raises.
    144
    It is of course true that many of the surgeons who are employed in the NHS trained overseas. I hope that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that they are providing anything less than effective care for patients. As regards surgeons provided by the new independent sector treatment centres, it remains the case that the NHS is responsible for the care and treatment that is provided in those settings, as are providers, and proper arrangements are in place to ensure that there is insurance cover.
    As for the standards of care that surgeons provide, they must all be registered with the General Medical Council on the specialist register, so they have exactly the same competencies and skills as our own UK-trained consultants.

    Health Service (Nottingham)
    Mr. Graham Allen: If he or one of his Ministers will attend the Nottingham health network conference on 12 November to listen to the health concerns of the local community. [177300]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), is considering an invitation to that event.
    Mr. Allen: I put on record my thanks for the way in which the Government have bolstered the local health service, especially by providing the highest ever number of nurses and doctors in our two hospitals in the city of Nottingham and by putting additional money into our primary care trust. However, in view of the appalling statistics that the Under-Secretary recently revealed about high levels of infant mortality and poor levels of sexual education, among many other things, will my hon. Friend urge her, or another ministerial colleague, to attend the Nottingham, North health conference to put on record what still needs to be done, despite the Government's excellent record?
    Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will seriously consider the possibility of attending the conference. I emphasise that the ministerial team has attended 152 official engagements already this year. We are certainly consulting people in the field and we perceive no issue as more important than health inequalities and the need to ensure the provision of equal standards of care to everybody, everywhere.

Point of Order
12.30 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make a sincere and abject personal apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for calling him a Jonah yesterday. Of course, I should have said a Jeremiah, as I am sure you realised immediately, Mr. Speaker, as did one or two of my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should brush up on the Old Testament.

Lighter Evenings
12.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Beard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to advance time by one hour in England and Wales throughout the year; to provide that the power to make decisions in relation to time zones in Northern Ireland and Scotland be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament; and for connected purposes.
During the winter, time would be Greenwich mean time plus one hour instead of simply Greenwich mean time, as it is now In the summer, time would be Greenwich mean time plus two hours instead of Greenwich mean time plus one hour. That would increase accessible daylight by approximately an hour in the evenings throughout the year and postpone sunrise by about an hour. The postponement of sunrise in Scotland in winter from approximately 8.45 am to 9.45 am in, for example, Edinburgh, has been the chief objection to similar proposals in the past, even though Scotland would share the benefits that I shall outline shortly. For that reason, the Bill provides for the issue to be decided by the Scottish Parliament.
Irish and United Kingdom clocks are currently synchronised. Unless the Government of the Republic of Ireland adopted the same arrangement, Ireland would be out of step with England and Wales by one hour. The Bill would leave the Northern Ireland Assembly free to choose whether to remain in line with southern Ireland or with England and Wales.
At the moment, United Kingdom clocks are aligned with Portugal but all year round are one hour behind 16 of the 25 member states of the European Union, including France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. The proposal would along time in England and Wales with our major continental neighbours all year round. Those countries accounted for £137 billion of Britain's trade in 2003. That is 50 per cent of Britain's exports of goods and services, affecting 3 million United Kingdom jobs. Under the proposal, the UK working day would coincide with the working day in that huge market, with obvious benefits for UK competitiveness and business efficiency.
Airline, ferry and Eurostar schedules would be simpler. Out of 25 million inbound visitors last year, 14 million came from countries that would be in the same time zone under the se proposals.
Tourism is a key British industry, accounting for 4.5 per cent. of gross domestic product and supporting just over 2 million jobs. The British Resorts Association and Visit Britain support the Bill on account of the benefits it would bring to the tourist industry. It would extend the peak summer tourist season for foreigners and encourage more domestic day trips and weekend breaks. More of those short trips are taken in March and April and September and October than in summer. For organisations such as the National Trust and English Heritage, the extra hour of daylight in the evening is advantageous for those attractions that close at dusk. Taken as a whole, it is estimated that the extra hour of accessible daylight could add £3 billion a year to an industry worth £76 billion in 2004.

147
Sport England supports the Bill because people's leisure time is after work, so lighter evenings could drive up participation in sport. It says:
"This increased opportunity of extra daylight after work, combined with our policy priority to get employers to do more in terms of promoting activity among their workforce, could make a significant contribution towards driving up participation rates and delivering the associated health benefits that would stem from having an active and successful sporting nation."
At the other end of the age range, Age Concern supports the Bill, saying:
"We support British Summer Time extension throughout the winter to provide more daylight so that order people can stay out longer if they want to."
Fear of crime keeps many elderly People indoors after dark, and the British crime survey shows that more than half the criminal offences committed take place during the hours of darkness in the late afternoon or evening. The implication is that more light in the evening could contribute to a reduction in offences.
Early advocates of daylight saving promoted it on the grounds of energy saving. In 1784, Benjamin Franklin, then the American ambassador to France, calculated that Parisian families could save 96 million pre-revolutionary French pounds in candle wax and tallow from a measure such as this one. California has been the most recent focus of energy-saving activity, as a result of its energy crisis. The Energy Saving Trust, a Government and industry-sponsored organisation, has studied the case of California and believes that the Bill, which it supports, would lead to reductions in energy and carbon usage. Energy savings of between 0.5 and 1 per cent. are perhaps not huge, but they could be significant, given the amount of energy used in Britain. Moreover, by shifting peak demand, the need for one power station would probably be avoided.
Today, one of the most powerful arguments for changing the clocks as proposed is the reduction of accidents in winter. For that reason, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, the Automobile Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents support the Bill, and there is plenty of evidence to underpin their position Between 1968 and 1971, Britain experimented with Greenwich mean time plus one hour throughout the year, which gave the same winter times for sunrise and sunset as the Bill would give. During the first two winters of the experiment, 2,500 fewer people were killed of seriously injured. There was an increase in morning casualties, but the reduction in evening casualties far outweighed it.
In 1998 the Transport Research Laboratory re-examined the results from 1968 to 1971 based on up-to-date conditions and assuming the time changes proposed in the Bill. It concluded that there would be 450 fewer deaths and serious injuries each year as a result of the extra hour of daylight each evening. Extra evening daylight protects vulnerable road users such as children, the elderly, cyclists and motorcyclists because it makes them more visible to motorists.
148
In the mid 1990s, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents commissioned a Gallup poll to test public opinion on this subject. The provisions of the Bill were approved by 68 per cent., although in Scotland the figure was only 50 per cent. When the respondents were given the casualty reductions that I have just set out, approval in Scotland rose to 69 per cent., and to 77 per cent. in England and Wales. There was a three to one majority in favour of this change.
This Bill could bring demonstrable benefits to trade and industry, energy saving and tourism. It could encourage greater participation in sport and help to reduce the toll of death and injury on our roads. Some evidence suggests that it could also lead to a greater feeling of well-being. That point was put much more eloquently by William Willetts, a pioneer of daylight saving from south-east London—an area renowned for wisdom and sensitivity. In 1907, he said:
"Light is one of the great gifts of the creator. While daylight surrounds us, cheerfulness reigns, anxieties press less heavily and courage is bred for the struggle of life."
I commend the Lighter Evenings Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nigel Beard, Chris Bryant, Sir John Butterfill, Dr. Vincent Cable, Derek Conway, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. David Kidney, Norman Lamb, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Syd Rapson and David Taylor.

LIGHTER EVENINGS
Mr. Nigel Beard accordingly presented a Bill to advance time by one hour in England and Wales throughout the year; to provide that the power to make decisions in relation to time zones in Northern Ireland and Scotland be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 115].
EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

  GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM
  That this House takes note of European Union documents No. 12058/03, draft regulation on the establishment of structures for the management of the European Satellite Radionavigation Programme, and 6470/04, a Commission communication on progress on the Galileo research programme; endorses the Government's support for the draft Regulation to put in place effective supervision of the private sector concessionaire; and supports the Government's wider aims in seeking a lead role in the Galileo programme.— [Margaret Moran.]
  Question agreed to.

Age-Related Payments Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
12.41 pm
The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the resolution of the Standing Committee of 25th May, the Programme Order of 12th May in relation to the Age-Related Payments Bill be varied as follows:
Consideration and Third Reading
1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order (consideration and Third Reading) shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration or, if earlier, at the moment of interruption.
The Age-Related Payments Bill is a short and relatively simple measure. Following scrutiny during two sittings of Standing Committee D, we are now returning to the House for consideration and Third Reading. The Standing Committee agreed the terms of the programme motion without dissent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) was just saying, where the light shines, happiness reigns, and I hope that that might continue for the next three hours.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Age-Related Payments Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Age-Related Payments Bill
    Clause 1

      "QUALIFYING INDIVIDUAL" AND "RELEVANT WEEK"
      12.41 pm
      Mr. George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 6, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      '(b) is already 70 years old at the start of the financial year ending 31st March 2005, or attains that age at any time during the said financial year, or was living with such a person who dies during the said financial year.'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'relevant week' and insert '31st March 2005'.
      No. 9, in page 1, line 13 [Clause 2], leave out 'either'.
      No. 10, in line 14, leave out from 'individual' to end of line 15.
      No. 11, in line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert 'and'.
      No. 4, in line 19, leave out from 'credit' to end of line 20.
      No. 12, in page 2, line 3, leave out from 'individual' to end of line 7.
      No. 13, in line 10, leave out from 'individual' to end of line 11.
      No. 14, in line 40 [Clause 3], leave out subsection 4.
      No. 15, in line 44, leave out subsection 5.
      No. 16, in page 3 line 6, leave out subsection 6.
      No. 18, in line 12 [Clause 4], leave out paragraph (a).
      No. 19, in line 17, leave out paragraph (a).
      No. 17, in page 5 [Clause 8], leave out lines 15 and 16.
      Mr. Osborne: On the theme of light, I am sure that most of us would rather be outside in the sunlight than in here. We are doing our duty, however, as this is an important measure
      My amendments—I tabled only two of the amendments in the group; the Liberal Democrats tabled the others—seek to revisit an argument that was
      explored in Committee. It is worth revisiting, however, as it is on the issue of eligibility.
      The Bill is all about giving elderly people a £100 payment to help them to pay their council tax bills, although it does not require people to pay council tax to receive the money. We have been round that course a couple of times, however, and the issue is eligibility. The Government included a requirement that only those who are 70—or over, obviously—during the week of 20 to 26 September this year will qualify. I suppose that they did so for reasons of administrative simplicity, and because that is the qualifying period for winter fuel payments.

      151
      Our amendments Nos. 3 and 2—principally amendment No. 3—would help all those who reach the age of 70 during this financial year, not just those who were 70 or over during the week of 20 to 26 September. Amendment No.3 would also help those who were living with someone aged 70 or over where the person had died before the qualifying week arrived. It helps two groups of people who are not being helped because of the rough justice of the Government's proposed system of administration. It will help those who turn 70 after 26 September, who under the Bill will not get any money, but who are paying council tax bills for this financial year, and indeed have probably already done so. It will also help those who are paying in instalments. Furthermore, it will help widows, widowers and partners of people who were 70 and who paid their council tax bills, but who died before the magic qualifying week.
      Of course, those people would have been alive to hear the Chancellor promising them that money. I do not suggest that £100 would make up for the loss of a relative, husband, wife or partner, but the situation seems a little unfair.
      When the Chancellor made his Budget speech, he produced the proposal with a great flourish—it was the big bit that he was saving for the end of his speech that was announced at the last minute and designed to get a cheer from Labour Members. After listening to him, one would not have imagined that some people who would be aged over 70 during the financial year and had to pay council tax bills would not be eligible—he certainly did not spell that out.
      When the Chancellor made the announcement, he had little idea that primary legislation would be required to bring about the £100 payment. The Bill has presumably been pushed upon the chancellor and the Government because he did not consult the Department for Work and Pensions before he made the announcement. The Department had to go to him after the event to say, "Hold on Chancellor, you're going to need a full piece of primary legislation here", and that is why the details were not spelled put in the Budget speech.
      The Conservative amendments address the basic point of what the Bill is about. It is designed to help elderly people to pay their council tax bills. The bills landed on their doorsteps in early April or late March, and they have already paid them or are paying them in instalments. Although the measure is linked to winter fuel payments, there is a big difference between the schemes. People receive winter fuel payments on the basis of the qualifying week be week 20 and 26 September because the scheme is linked to the winter, so September is a good time to ascertain which people will be 70 during the forthcoming winter. However, the Bill is linked to council tax bills, which are issued in April. I do not understand why, for sample reasons of administrative efficiency, the Government are excluding people who will be 70 in the forthcoming year and paying high council tax bills. Such people are on fixed incomes and are exactly the kind of elderly pensioners whom the Chancellor mentioned. However, by a fiat of Whitehall, they will not receive the money which they are due. That is unfair and it is not what they would have
      152
      expected after listening to the Chancellor. The amendments would achieve the simple objective of allowing the Government to live up to their word.
      Mr. Steve Webb: When I saw the eight-minute speech limit sign flash up on the Annunciator, I thought that there had been a sudden rush of interest in the Age-Related Payments Bill and that hon. Members were queueing up to have their say. I then realised that the limit related to far more important matters, such as where airports should go. As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said, the Bill is important. It will lead to the spending of nearly £500 million of public money, so slightly more than desultory attention should be paid to it—it will probably get that this afternoon.
      There are two kinds of amendments in the group. As the hon. Gentleman said, the first kind revisits arguments that we had in Committee. Liberal Democrats advocated similar arguments about which 70-year-olds should be eligible: should they be those who reach 70 by the week in September or should there be a more generous interpretation under the scheme? The Minister is a generous man, so I am sure that he will want to accept the amendments with a generosity of spirit.
      If the Bill is supposed to help people who are 70 and have to pay council tax, why would we want to exclude from its provisions people who reached 70 during the year and started to pay council tax in April? One amendment would provide that if people reached the age of 70 by the end of the financial year, a payment could be made to them. Such people might spend half the year at the age of 70, but despite paying council tax for that time, they will not receive a penny from the Government or qualify for anything.
      As the hon. Member for Tatton rightly pointed out, one can see the convenience of linking the payment with the winter fuel payments, but there is no winter aspect to it. Since it runs from last April to next March, we think that people who reach 70 at any point during the year ought to qualify.
      If the typical council tax is about £900 for a band D property, and knocking off a quarter for the single person's discount makes it about £675, the £100 payment is only a tiny fraction of the council tax bill. If a 70-year-old were 70 for only half the year, he or she would still pay more than £300 in council tax while 70 but would not qualify for £100 from the Government towards that bill; they would qualify for nothing because they became 70 at the wrong point in the year. It is a bit daft to use a cut-off point that has something to do with winter, which is related to an entirely different system for help with fuel costs. It means transposing that system into something to do with council tax, which is not seasonal but requires payments pretty much throughout the year. I sympathise with the amendment that would allow the payment to be made by the end of the financial year, and I recall from Committee that, in the context of the £500 million cost of the Bill, the cost of including those who become 70 in the second half of the year would be relatively marginal and would not upset the overall balance of the scheme.
      Since Committee, we have tabled amendments that arose, in the true spirit of parliamentary scrutiny, from the Minister's responses. When we looked at the Bill in

      153
      detail, we discovered some unpalatable aspects to it. One is the fact that the £100 is not universal, as we had thought, but means-tested. The public do not appreciate that whether someone gets £100 depends on whether they are receiving a means-tested benefit. That is not widely understood.
      The Minister has been very helpful. I raised some hypothetical cases with him in Committee, and within the last hour my fax machine has whizzed away as he has made sure that, in plenty of time for this debate, I had the details of how the system works. It is worth putting a couple of examples on the record that illustrate quite how beautifully the new scheme will work. The Government think in terms of pensioner households, but there ain't no such thing: there are individual pensioners living in different combinations, each of whom, known in the jargon as a benefit unit, has an entitlement to the age-related payment.
      The Minister has given me two examples. One involves three sisters—the Beverly sisters, perhaps, all now over 70, I imagine—who are living together and none of whom is in receipt of pension credit. Each of them would get £50. On the other hand, two brothers—the Righteous brothers, maybe; I do not know how many of them there were—over 70 and living together while in receipt of pension credit would get £100 each. That pensioner household would get £200, but the payment is supposed to be £100. Why do they get £200? It is because they are poor. So poor people get more, but the payment is not means-tested: I do not quite follow that logic.
      Another of our amendments would remove another perversity. If one lives in a nursing home, the Government do the opposite to the foregoing. Poor people in nursing homes get nothing, but those in nursing homes who are not on pension credit get £50. Where is the logic in that? When we pressed the Minister, he said that poor people in nursing homes have their council tax paid for them. Lots of people have their council tax paid but can get the £100 if they do not live in a nursing home.
      The more we looked at the Bill, the more riddled with inconsistencies we found it. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I am told that the Bill mirrors precisely the arrangements for the winter fuel payment, which means that that is far more means-tested than I had realised. We have tabled a lot of amendments because the Bill is riddled with means-testing. The words "pension credit" appear all over the place, and the question must be why, if the payment is a flat-rate, universal one, the Bill refers to pension credit at all.
      In fact, this is a means-tested payment that the Chancellor dressed up as a universal one. Had he said at the end of the Budget that he would introduce a £100 payment, but it would be means-tested and how much anyone would get would depend on whether they were on pension credit, who they lived with and whether they were on pension credit, and whether they were in a nursing home, his reception would not have been quite as rapturous as it was.
      The amendments are intended to remove every reference in the Bill to pension credit. The effect would be, we hope—amendments do not always do quite what
      154
      we intend them to do—to say that the amount people get should be fixed and should not be means-tested. That would not enhance the payments of people on pension credit, but those in nursing homes would not be penalised for being on pension credit, which seems right. There is a long string of amendments, but there is one point to them: why are we making a universal payment, then introducing all sorts of aspects of means-testing to determine how much is paid?
      The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that while there are special arrangements for pension credit households, he understands that there is no separate means test for the £100? I should hate those listening to think that some income-testing system is being introduced to determine the £100 payment. It is not so.
      Mr. Webb: The Minister has given me fresh wind. It may be that there is a household of two people not on pension credit who get £50 each. If one of them then applies for the pension credit, that one gets £100. The means test applied to determine whether he was eligible for pension credit carries across to the £100 payment. I do not want to give a misleading impression, and I am not suggesting that here is separate means-testing when someone claims the age-related payment, although, in general, people will not have to claim it because it should be automatic. I an saying, however, that the amount anyone gets depends on whether they are claiming a means-tested benefit, which is certainly not the impression that the Chancellor gave at the end of his Budget speech.
      In the spirit of what the Chancellor said, we would have expected then to be no mention of pension credit in the Bill, and we would especially not have expected any bizarre business about three sisters not on credit getting £50, or £150 for that household, when the payment is supposed to be £100. How can a household get £150? Simply, it is because the payment is not a payment per household. It is just a mess, and it is disappointing that a Department implementing such a simple policy has made such a mess of it. We are trying to help the Department by simplifying the Bill and stripping out all the complexity to do with means-testing by introducing a straight entitlement, which I am sure will find favour with the Government.
      Mr. Alan Hurst: It seems to me that Jeremiah is not only the prophet of Scottish Members, but is widely favoured among the Opposition. I fully understand the points made by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), but I see certain flaws in his argument. I could understand his logic more if he had suggested that those who were 69 at the beginning of the financial year were Then, there would be a clear date after which people would qualify.
      The hon. Gentleman's amendment would allow payment to be made before the recipient became 70. It may be that, for various reasons, those people would fail to qualify afterwards: death is the most obvious, but people might move out of the jurisdiction or a range of events might subsequently disqualify a recipient. If the amendment referred to someone being 69 at the beginning of the financial year, there would be a greater logical force to his argument.

      155
      I had hoped for more joy from the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) about what the Government have brought in, which is widely regarded as a most helpful measure. One can always find financial improvements in any measure, and it is always better to simplify measures to make them less complicated than they might otherwise be, but the Bill has the great advantage that claimants do not have to go to great lengths to claim and that the payment is made automatically on the basis of information that the Department already has. In that way, it compares well with certain other benefits that have been paid in the past.
      Malcolm Wicks: As has been set out already by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), this is a relatively simple measure. Its intention is to pay all eligible households containing someone aged 70 or over an extra £100 this year in recognition of the burden of council tax increases on many of those households. It was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget speech.
      1 pm
      We reasoned that the best way to deliver that payment would be through the winter fuel payment process, a tried and tested system that is popular and works well. Many of the arguments made today some of which are perfectly legitimate, relate to that methodology. All such matters are kept under review—I mean that seriously—and some of that methodology perhaps needs further scrutiny, but many of the issues raised relate to that.
      The hon. Member for Tatton mentioned fiats of Whitehall, which sounds rather like a local car dealer. He made quite heavy weather out of what is really a simple measure. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has a great art of making the relatively simple sound vastly complex. That is quite an endearing trait, but to build a whole political career on it could become tiresome. I was reflecting that I am glad that it was not the hon. Gentleman on the radio this morning explaining exactly how and why Venus is passing in front of the sun; otherwise, I should have been even more confused by that than I am.
      This group of amendments would revise clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 to change who is a qualifying individual, the link between the eligibility criteria and the relevant week, entitlement conditions for both basic and special cases, disqualifications and, as a consequence of the changes to clause 2, definitions of terms used in the Bill.
      Amendments Nos. 3 and 2 would amend clause 1 by extending the payment to include people who will reach the age of 70 on or before 31 March 2005, at an additional cost of about £20 We believe that deferring the data-matching process to allow people to attain age 70 by 31 March would delay the making of automatic payments. Under current arrangements, those will be made in November, at a point at which the money is needed because pensioners are still paying this year's council tax bills. As the data match takes five to six weeks, those amendments would mean that automatic payments could not be made until May 2005—too late to help with this year's bills.
      Mr. Webb: One reason why we tabled that amendment in a slightly different way in Committee—
      156
      using the definition of people's dates of birth—was that that information is known at the start of the financial year. The Department would not have to wait until those people reached 70 before doing the data matching, but could do that at the start of the financial year because it would know who would reach 70 during that year. Obviously, arrangements would be needed for people who died, but we might be concerned about widows and their council tax, too.
      Malcolm Wicks: Sadly, that is the difficulty—we cannot quite predict who will still be there later in the year. I should point out that by extending the qualifying date to September, using the winter fuel payment methodology, we have brought an additional 210,000 pensioner households into the payment since it was announced on 17 March. I hope that we will not be accused of a lack of generosity because the September deadline has now allowed that extra group to be included.
      Amendment No. 3 would extend qualifying individual status to anyone who lived with someone who was aged 70 or over but had died during the current financial year. That would allow anyone who shared accommodation with such a person to become a qualifying individual, eligible for the payment. If the person aged 70 or over died before the relevant week, they would not have gained entitlement to the payment, but the person who lived with them would do so purely as a result of their death. This is probably a drafting problem, but that would theoretically mean that a 12-year-old grandchild, a 30-year-old rent-paying lodger or a 40-year-old live-in carer could become a qualified individual and receive the payment simply by virtue of living with a person who was aged 70 or over before they died. That might not be the amendment's intention, but it is what it means in technical and legal terms.
      Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 would remove the automatic £100 household payment from all qualifying single pension credit recipients and align their entitlement with that of non-pension credit recipients. That would mean depriving some older and poorer pensioners of half their entitlement. Almost 70 per cent. of pension credit recipients are aged 70 or over, and of those 83 per cent. are single pensioners. We have had a brief discussion about whether the special arrangements for pension credit households represent a means-testing element in the Bill, but I was pleased that the hon. Member for Northavon agreed that we are not attempting to introduce a separate income-testing arrangement especially for this measure.
      Amendment No. 4 would change conditions in clause 2 that govern how much qualifying individuals will receive. It would have the perverse effect of allowing two payments, totalling £150, to be made to single individuals who do not live with another qualifying individual and who are not in receipt of pension credit. As clause 2 stands, a qualifying individual can fall into either the £100 payment category or a £50 payment category, but not both. If a single eligible person receives pension credit, they will automatically receive £100 irrespective of with whom they live. If they do not live with another qualifying individual, they will receive £100 irrespective of whether they receive pension credit. That leaves only the situation in which a single eligible person is not on pension credit and is living with another eligible person. That person will receive £50.

      157
      Amendment No 4, however, would remove the condition of living with another qualifying individual from the £50 payment category, which would leave the default position that a single eligible person not living with another qualifying individual and not receiving pension credit would become eligible for the £50 payment. As those people are already in the £100 payment category, they would be eligible to receive both payments, giving a total of £150. The amendment would mean that that group of people would receive a higher payment than couples, having become eligible, in effect, for more than the full payment. Again, I suspect that that was not the intention of the amendment, but it would be its effect and impact.
      Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 would change the payment condition for members of the more than 225,000 couples who receive pension credit. Where both members of a couple qualified for a payment, they would each receive £50, rather than the current provision for a single £100 household payment to be made to the pension credit recipient. That would mean establishing the eligibility of every pension credit recipient's partner, and those who qualified would receive a separate £50 payment while their partner's household entitlement was adjusted from £100 to £50. There would then be two payments, two letters and double postage costs to deliver the same £100 to the same couple in the same household. Again, we are following the logic of the winter fuel payment system in the Bill, which is simpler and more sensible.
      Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 would remove from clause 3 the specific entitlement and payment conditions for people aged 70 or over who have been living in care homes for 13 weeks or more. That would mean making a payment to all care home residents, even where their care and accommodation needs were being met through public funds, at an additional cost of some £7 million. As drafted, the Bill provides for care home residents not receiving pension credit to be eligible for a £50 payment because they are sharing their accommodation with others and it is safe to assume that they are contributing at least in part to their care home costs. Care home residents receiving pension credit are not entitled to a payment because it is equally safe to assume that people in receipt of pension credit have their care and accommodation needs met through public funds.
      The effect of amendments Nos. 18 and 19 would be to remove disqualification from those who have been receiving free in-patient hospital treatment or care continuously for 52 weeks or more, even though their day-to-day living expenses, including heating and food, are provided by public funds through the health service. That would extend eligibility to some 6,000 people aged 70 or over who have been in hospital for more than a year, at a cost of about £600,000.
      I understand the intention behind the amendment, but I hope that Members will accept my explanation that it would not constitute a good use of public resources, and that they recognise that this Government have made great improvements in what is known as the hospital downrating of benefit by enabling people to keep that benefit for a year.
      Mr. Webb: The logic of the Minister's argument concerning people who live in care homes is that those
      158
      who pay towards care home costs get the £50, and those who are on pension credit and who do not pay towards the costs get nothing. As he will confirm, these payments are intended to help with council tax. If he is arguing that such people should not receive these payments because they do not pay council tax, what about the 1 million or more pensioners on pension credit who also do not pay council tax? Why are there different rules for the two groups of people?
      Malcolm Wicks: I understand the question and it is a perfectly reasonable one. We discussed this issue in Committee, and w rile the intention behind the £100 payment for this year arises from concern about the burden of council tax, we nevertheless sought to make the payment in a broad-brush way through the winter fuel payment system. Yes, there will be rough edges, and there may even be n element of rough justice here and there, but this is the simplest way to get the money to those who need it.
      At the risk of accusing the hon. Member for Northavon of occasionally being inconsistent, I should point out that adopting a more sophisticated system that ties public moneys to the particular burdens facing particular individuals in particular parts of the country, and which allows for whether or not they are in care homes, would take us down a far more complex road. It would probably involve some form of income testing, and I doubt whether he is in favour of such testing in this era.
      I do not intend to elaborate further on the issue of hospital downrating, given that we discussed it at considerable length in Committee and divided on it. Clause 8 contains definitions of terms used in the Bill and amendment No. 17 would remove the definition of state pension credit. As I have said repeatedly, we are aligning the rules and procedures for entitlement to payment with those for winter fuel payments—with which such payments will be made—to keep the process simple. Moving away from this tried and tested process would incur additional administrative costs in excess of £20 million and would lead to a delay in the making of payments, at least for some. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the Opposition will consider withdrawing the amendment.
      Mr. George Osborne: This has been quite an interesting debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on some of his contributions. I was saddened to see that he did not include on the selection list an amendment that would give everyone who pays council tax a £100 payment. Of course, such a payment was Liberal Democrat policy during the Brent, East by-election, but it was strangely dropped soon afterwards. We are now waiting for the Liberal Democrats' Leicester, South policy.
      The Minister rather made my case for me at the end of his speech whet he talked about elements of rough justice. He is right, and I made the same point on introducing the amendments: because of the Government's chosen administrative mechanism, some of the people who really should be getting the £100 will lose out. If the £100 payment is linked to people who pay council tax and is designed to help the elderly and those on fixed incomes, those who reach 70 after 26 September but who have paid council tax bills for this year really

      159
      should receive the money. I am not a Department for Work and Pensions official who has pored over this issue—[Interruption.] The Minister pays me the tribute of saying that I would make a very good DWP official, but unfortunately I did not sit my civil service exams all those years ago.
      I do not know whether there is a simple way of identifying such people, and the Minister did not explain whether the Government considered paying those who will reach 70 after 26 September. Nor am I sure what devices were at the DWP's disposal, but as the legislation is currently constructed some people will be caught on its rough edges. I suppose that the Government's chosen delivery mechanism does expose the fiction that this payment is linked to council tax, given that some people who do not pay council tax will in fact receive it. The provision has served that purpose if nothing else, but that said, I do not wish to detain the House further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 7

      POWER TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENTS
      1.15 pm
      Mr. George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 14, leave out clause 7.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      No. 20, in title, line 2, leave out from '70' to end of line 3.
      Mr. Osborne: These amendments deal with the extraordinary clause 7, which is extraordinary because it gives the Government wide-ranging powers to provide future one-off payments not just to those aged over 70, in the manner we have just discussed, but to those aged over 60. Absolutely no explanation has been given as to why the Government wanted to take that power upon themselves. Of course, if things had not been messed up at the beginning—had the Chancellor not said that primary legislation is required to introduce the measure announced in the Budget—he would not have needed to introduce such primary legislation to give himself this broad-ranging power. I suppose that the DWP said to the Chancellor, "We're going to have to introduce this primary legislation to implement your Budget announcement. I am sorry that we weren't consulted on this and that we have to bring you this bad news, but while we are taking the Bill through the House, why don't we give ourselves a general power to make special one-off payments to those aged over 60?"
      What, one wonders, is so special at out the age of 60? Will not the general state retirement age be 65 once the retirement age for women is increased? No explanation has been given as to why the age of 60 has been chosen. What payments do the Government envisage making? Perhaps they are a continuation of the payments in respect of council tax. If so, the Government
      160
      presumably expect council tax bills to continue to increase at the same very high rate at which they have increased since they took office. Perhaps they want to ensure that next year, they can give a dollop of money to elderly people to pay for their council tax. Perhaps they will introduce the same mechanism of a qualifying week. Perhaps they will restrict the provision to those over 70, or to those over 60. Perhaps a distinction will be drawn between men and women. Perhaps women over 60 and men over 65 will qualify. However, we know none of these details because no explanation has been given as to why this general power is being included in the Bill.
      Presumably, the main reason for the power is to prevent the Chancellor's being embarrassed again, so that he can make such Budget announcements without needing to implement them through primary legislation. The Minister is a clever man, and I well understand why he wants to keep in with the Chancellor at the moment. That is sensible politics, but it is not really a good enough reason to introduce such a wide-ranging power. The Minister can presumably confirm that there is no requirement that such payments be linked to council tax, even in debating terms. Such payments could be for anything: summertime payments, springtime payments, or payments for those aged 77 precisely. This is a very wide-ranging power.
      I have decided to try to help the Minister by giving him a menu of options. [Interruption.] As he again says from a sedentary position, I am behaving like a DWP official.
      Here is the range of options. I suspect that the Minister will not accept one of them as he would one of the options suggested by DWP officials, but there we are.
      Amendment No. 7 would allow the clause to remain in the Bill, but would change the word "may" to "shall" in subsection (1). In other words, if the Government want to take this power upon themselves, they need to tell us what exactly they envisage. If the Government have some scheme that they are dreaming up, let us hear about it now, so that we can decide whether it is good or bad. If it is good, we can allow it to remain in the Bill. Changing the word "may" to "shall" forces the Government's hand. They cannot then put something in the locker and bring it out on some future convenient occasion. They would have to do it now and reveal their hand.
      If the Government do not want that and are not dreaming anything up at the moment, I am afraid that amendment No. 8 would be applicable. It would simply remove the clause from the Bill. I should also point out that amendment No. 20 would amend the Bill's long title. That long title is itself something of a giveaway. It says that the Bill is to
      "make provision for payments by the Secretary of State to persons over the age of 70; and to enable provision to be made for payments by the Secretary of State to persons over the age of 60."
      The extra bit is the new power that the Government are taking upon themselves. As I said, if the Government cannot accept amendment No. 7, they should accept amendment No. 8 and remove the wide-ranging power from the Bill.

      161
      It is easy for Governments and bureaucracies to use every opportunity to accumulate power, even if they do not know when they are going to use it. However, it is not right for Parliament, which exists to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer and to protect the liberties of the subject, to hand over these general powers to the Minister, at least without his having some specific scheme in mind.
      Mr. Webb: You will see, Mr. Speaker, that I added my name to amendment No. 8 and I believe that we divided in Committee on a similar amendment. We agree absolutely that clause 7 should have no part in the Bill.
      I was reflecting on the matter this morning when it occurred to me that the Department for Work and Pensions gets rather blas é about zeros. Most Departments would regard £1 million or £2 million here or there as pretty serious money. They think of it in terms of a school extension, a new ward in a hospital and so on. The odd million here or there certainly adds up to some serious money, but the Department for Work and Pensions does not have that approach. This Bill spends nearly £0.5 billion and by accident we have some primary legislation to put it into effect.
      Clause 7 gives the Government the power to spend another £0.5 billion, with no scrutiny or power to amend it whatever. I believe that clause 7 amounts to a constitutional outrage. It will give the Government the power to introduce an unlimited scheme. If they want to, the Government can pay everyone over the age of 60 any amount of money for any reason. Paying £100 to the over-70s costs £0.5 billion, so what would paying winter fuel payments to the over-60s cost? We could be talking about billions of pounds. In the context of the DWP, I suppose that that amounts to a rounding error, but in the context of wider Government priorities, the idea of giving just one Department the power to spend such vast amounts of money on the strength of a 90-minute debate in a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation seems truly extraordinary.
      We—Parliament—would not have the power to amend the proposals. If the Government's scheme were acceptable in principle but contained detailed flaws, we would not even have the right to change it. We would have to accept or reject the whole measure on a take-it or-leave-it basis, yet potentially the £0.5 billion is at stake. That amount is neither fanciful nor hypothetical; it is what we are spending today. A further £0.5 billion could be spent without our having the chance to change it. That is totally unacceptable. The Bill has hardly been subject to rigorous scrutiny, but we have spent plenty of hours on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report today, looking at the details and debating them. The idea that the principle has been established that it is okay to pay out lump sums whenever the Government feel like it, so that we do not have to go through all this inconvenient scrutiny ever again, seems to me absolutely incredible.
      The principal reason why clause 7 should not be in the Bill is that it gives the Government the power to bring in unlimited spending. There is not even a cap in the Bill. It does not say that spending can be made by regulation up to a fairly modest amount, with serious legislation being required for larger amounts. It simply allows the
      162
      Government to do anything they fancy to anyone over 60 on any basis whatever, with negligible scrutiny. That is the fundamental objection.
      We should not give the Government these sweeping powers without some indication of what might motivate them to make these payments. We have had winter fuel payments, but they were never really much to do with winter fuel. The only aspect of winter fuel about the payment was the fact that it was made in the winter—I should say winterish, as I think that the first-year payment was made in the spring. It had nothing to do with winter fuel. People could spend it on whatever they liked—holidays abroad and the rest of it.
      Similarly, the council tax payment has nothing really to do with the council tax. It is an arbitrary excuse for the Government to hand over some cash to a particular section of the electorate. Who are we talking about? I exaggerate only slightly when I say that it is the only people who actually vote. We may find that out on Thursday. In other words, the Government sat down, thought that they were in a pickle over the council tax and wondered what they could do about it. They did not have an answer, so they needed a holding position. It is a pretty expensive holding position—10.5 billion of taxpayers' money—just to get the Government out of a fix. Is that really the basis on which we should be legislating in this place? It is bad enough doing so after a Budget speech through primary legislation, but doing so as clause 7 allows—on the whim of a statutory instrument—is just unbelievable.
      It is the Government's track record that causes concern about the powers in the Bill. I recall that the birth of the winter fuel payment was connected with the fact that the Government received an unexpected refund of the EU contribution. The Chancellor of the day—in 1997, if I recall correctly—suddenly found that he had some extra cash that he was not expecting to have. The House may have forgotten that the winter fuel payment was introduced for people who were not on income support—of course, it was means-tested at that point—at the level of £20. Now we are up in the realms of £400, so these things do have a knack of growing spectacularly.
      The Government seem to introduce such payments on an almost ad hoc basis. It is worth reminding ourselves that the winter fuel payment was also introduced through a statutory instrument because it was a social fund payment. It used the word "fuel" even though it had nothing to do with fuel, so it could be introduced under social fund legislation, which provides for payments for fuel costs. That is why no primary legislation was required. I recall wondering for many minutes why I had never sat on a Committee considering a winter fuel payments Bill. The answer is that the Government did not require primary legislation; they already had the power to hand over what amounted to billions of pounds in respect of winter fuel payments.
      The Government have a track record and they have form. They find a pot of money, wonder what to spend it on, and invent a scheme. They have done the same thing with the council tax in the Age-Related Payments Bill. The Government get into a mess, wonder what to do and come up with a scheme.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument—and, indeed, that of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) —very carefully. Is he telling me that when these measures were debated, his party opposed them on the grounds that Her Majesty's Government were simply handing out money to people who, as he said, could spend it on holidays? I did not notice that argument being made by either party at the time.
      Mr. Webb: The reason why the hon. Lady did not notice it was that there was no debate. If she had been listening to what I said a few moments ago, she would know that there was no debate over the winter fuel payment. There was no winter fuel payment Bill because the Government introduced the measure, if I recall correctly, on the basis of negative resolution procedure in a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. We never actually debated these matters. That is precisely the point that I am making. Clause 7 gives the Government the power, any time that they come up with a wheeze, to make payments on any basis that they like. They can call them winter fuel payments, although there is no link to winter fuel, or call them council tax payments, although there is no link to the council tax. The clause gives the Government a blanket power to make payments whenever they feel like it.
      I know that the hon. Lady is a doughty campaigner for parliamentary scrutiny. She ought to feel as uncomfortable as I do about giving the Government the power to bring in a scheme costing £500 million or more with just 90 minutes of scrutiny, especially when the provision is totally unamendable.
      1.30 pm
      The key point is that this power is huge and sweeping. Parliament will not be able to have any serious scrutiny of what the Government might came up with. The Government have a track record of introducing such ideas whenever they are in a pickle or have a windfall. It is totally unacceptable that that should be the basis of support for old people.
      What do older people have to look forward to under this Government? The answer is wheezes, schemes and gizmos—when there is a bit of money to hand. They should be able to look forward to getting decent, secure incomes every year. Those incomes should not be available only when the Government have a bit of money or are in a mess over the local tax system. The Government should give up on clause 7.
      The Minister should accept amendment No. 8. We need a proper support system for older people, planned ahead of time so that they know what is coming. In contrast, this Bill will literally be here today and gone tomorrow, as it offers one payment to be made because a problem exists and there is a bit of money to solve it with.
      We often discuss what the Minister thinks about as he lies on his bed at night—[Interruption.]
      Malcolm Wicks: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not him.
      Mr. Webb: I hope that the Minister will spare me a thought, and that he will ponder whether the best way to support pensioners is for the Government to have the power to produce new schemes and handouts whenever they are in a pickle or come up with a bright idea. Would it not be better for older people to have a decent, secure and long-term income, instead of yet another scheme?
      Mr. Hurst: Again, I shall keep my remarks brief. I am astounded at some of what the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has said. He described the amendment as though it were of such seismic constitutional importance that we could expect the Opposition Benches to be filled with the serried ranks of Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members.
      Mr. Webb: They will be here.
      Mr. Hurst: The Bill is a very positive development. It will not take anything away from people: it will not narrow down our citizens' liberties, or penalise them financially. However, it will allow the Government to move quickly to help those people in our community who are often in the greatest need. The provision will mean that people will not have to wait a long time for help that may not, in the end, be made available.
      It may be right to say that there is a lot that we could do on a more permanent basis to revise the pensions structure. I have never been ashamed to admit that I believe in restoring the earnings link, and I am sure that that will happen.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Hurst: However, when an urgent need arises the Government must also be able to do something about it fairly quickly. I therefore have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Bill. It is full of positive help for a large section of our community, and it has been disappointing to hear the rather mean-spirited criticism of this beneficial measure.
      Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what the urgent need was this summer?
      Mr. Hurst: I have knocked around in politics for the best part of 40-odd years. Usually, opponents of the Government say that the system governing payment of rates—or council tax, or poll tax—is dreadful. The hon. Gentleman and his party have always complained that council tax is especially unfair to people on fixed incomes. The Government have produced a scheme that will assist those people very quickly, and they have not chosen to push off into the wide blue—or yellow—yonder with debates about alternative schemes.
      I therefore thoroughly welcome the Bill. I certainly do not propose to support the amendment.
      Malcolm Wicks: This simple and rather innocent little Bill has provoked suggestions of all sorts of conspiracies, and other things. At one stage today, I thought that there would be an outbreak of party politics. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spoke about the Government being blasé with zeros,

      165
      and I thought that he would attack the jests made by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) about the Brent by-election and what I assume was a Liberal Democrat promise of £100. However, I do not want to go into the matter of the Brent bouncing cheque as the people of this great country are sitting at home and quietly contemplating how to cast their votes on Thursday. We should not raise discussion of this subject to fever pitch in that way.
      The hon. Member for Northavon inquired—somewhat cheekily, I thought—about what I think of at night. I shall not discuss that, as I just try to get to sleep. However, sitting in my garden, I do occasionally think about the great contributions made by Liberals in the past. I have to keep reminding the hon. Gentleman that Lloyd George was the one who introduced the old-age pension, and the work of the great William Beveridge must also be borne in mind. The Liberal contribution to social reform since the 1940s has been rather disappointing, but the party's track record can always be improved.
      Amendments Nos. 8 and 7 seek, respectively, to remove clause 7 altogether on the one hand, and on the other hand to mandate the Secretary of State to invoke the powers provided in the clause. The amendments would remove from the long title of the Bill the reference to the enabling provision for payments to be made by the Secretary of State to people aged over 60. We discussed clause 7 at length in Committee, but it may be helpful to the House if I reiterate its purpose.
      Clause 7 provides a regulation-making power so that, if circumstances warrant it, future payments may be made to people aged 60 or over that may be related to age or other circumstances. The power will enable the Department to legislate swiftly, should a need arise.
      We have always made it clear that this payment of £100 is for this year only, and to meet a specific need—the impact of recent council tax increases on the fixed incomes of older pensioners. During the Bill's passage, we have debated at great length the principle of making one-off payments to pensioners to meet specific needs in that way. It would be expensive and time consuming to have to introduce primary legislation, and therefore have the debate again, every time such a payment were warranted.
      Any regulations made using this power will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and, as such, will be debated by both Houses. They will also come within the remit of the Social Security Advisory Committee.
      I hope that the House will accept that the purpose of the clause is to avoid the situation that we are in, and that we will use the power only if it is prudent to do so.
      Mr. Webb: Will the Minister confirm that he just said that it would be time consuming to scrutinise properly a future Government decision to spend £500 million or more?
      Malcolm Wicks: I am saying that we need a mechanism that will allow us to introduce payments as speedily as is consistent with proper scrutiny. Indeed, some Opposition Members attacked the Government
      166
      on Second Reading for using primary legislation for this purpose, and wondered why this approach was necessary.
      Amendment No. 7 would oblige the Secretary of State to make future payments to those aged 60 or over. In Committee, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) stated that the purpose of the same amendment was to probe the matter. Given our discussions on Second Reading, in Committee and again today, it has been very thoroughly probed.
      On Second Reading and in Committee, the hon. Gentleman asked to see draft regulations, but I repeat what I told him on those occasions—that there are no draft regulations, and no current plans to invoke this power. At this point, we cannot predict the future use of the regulation-making power, but we can say with certainty that, by Providing for future payments to be made through secondary legislation, we are keeping costs and the use of parliamentary time to a minimum. I should have expected that to be welcomed by hon. Members, given the criticism from some quarters on Second Reading.
      Sir Robert Smith: Does the Minister accept that parliamentary time spent scrutinising legislation is well spent if it helps us to avoid the pitfalls that might be encountered when a provision goes through unamended and unscrutinised?
      Malcolm Wicks: Of course, and that is why this Bill is being scrutinised properly—although there is not as much demand for proper scrutiny as one might expect. If they are invoked, the powers contained in the regulations will be scrutinised in Committee in the usual way for secondary legislation, and the Social Security Advisory Committee will also scrutinise them. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for dropping in on our debates on his important matter.
      Sir Robert Smith: If the Minister had been a little more observant, he would have noticed that I was present for quite a lot of the debate on this group of amendments and the previous group. When I have left the Chamber, it has been to have discussions through the usual channels to facilitate the progress of this debate.
      Malcolm Wicks: I certainly noticed that the hon. Gentleman was here for parts of the debate, but he was not here for all of it, so I do not think that I need to apologise. He has already made a far more substantial contribution than one member of our Committee, whose major contribution was to ask for the blinds in the Committee Room to be raised and who then had to leave on other urgent business. That is one way to shed light on the debate.
      I ask the hon. Member for Tatton to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. George Osborne: We have had an enjoyable debate. I welcomed the support from the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for Conservative policy on the linking of the state pension to earnings. Support was also expressed from a sedentary position by the hon.

      167
      Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). It would be great if we could lock the doors now and have a vote on the issue, because we would win.
      The Minister gave no explanation for the Government's actions beyond the fact that they want to have a mechanism for the future He said that he did not want to waste Parliament's time by introducing primary legislation again. However, the clause would give the Government very wide powers to introduce almost any kind of benefit targeted at people over the age of 60. Clause 7 (2) states:
      "Regulations…may provide for payments to be made…to persons in a specified class (which may be defined by reference to age or otherwise)…in specified circumstances."
      One can almost envisage the Government introducing a major new benefit under that power. It is not even limited to repeating the payment that will be made under the Bill. If the Government had made clause 7 say that they might make the same payment to the same group of people in subsequent years, they would have had a better argument. By putting the age of 60 into the clause, they have revealed that they have other future payments in mind.
      The comments by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on parliamentary scrutiny were spot on. We cannot allow such wide powers to stay on the face of the Bill and therefore we seek to press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 253.

      Division No. 195]

      [1:42 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Allan, Richard

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Fabricant, Michael

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Fallon Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Flight, Howard

      Bacon, Richard

      Flook, Adrian

      Baldry, Tony

      Forth, rh Erc

      Barrett, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Garner, Edward

      Blunt, Crispin

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Boswell, Tim

      Gidley, Sandra

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Brady, Graham

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Grayling, Chris

      Breed, Colin

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Greenway, John

      Burns, Simon

      Hague, rh William

      Burnside, David

      Heath, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Burt, Alistair

      Hoban Mank (Fareham)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

      Holmes, Paul

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Jack, rh Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Chidgey, David

      Lamb, Norman

      Clappison, James

      Lansley, Andrew

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Cotter, Brian

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Curry, rh David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Loughton, Tim

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      168

      Maclean, rh David

      Shepherd, Richard

      Maples, John

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atham)

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

      Maude, rh Francis

      Syms, Robert

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Moore, Michael

      Teather, Sarah

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Thurso, John

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Ottaway, Richard

      Trimble, rh David

      Page, Richard

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Weir, Michael

      Randall, John

      Wiggin, Bill

      Redwood, rh John

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mr. David Ruffley and

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Colman, Tony

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Connarty, Michael

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cooper, Yvette

      Allen, Graham

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cranston, Ross

      Austin, John

      Crausby, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cruddas, Jon

      Baird, Vera

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Battle, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Beard, Nigel

      Dalyell, Tam

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      David, Wayne

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dawson, Hilton

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Berry, Roger

      Denham, rh John

      Betts, Clive

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Blackman, Liz

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Blizzard, Bob

      Doran, Frank

      Borrow, David

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bryant, Chris

      Edwards, Huw

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Efford, Clive

      Burgon, Colin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burnham, Andy

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E,)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Cairns, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Casale, Roger

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Caton, Martin

      Follett, Barbara

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Challen, Colin

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Chaytor, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Clapham, Michael

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & chryston)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clelland, David

      Grogan, John

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      169

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hanson, David

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Merron, Gillian

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Healey, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mole, Chris

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Moran, Margaret

      Hendrick, Mark

      Morgan, Julie

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Morley, Elliot

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mountford, Kali

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Mudie, George

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Owen, Albert

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Perham, Linda

      Hutton, rh John

      Picking, Anne

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Illsley, Eric

      Plaskitt, James

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      lrranca-Davies, Huw

      Pound, Stephen

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jamieson, David

      Purnell, James

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Ruane, Chris

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ruddock, Joan

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Kidney, David

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lammy, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Sheridan, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Leslie, Christopher

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Soley, Clive

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Southworth, Helen

      Linton, Martin

      Squire, Rachel

      Love, Andrew

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      McDonnell, John

      Stringer, Graham

      MacDougall, John

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      McFall, John

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      McKechin, Ann

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      McNulty, Tony

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      McWalter, Tony

      Trickett, John

      McWilliam, John

      Truswell, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      170

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Winnick, David

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watts, David

      Wright, David (Telford)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Ms Bridget Prentice

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      1.56 pm
      Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time
      This is a simple Bill, as we have discussed, although it has created some controversy. It will make real the promise given in the Budget to pay all eligible households with someone aged over 70 an extra £100 this year, in recognition of the impact of recent council tax increases on the fixed incomes of older people. The payment will be made through the winter fuel payment process. The Bill also provides the power to make regulations under the affirmative procedure to enable other targeted payments to people aged over 60 to be made in the future if circumstances warrant such payments.
      The Bill has attracted broad support from all parts of the House and a number of hon. Members have made valuable contribution to its scrutiny. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) tabled a series of probing amendments that allowed us to explore, at some length, the detail of how the payment will be made. That has left us all much wiser, particularly in relation to polygamous marriages, among other things—a subject that provoked some interest in Committee. I also thank the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) for his scrutiny.
      The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has argued eloquently throughout our deliberations that the payment should be both universal and uniform. We, in turn, have explained why it will not and, further, why it cannot be. My hon Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) and for Watford (Claire Ward) all made timely and constructive contributions to the debates in Committee. On Report, we had a useful run-through of some of the issues. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made significant contributions.
      Although I am happy to reply to any new point that might arise during the debate on Third Reading, I now simply commend he Bill to the House, as it paves the way for us to give financial support to our oldest and some of our most vulnerable pensioners.
      1.58 pm
      Mr. George Osborne: I will not detain the House for long. Many hon. Members wish to speak on airports and air transport, and I must be back in Committee at 2.30 pm to hear the Minister who is dealing with the Finance Bill answer the point that I made just before the break.
      As we have made clear from the beginning, we support the Bill. It is difficult not to support helping elderly people to cope with the very high council tax

      171
      increases imposed on them by the Government. However, it is a strange Bill because the Government never intended to introduce it in the first place, but also because although it is intended to help people to pay council tax bills, the payment will go to people who do not pay council tax. It is also strange because it will do nothing to address the problem that the Government claim they seek to address: soaring council tax bills. It is worth reminding people, before Thursday, that those bills have gone up by 69 per cent. since 1997, or the equivalent to 3p on the basic rate of income tax.
      The Bill does nothing to address the fundamental problems with the council tax—that work will have to wait. With my good friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), I met the Minister for Local and Regional Government yesterday to discuss the 8.4 per cent. increase in Macclesfield borough council's council tax. It is clear that a range of centrally imposed burdens has caused council tax to increase, but the Bill does nothing to deal with that.
      Mr. Webb: I commend the hon. Gentleman for using his lunchtime break from Committee to participate in the debate in the Chamber. As a thoughtful man, has he reflected on why the Government need the Bill? Why did they not simply change the rate of the winter fuel payment at the age of 70?
      Mr. Osborne: To be honest, I have had little time for reflection today and I had not considered that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will elaborate—as long as he does not take 30 minutes to do so.
      The measure is necessary because, as the Chancellor admitted in his Budget statement, pensioners on fixed incomes and the many who are on incomes that are linked to prices have a problem paying council tax bills that increase much faster than prices. The Bill does little or nothing to address that problem. That said, however, we shall not oppose it. A lasting solution to some of the problems will probably have to await a Conservative Government.
      2.1 pm
      Mr. Webb: This is the Bill that happened by accident. The Chancellor came up with a proposal not realising that he needed a Bill to implement it, as we have just heard. The Bill is wholly unamended from Second Reading, so, in the interests of consistency, I shall not encourage my colleagues to vote differently from the way in which they voted then.
      The Bill raises a fundamental question. Let us suppose that the Government are right and that we need to deliver £100 to everyone over 70. In that case, why did they not use the existing winter fuel payments mechanism and simply change the rate at the age of 70? I shall be happy to give way to the Minister if he wishes to explain why the Bill is needed, when all it does is replicate the winter fuel payments delivery mechanism. The Government could have increased the winter fuel payment at 70, and the Chancellor could have said that people could spend the money on their council tax if they wanted to. Why did the Government not do that? Presumably, they did not do that because it would have blown the gaff—it would have been an admission that
      172
      winter fuel payments are nothing to do with winter fuel, just as the age-related payments in the Bill are nothing to do with council tax. Even if we allow that what the Government want to do is correct, why is the Bill needed?
      Obviously, without the Bill we would not have been able to scrutinise the measure as we have, but the Government's approach shows a degree of inconsistency. Our greatest concern about the measure is less the money that is paid than the money that might be paid with negligible scrutiny. The Division that we have just had focused on that specific issue. We do not want the Bill to set a precedent. We do not want Bills such as this one to appear in future—Bills that not only enable the Government to do what they want in a panic, but give them sweeping powers to do similar things in future with even less scrutiny. I hope that the Government hear the message loud and clear: although they won the Division, neither this House nor the other place will tolerate Governments giving themselves such sweeping powers in future. I hope that Ministers in other Departments, who no doubt hang on every word of our debates, also take that message to heart.
      The most interesting point to emerge from our discussions was made by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) in his valuable contribution this afternoon. He said that Governments need powers to do things in a hurry—I think that that is a fair reflection of what he said. There is a saying: "Legislate in haste, repent at leisure". Our concern is that Governments acting in a hurry because they have got themselves into a mess set a dangerous precedent. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman suggested how that problem might be dealt with, but when the living standards of many of our most elderly and vulnerable citizens have been allowed to be severely damaged by an unfair local tax system and a local tax rebate system that does not work, and the Government's reaction is to invent a new scheme to tackle the problem because "something must be done", that is a dreadful approach to legislating.
      The roots of the problem are two things that do not work. We have a local tax system that is unfair because it is not properly related to ability to pay, and a local tax rebate system that fails woefully to reach the people whom it needs to reach. If both those problems were resolved, the Bill would not be needed. If local tax reflected ability to pay, the Bill would be unnecessary because people over 70 would not be subject to an unfair burden. Failing that, if the rebate system worked as it should, the Bill would be unnecessary because poor people over 70 would not be paying. The Bill is needed because there are people aged over 70 who are poor and who are not getting the rebates to which they are probably entitled, but rather than make that system work, the Government invent another system that will, no doubt, cost millions of pounds to administer.
      The Bill is an admission of failure—an admission that we have an unfair local tax system and that the rebate system designed to deal with that does not work. It introduces yet another scheme, one that will last one year. That raises another question: why is the measure to last for only one year? What are we waiting for? Surely, the local tax system will still be unfair and the rebates will still not reach the people who are supposed to get them the year after, so what is coming down the track? We hope that it is a fair local tax system, but we have seen no indication that that is what we will get.

      173
      This is a real sticking-plaster Bill. It is a response to two separate failures of Government—the failure to introduce a fair local tax system and the failure to introduce a fair rebate system. What makes the position worse is that there is a third failure of Government: their failure to support pensioners properly. If pensioners had a decent income in the first place, they would be able to afford to pay council tax. It is because so many pensioners over 70 do not have an adequate income—in seven years in office, the Government have failed to deliver one—that the Bill is needed. The Bill could almost be called the triple admission of failure Bill—failure to deliver a fair local tax system, failure to deliver an effective rebate system and, crucially, failure to ensure that our oldest and most vulnerable citizens have a decent income.
      This is a sad day. Obviously, we will nod the Bill through because none of us will deny our elderly and vulnerable citizens £100, but would it not have been a better world if the Bill had not been necessary and the Government had not failed time and again on key policies?
      2.7 pm
      Malcolm Wicks: I do not intend to detain the House for long. The debate is not about pensions policy as a whole, or about local government finance, although I note the interest of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) in that subject. I understand that he was a special advisor at No. 10 when the poll tax started to unravel—
      Mr. George Osborne: The Minister is not going to tar me with that brush. I did work in No. 10, but long after the poll tax had disappeared.
      Malcolm Wicks: I apologise if I got that wrong, but I note—as will the Hansard reporters—the use of the
      174
      phrase "tar me with that brush". The poll tax is indeed not something of which to be proud. If that is the first apology that we have, heard for the poll tax, I welcome it.
      The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked why we did not simply use the winter fuel payments mechanism—in fact, he was urging us to use secondary legislation. To have to be consistent is a terrible thing, but being a Liberal Democrat means never having to be consistent. It must be wonderful, but those of us in serious politics have to point out such inconsistencies.
      Mr. Webb: So why did the Minister not do it then?
      Malcolm Wicks: There is a good answer to that question. The winter fuel payments system draws on the social fund that relates to cold weather payments, and it is a tribute to the Government that winter fuel payments are now at such a level that they meet a large proportion of people's winter fuel bills. Legally, therefore, that system would not have been an appropriate way to deliver the £100. In any case, this £100 is related not to winter fuel, but to council tax. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
      The hon. Member for Northavon was not terribly generous about the fact that we are helping our elders and betters, and talked about the Government having a formidable track record. I plead guilty—we do have a track record, as we have reintroduced free sight tests for elderly people, which were abandoned by another Government in a mean-minded moment. We have a formidable track record of 3 million individuals now receiving pension credit; free television licences for the over-75s; and winter-fuel payments of £200, or £300 for households where someone is over 80. I therefore plead guilty to having a track record of which we are proud and which supports some of the most vulnerable people in the community. We will add to it with £100 for households where someone is 70 or over if Members support the Bill, which I commend to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Air Transport
    [Relevant documents: The Sixth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2002–03, on Aviation (HC 454) and the Government's response thereto (Cm 6047). The Third Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2003–04, on Pre-Budget Report 2003: Aviation Follow-up (HC 233) and the Seventh Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2003–04, on Aviation: Sustainability and the Government Response (HC 623).]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
    2.11 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): The White Paper entitled "The Future of Air Transport", which was published on 16 December, is recognised by many people as breaking new ground. In the history of policy papers on aviation, it is the first to make a comprehensive and integrated attempt to put in place a strategic framework with a 30-year horizon. Other White Papers, whatever the nature of the Government who produced them, were largely concerned with catching up with prevailing conditions. They did not look to the future or the 30-year vista established in the present White Paper, which shows that the Government are prepared to take difficult decisions and see that they are followed through. It shows the Government's commitment to modernising Britain's communications infrastructure to allow us to compete properly in the global economy. It recognises the importance of aviation in our economy and shows that we understand fully the critical balance between aviation and the environment. As I said, it provides the first strategic vision for our airports in nearly 30 years, and includes a programme of action to ensure that key policy objectives are met. As the Secretary of State for Transport said when the consultation was introduced, whatever policy prevails, doing nothing is not an option when it comes to making things happen.
    People who would make sloppy, rather than intellectually rigorous, criticisms of the White Paper might dismiss it for taking a predict-and-provide approach. That, however, is an easy canard, as early drafts of the White Paper gave three graded demand curves on future aviation ranging from 400 to 600 million passenger movements. Total capacity will be nowhere near the higher end of that demand structure. Unless people have degrees in futurology or far-sightedness, they should not dismiss the White Paper for taking a predict-and-provide approach. That is not helpful, and we need a mature debase about the future of our air transport industry and aviation in general.
    We have already had the opportunity to debate specific recommendations in the White Paper, including those on Scotland and the midlands. On an estimates day we had a useful but limited debate on the document itself, and I am pleased that we have a chance to debate it again today. I should like to paint a picture showing where we are six months after its publication and update the House on the way in which the Government and others are developing some of its recommendations in advance of the progress report that we intend to publish in 2006.
    176
    I am delighted that there is a great deal of interest in our debate. Even with the extended time now available, there is still a limit on Back Benchers' speeches. It is important that the Government hear people's views six months after the publication of the White Paper, when they have had time to reflect and resist any early knee jerk reactions.
    Our priority is to focus on realising the objectives set out in the White Paper; to ensure that the best use is made of existing airport capacity and that regional airports, where appropriate, continue to grow; and to follow up the commitment to increase capacity in the south-east of England. We have not been idle in the six months following 16 December, and work is already in hand. I shall set out what has been achieved so far and, more importantly, what we expect to happen next. I have been encouraged by the airport operators' positive response to the White Paper and their quick reactions in taking the policy forward. I hope that that will continue. I fully accept that communities close to all airports, not simply those earmarked for expansion, should have clear information about their development in the next 10, 15 or 30 years. We have asked every airport to produce a master plan by the end of the year, and we will consult on their form and timetable. Airports that will undergo lesser expansion, as well as those seeking to achieve significant increases in capacity, should explain how they might expand and, within their region, grow in spatial and economic capacity.
    Mr. David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman said that he had asked every airport to produce a report. Does he agree that we can prevent misunderstandings and knee-jerk reactions by keeping local communities close to airports up to date with what is happening at all times? My experience is that that helps to get the truth across. If he is already doing so, is he prepared to give a step-by-step explanation of progress?
    Mr. McNulty: On balance, I agree, with the exception of the phrase "at all times." It may not be appropriate to tell communities that certain meetings or processes are unfolding if there is not a tangible end product. With that minor quibble, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and shall look at specific issues affecting Heathrow and Stansted, as well as larger projects discussed in the White Paper. Broadly, communities should have information about how their local airport is going to develop. There has been much discussion about development, not simply in London and the south-east but in other areas where people are troubled by the lack of information about the future of their airports. We are trying to facilitate the provision of such information—that is the essence of master planning, whether of larger airports in London and the south-east or of smaller regional airports. It is in the interests of operators and others to ensure that, even if they cannot take their communities with them as they develop, people are kept informed.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Apart from the big three airports, there is no statutory planning process for approving airport expansion or, indeed, verifying the plans. Given what the Minister has just said, will he consider instigating a procedure whereby he adds his imprimatur to an airport's plans

    177
    and verifies them, so that there is recourse and redress if there is a complete collapse of trust, as there is with Nottingham East Midlands airport, and people do not believe what the airport says?
    Mr. McNulty: I suspect that however eloquently put, the hon. Gentleman's question is slightly mischievous. He knows as much as I do about the legislative framework for planning, and he knows that his suggestion could not be implemented without a radical—even more radical than we have already carried out—change to planning legislation.
    We are seeking master plans for every airport, including Nottingham East Midlands. Those master plans, as I understand it, will not have the status of development documents with the consequent implications for planning legislation, but they will be material planning matters that need due consideration under the planning legislation. I hope that in all cases there would be a good deal of consultation between the airports and their local communities about at least some elements of the master planning process, or at least some education about why the master plan goes in one direction rather than another.
    In the end, those are commercial documents and part of the commercial growth and general plans of an airport. Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman says, knowledge will be important. The local community's trust and cooperation will not be forthcoming if the plan is perceived as distilled and imposed from on high, rather than being subject to consultation, but as to whether we will change the law so that my legalistic imprimatur is on the plan and everything comes back to me if it all goes pear shaped, I suspect that the answer is no. However, I will check whether that is correct.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Given the previous question, can the Minister tell the House in what way the plans will be accountable to the local community? They are business plans—commercial proposals—yet they are to be introduced into the quasi-legal process that is planning. How will BAA's proposals for Stansted, for example, be accountable to my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst)?
    Mr. McNulty: As the hon. Gentleman knows, ultimately the proposals will be accountable—if that is the right word for a business document—through the planning process and the democratic input into it. The hon. Gentleman evidently does not have the confidence in Uttlesford district council that others have. That is the most appropriate place for development applications and processes to unfold. Those are essentially commercial documents. We are insisting on them because it is important that each and every airport ensures that its local community knows how the airport will develop.
    In some cases—including Stansted, one would hope—planning applications will follow rapidly from the issue of master plans, because of the time frames laid out in the White Paper to which BAA is committed. In other cases the process will unfold over the long term. The hon. Gentleman knows that local and regional
    178
    airports, especially those outside London and the south-east, will be at assorted stages of progress and development as entities, from Finningley, if I may use that shorthand description of the newest one in South Yorkshire, all the way through to Manchester, so their master plans and how they evolve will be markedly different.
    Mr. Alan Duncan rose—
    Mr. McNulty: I shall take one last question, but then I must make progress.
    Mr. Duncan: To assist the Minister in developing the argument, I think he is speaking about the planning proposals that attach to an airport as its footprint expands on the ground. My point was about the volume of flight in the air. That is where there is a big planning deficiency.
    Mr. McNulty: I apologise if I misled the hon. Gentleman. I mean all that. I do not mean simply precursors to planning applications. As will be clear from the consultation, when we speak of master plans we mean the growth and development of the airport in terms of noise, blight, footprint and possibly aspirational expansion into areas that are not part of the current footprint. Where such detailed planning applications are further down the line, we hope that that will promote the debate, discourse and information that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) seeks.
    The master plans are at various stages of development, and I accept that they should include many of the considerations that apply to Nottingham East Midlands, in terms of an expansion of capacity for flights and passenger movements that will take place within the existing footprint but will have noise implications and affect various other public amenities.
    The master planning process is right. We will continue to support the work of others on a wide range of issues, while respecting the ultimate backstop, or endgame: the planning process. We will continue to work closely with the regulator, airlines and airport operators to ensure that the right capacity is provided at the right time, at the right price and in the right locations. We will ensure that the elements of the White Paper for which we are directly responsible are provided on time and in conjunction with work carried out by others, and that they provide value for money for taxpayers. But that does not mean that we have stopped listening and learning. We want all stakeholder groups—I apologise for that phrase—to be involved in the continuing work, to assist us and, no doubt, to challenge us.
    The first priority purely in terms of timing, as outlined in the White Paper, is a second runway at Stansted by 2012. We look to BAA as the airport operator to develop the detailed design for a new runway and associated development. BAA is working closely with local communities, airport users and all relevant agencies in taking that forward—not by any means with the full support of local communities, but working closely with them.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early, but what does he imagine will be the immediate effect on the growth at Heathrow between now and the expansion that he envisages at Stansted?
    Mr. McNulty: Between the development at Stansted and any subsequent decision to develop or otherwise a third runway at Heathrow, my hon. Friend knows that there are various matters to be considered, such as Heathrow maintaining its existing capacity or considering with an open mind the notion of mixed mode and other operations at Heathrow, and ways of optimising, with all the caveats relating to strategy and the environment, the development at Heathrow between now and the development of the first new runway in the south-east at Stansted, as discussed in the White Paper. There is much work to be done at Heathrow before any decision is taken about whether, particularly for environmental reasons, a third runway is feasible. But that does not mean that nothing will happen at Heathrow till then. My hon. Friend's point is well made.
    We expect BAA to bring forward two planning applications to the local planning authority in due course, the first for an increase in capacity to 35 million passengers per annum, and the second for the construction of the new runway. As a first step to delivery, BAA has assembled a team to take forward development of the airport. It has also launched a home value guarantee scheme for about 100 houses within the airport boundary. The scheme allows home owners to sell to BAA at an appropriate time for the full market value of the property and entitles them to an additional payment once planning permission is obtained. I understand that BAA has agreed to purchase about 20 such properties so far. For those living very close to the airport boundary affected by noise, BAA has consulted on a home owners support scheme and is currently considering the responses received.
    In line with our White Paper commitments the Government today laid before Parliament the draft statutory instrument to change the regulation of the aircraft movement limit at Stansted so that in future it will be managed by the local planning authority. Hon. Members will know that thus far the limit has been set by the House, rather than the local planning authority. There will be an increase in the movement limit, which has been agreed between BAA and Uttlesford district council.
    The White Paper recognised Heathrow's central role in the UK aviation industry. Our efforts focus on considering ways of meeting the key environmental conditions for a third runway. I have said this before but it bears repetition: the environmental dimension to what the White Paper says about Heathrow is not intended as a sop to the green lobby while we let Heathrow do whatever it wants, nor is it intended as an impediment to development at Heathrow if those environmental concerns cannot be met. They are real concerns that must be met in full, as outlined in the White Paper, before we advance. Work is needed on those and other concerns before 2010 or 2012, as my hon. Friend suggested.
    A substantial programme of work is under way to inform the White Paper progress in report in 2006. Air quality is one major focus of the work, and development
    180
    at Heathrow depends on our ability to comply with EU air quality standards, including the nitrogen dioxide limit, which comes into effect in 2010. We will re-examine the assessments of impacts made before the White Paper, and three technical panels have been set up to review the data and help to develop an accepted scientific basis for further assessments. New research and data collection are also planned for later this year.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: On air quality, will the Government be solely guided by the European Union statutory limits on NOx emissions, or will they also take account of ground level ozone, which, as the Minister knows from the King's College London studies published this week, already reaches dangerous levels across west London on 70 days in the year?
    Mr. McNulty: The three technical panels will review all the data. It is hard to discern where aviation-related impacts stop and car-related impacts start. The EU directive and the elements that come into effect in 2010 are important, but an environmental assessment will be made in the round—those elements must be factored in to determine the environmental dimensions appropriate to a third runway.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: The Minister mentions a possible European problem. Have studies of environmental impact been undertaken at Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt or other international airports?
    Mr. McNulty: I shall return to that point shortly, but I want to continue my little run through Heathrow and some other airports—the point is, of course, germane.
    To ensure transparency, independent experts have been invited to sit on the panels, and we are considering a peer review of the panels' work. Again, the airport operator has been quick to react: BAA is currently examining the operational aspects of mixed mode under a range of possible scenarios, including the existing 480,000 air transport movement limit. National Air Traffic Services is carrying out work on the airspace design implications to help BAA develop scenarios that can then be tested for air quality and noise impacts.
    I shall return to the point made by my hon. Friend at a more appropriate point in my speech. I am standing at the Dispatch Box two hours before I anticipated that that would happen, but I am sure that the House will indulge me and allow me to fill those two hours.
    I shall stop here momentarily and discuss NATS. The public private partnership now handles record numbers of flights, and NATS has a consistently high safety record. Last week's events showed us how skilled NATS is in maintaining a safe and efficient air traffic system in this country. Upgrades to the old flight data processing system at West Drayton were first tested extensively in simulation. Crucially, they were then tested offline on the real system on last Wednesday night. When NATS started to turn the system back on, the system locked, so it shifted to the back-up manual system and imposed flight restrictions to ensure that safety was not compromised.
    Those restrictions ensured that all incoming flights could land and that all flights in UK airspace could be handled normally—the only delay was to outgoing

    181
    flights. The system was closed for rebooting at 6 am; it was running well by 6.40 am; it was fully operational at 7.5 am; and all flight restrictions had been removed by 8 am. Flights, some of which were cancelled, were then rescheduled by the airlines.
    Although the system is serviceable and is widely used elsewhere, it is not new technology, and the PPP is bringing £1 billion of investment to NATS infrastructure over the next 10 years. The replacement for the flight data processing system is one of the key elements of that new investment. The new CASPIAN system, which will be introduced at Prestwick in 2009 and at Swanwick in 2010–12, will be vital in ensuring high safety standards across the UK and in the London area in particular. Just in case anyone thinks that that is a coded message, I emphasise that any proposal to introduce mixed mode at Heathrow would be subject to full consultation and environmental assessment—recent newspaper headlines about a "secret plan" are just daft.
    The White Paper recognises that surface access solutions for Heathrow must be based around improved public transport and demand management. We have had an initial discussion on that point with key personnel and interested parties, and further discussions will follow. A series of work streams flows from the points about Heathrow outlined in the White Paper.
    I have met a number of MPs for whom Heathrow is an immediate local concern. Following those meetings—this point relates to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne—the key point is that I am struggling, but we will reach a stage where we can implement a mechanism to allow local communities to receive more significant feedback. These are still early days, and we have not been able to implement such a mechanism over the past six months, as I have said once or twice to hon. Members whose constituencies are in the area, but when time frames and deadlines have been implemented on mixed mode or other consultation processes, I assure hon. Members that I will seek to implement a device to keep the MPs concerned involved, if not some wider device to allow people access to clear information.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park) (LD): The Minister must know that the very suggestion of mixed mode makes my constituents feel that they will never have any peace—even with half a day's respite, they already suffer a great deal of noise. How long will the consultation on mixed mode take and when is a decision likely?
    Mr. McNulty: As and when there are stories to tell and timelines and processes to unfold, I will let those hon. Members with a clear constituency interest in Heathrow know about them. We are not about to consult on mixed mode. The related work is complex and important and it must be carried out in full, so that the consultation has some substance and so that people are not led up and down the hill on more than one occasion. If I receive more information over the next day or so, I shall gladly write to the hon. Lady, but I suspect that I will not receive any such information.
    The impact of such a change requires much technical investigation on, for example, whether the change occurs within the existing movements limit and what
    182
    form it should take, and such issues must be examined in detail before we put the matter out to consultation. I take the point that people are unclear about what will happen, but I would far rather that they achieve clarity by a proper consultation process rooted in research analysis and based on firm proposals rather than by a Liberal Democrat referendum that asked, "Do you want mixed mode? Yes or no?"
    Dr. Tonge: Will he Minister give way?
    Mr. McNulty: With respect, I shall not. I was joking when I mentioned filling up the extra two hours of debate, but if I keep taking interventions liberally—no pun intended—other hon. Members will have no chance to speak.
    In this debate I am keen to hear from Back Benchers, but I am also keen to hear from Conservative Front Benchers. The last speech made by a Conservative Front Bencher on aviation policy was 20 pages long, but it said exactly nothing, and it will be interesting to see whether Conservative aviation policy has advanced.
    Environmental issues are particularly important for the UK, because of our leading role in international aviation and the success of the London airport system—the matter is not only an issue for Heathrow. The White Paper recognises that it is vital that the environmental impacts of aviation are adequately addressed, and, again, work is in hand.
    The climate change impacts of aviation are a serious concern. Greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are rising, which is a global problem that requires global solutions, and the UK is showing leadership in addressing that challenge. Many sceptics and climate change-deniers exist around the world, and we must work hard to win them over. In February, the UK and other European states succeeded in persuading the rest of the world to develop guidelines on incorporating aviation in a future global emissions trading scheme, and we intend to press for the inclusion of intra-EU air services in the EU emissions trading scheme around 2008, and we will pursue that goal vigorously during next year's UK presidency of the EU.
    A new international standard for NOx emissions from new aircraft engines comes into effect in 2008. It is 12 per cent. tougher than the current standard—we wanted more than 12 per cent., but 12 per cent. is better than a lower increase—and will help to slow down the absolute increase in global NOx emissions. We are also examining working practices and the potential for new technologies to minimise climate change.
    It is fair to say that airport operators, too, are taking the environment seriously. For example, BAA is pursuing a rang of policies to reduce emissions, including greater use of public transport, restrictions on the use of private vehicles, use of fixed electrical ground power, and the introduction of an emissions-related element in Heathrow landing charges.
    On 15 January 2004, we announced our decision to continue existing right flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted for a further year—to 30 October 2005. We have also undertaken to consult on a new night noise regime for those airports to apply thereafter. We aim to publish the first of two consultation papers in the near future. Furthermore, we will, when

    183
    parliamentary time permits, seek powers to require greater use of noise charges, new mitigation and compensation packages for noise, and new legislation on the control of noise.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Minister will be aware that the Office for National Statistics recently produced documentation showing that greenhouse gas emissions from aviation rose by 85 per cent. between 1990 and 2002. Will he take this opportunity categorically to deny that his Department sought to intervene in the press release that the ONS intended to issue in connection with those statistics?
    Mr. McNulty: I categorically deny that, as have colleagues and others in the Department on numerous occasions. In the report produced by his Committee—the Environmental Audit Committee—the hon. Gentleman said that he was appalled by recent reports that the Department interfered with the publication of ONS environmental accounts. If he had rung me up to ask about that, I could have saved him from being appalled, because it never happened in any way, shape or form. That is what the chief statistician says, as does everybody involved in the process. As statisticians of some repute, they chose not to publish any information for which they could not reconcile figures from various sources. In fact, the figures on aviation were not a million miles away from each other. The aspect about which the ONS statisticians had serious concerns was the reconciliation of the impact of freight traffic on the environment. I can categorically and 100 per cent. deny that there was any interference of any description. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was so distressed that he had to mention it in his Committee's report, but I can gladly put his mind to rest.
    Mr. Donohoe: Does my hon. Friend believe that we are on a level playing field with European airports such as Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle?
    Mr. McNulty: I understand what my hon. Friend is trying to suggest. Certainly, much of the competition that the London airports—Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick—face is not from other regional airports, but from Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle, and others in the golden triangles surrounding London and the south-east and the equivalent areas in France and the Netherlands. Although we should bear that in mind, it is important that any increase in the capacity of airports in London and the south-east takes place in a firmly British policy context in terms of our legislative planning framework. Many people say that if travellers do not fly out of the London and south-east airports, it is not their natural second choice to go from Manchester or Birmingham, although it may be in some cases, so there is key competition from Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and others. Equally, some airport operators claim that the planning framework and assorted other frameworks, not least those relating to the environment, are much more liberal—in the true sense of the word, not that hijacked by the Liberal Democrats—elsewhere, so it is far easier to expand Charles de Gaulle or Schiphol.
    I take my hon. Friend's point, but I am not seeking a level playing field in the sense of moving towards greater liberalisation, because we understand that although
    184
    those airports compete with those in London and the south-east, any further substantive development of capacity in London and the south-east must take place within the consensually-based legislative and environmental framework that prevails in British public policy.
    In fairness to other hon. Members who wish to speak, I will deal with some other elements when they arise in the course of the debate—particularly the development of several regional airports and cross-regional concerns such as public service obligations and route development funds, which relate to the connectivity of London with the rest of the country. I do not skirt round those matters because they lack importance—they are extremely important for people in the regions—but to allow other hon. Members to speak.
    Mr. Wilshire: I wholly agree that aviation policy and planning should be kept within a British context, but would the Minister extend that sentiment to keeping British control of the negotiations with the Americans rather than allowing the Europeans to sell us down the river to other airlines across the Channel?
    Mr. McNulty: We were doing very well in getting through a debate of such sensitivity with reasoned, common-sense remarks from Opposition Members, even the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), but the hon. Gentleman's comment is as ridiculous as his tie. [Interruption.] It is more a case of Piglet than Winnie the Pooh. In terms of the relationship between Britain and the US, the future of aviation lies in our developing open skies policy between us. That process is better served by EU-US talks than by bilateral talks. That position is held by all European countries, including Britain, and by the US—by everyone, it would appear, except the hon. Gentleman.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: He is not alone.
    Mr. McNulty: And, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—I should have remembered that in view of the Adjournment debate that took place the other week.
    The air transport White Paper sets out a long-term vision for the future of air transport in the UK. There is much to be done by 2006, when I promise the House that we will carry out a substantive progress review of what has happened since the publication of the White Paper. That review will show that we have made a good start. We are determined to get on with the job of delivering the White Paper's objectives—firmly within the framework of developing an aviation sector that can continue to make a vibrant contribution to our economy, but only within the clear and well understood environmental constraints that all hon. Members would broadly share and are outlined in detail in the White Paper.
    2.47 pm
    Mr. Damian Green: I am delighted that we are having this debate. I should start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who has doggedly asked for such a debate week after week at business questions. His doggedness has been rewarded, and I am glad that Ministers listened to him.

    185
    I agree with the Minister that this is a good opportunity not only to discuss the White Paper, but to take stock of what has happened since its publication. The House will be grateful to him for the information that he conveyed, particularly in the early part of his speech before his pugilistic instincts got the better of him as he drew to a conclusion. I want to deal with the serious issues that are raised by the White Paper and I hope that he will be satisfied by my attempts to give the Government some helpful advice about the policies that they are pursuing.
    In the course of the next few minutes—I shall try to be briefer than the Minister, because I am aware that many Members on both sides of the House want to speak—I will make some comments that the Minister will not like. I therefore preface them by saying that I fully recognise the difficulties that face any Government who find themselves in the position of having to produce a White Paper on aviation.
    We should have a grown-up debate. We all know that the opponents of any project for expansion are likely to be more vociferous than its supporters and we know the passions that proposals for new runways arouse. I expect that many of them will be expressed today, not only about Heathrow and Stansted, but about Gatwick, Luton, East Midlands and Manchester airports—and possibly airports at all points east, west, north and south of those. However, hon. Members should acknowledge that aviation has been the transport sector's most obvious success story in the past 20 years, not least because it has been properly subject to competition and consumer choice. We want that success to continue.
    I shall deal with the main issues in the White Paper and others that have arisen. They include some environmental considerations, thoughts on state aid for airlines and, most topically, the subject of the Transport Council later this week. The Minister considered that briefly in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). The Transport Council could make decisions that have far-reaching and damaging effects on the future of British aviation. It is therefore timely for the House to consider it today.
    I shall take the White Paper on its own terms. It sensibly sets out a list of balanced criteria against which we should judge it. They are the need to expand capacity and people's desire to travel by air alongside a wish to minimise the effect of airports on those who live near them and a requirement that aviation should pay the cost of its activities' impact on society. It is impossible to argue with any of that. Does the Government's policy live up to their laudable stated objectives?
    When the White Paper was published, we said that the problems with it were twofold. First, it fudged some key issues and would therefore cause blight around airports as legal battles were fought. Secondly, there was little sign of the joined-up thinking that we are always promised, either between aviation and the rest of the Department for Transport's responsibilities or between the Department for Transport and other arms of Government. Six months later, both initial fears have been shown to be completely realistic.
    186
    Much of the debate about the White Paper inevitably centres on runway capacity in the south-east of England. The problems of fudging and incoherence are illustrated by events around Stansted. Some sort of legal challenge to whatever the Government proposed was always likely, but it is significant that the challengers are seeking judicial review on the ground that the development of the policy in the White Paper was fundamentally flawed. There were four flaws: lack of commercial justification for a second Stansted runway; the potential for mixed-mode use of runways at Heathrow; the failure to allow comments on proposals to extend the runway at Luton; and the failure to give proper consideration to other options in the south-east.
    I am sure that others will want to deal with those matters in more detail and I shall therefore not detain hon. Members by developing the individual complaints. However, they show the disappointment in a White Paper that was a long time in gestation but, when it appeared, seemed to have missed some basic points and had been produced in a way that would not allow policies to be implemented without long, difficult and expensive legal challenges for those involved in bringing them and for the taxpayer.
    It is legitimate to ask whether the Government's favoured option of an early second runway at Stansted will ever come to pass. Most of the recent growth at Stansted has been in low-cost flights that have done so much to increase people's opportunity to travel. A new runway would mean higher charges, which may well drive away the low-cost operators. If BAA tries to fund it with cross-subsidy from the airlines that use Heathrow, another round of bitterly contested court cases will take place. It is therefore reasonable to question the commercial viability of a second runway at Stansted.
    The other issue starkly illustrated by Stansted is the apparent lack of communication between Departments. The Secretary of State for Transport says that he wants a second runway at Stansted in a few years because the surrounding area is thinly populated. Meanwhile, the Deputy Prime Minister wants to build thousands of new homes around Stansted. One can have a larger airport or more housing, but not both, without severe environmental problems. Page 33 of the White Paper speaks of discouraging or prohibiting inappropriate developments around airports. I hope that a copy has reached the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by now because there is no evidence that he had one before it was published.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Has my hon. Friend noticed a further contradiction in Government policy? The rural White Paper states that
    "protecting the countryside from further intrusion of noise is not a luxury. It is about preserving and promoting a feature that is genuinely valued by residents and visitors alike."
    Yet the transport White Paper states that the intrusion of noise in rural areas "is inevitable".
    Mr. Green: My hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely good point, which extends my point that the lack of joined-up thinking and consultation is clearly not confined to the Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but extends to the

    187
    Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The aviation White Paper illustrates that, because a successful aviation industry will affect millions of people who have no direct responsibility for it or perhaps derive no direct benefit from it. That is why I said at the outset that I recognised the difficulties that Ministers faced, but the least that people and. indeed, the House can expect is some coherence across Government. No Government in history have talked about joined-up government more than the current Administration, yet few Governments have practised it so little.
    Stansted is not alone as an example of the failure to bring Government thinking together. Birmingham airport is the Government's preferred location for an additional runway in the midlands. So it is surprising—I put it no more strongly—that the Department shelved plans for an expansion of the M42, which would serve the airport directly. We are all aware of the delays and frustrations of the west coast main line development. It is as though the aviation White Paper was produced in a vacuum, with no input from other parts of the transport planning process, let alone the wider land use planning process. Perhaps that is best illustrated by the White Paper's attitude to the third runway at Heathrow. That is another proposal that inevitably arouses strong passions on both sides—I daresay that we will hear them expressed in the debate.
    Whatever attitude one takes to the proposal, it is undeniable that it cannot proceed until we solve the emissions problems that would break EU permitted limits on NOX—oxides of nitrogen—by 2010, as the Minister said. It is equally undeniable that the main cause of the undesirable emissions around Heathrow is the cars that are stuck in queues on the motorways that serve the airport. The White Paper is silent about the way in which the Government propose to solve that.
    It would have been useful to use the White Paper to start a debate on the merits of ideas such as the Airtrack scheme or a spur to the Great Western main line, but the chance was missed. The truth is that two thirds of the emissions problems at Heathrow are caused by difficulties with the road and rail infrastructure. Unless those problems are sorted out, all the good efforts by BAA and the airlines to clean up their act will not have much material effect.
    In the past few days, we have seen a report that throws doubt on another part of the White Paper: the proposal for mixed-mode use of the runways at Heathrow. The Minister dismissed the report as simply "daft". I should like to explore that further and ascertain whether he meant that the report's contents were daft or whether perhaps the author was daft. The person who wrote it was Professor Peter Brooker, a former adviser to the Department for Transport on aircraft noise. He says that 42,000 people would be exposed to noise above the acceptable threshold under the mixed-mode proposal.
    It is possible that, after the debate, not just in the House but elsewhere, the mixed-mode proposal will still be thought desirable and necessary, but it would be better for all concerned if the Government were to lead the debate on this issue and to try to get all the factual information as soon as possible, rather than trying to delay the consultation about which the Minister had an
    188
    exchange with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), in which he said that it would be held all in good time. It is inevitable, at a time when people do not necessarily trust everything that the Government are saying, that people will make their own calculations.
    Mr. Wilshire: As my hon. Friend rightly says, there are conflicting views around Heathrow. Is he aware, however, that the one thing that probably unites most, if not all, of us with an interest in the airport is that we are implacably opposed to mixed mode?
    Mr. Green: I was aware of that, and I dare say that the House will be made fully aware of such views by the end of this debate.
    The Minister will know that, for good environmental reasons, we need railways before we can build runways. In a few weeks' time, we shall see the revised version of the 10-year transport plan, and I can only hope that it will demonstrate more effort to integrate surface transport with aviation than the White Paper did. There are, of course, wider environmental matters involved. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, will no doubt have much to say on this if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not tread on his turf, but I will say a word about emissions generally.
    All of us who wish to see a flourishing aviation industry that is able to innovate and create new markets, in the way that it has in recent years, need to take this problem seriously. No national Government can solve it. Indeed, striking the right balance between a flourishing aviation industry and the need to control emissions is something that cannot be done effectively even at European level, welcome though the idea of a European emissions trading scheme is. In the end, we need countries from well beyond Europe to sign up either to minimum standards or to the use of economic instruments to cope with these issues, and we need to be realistic and to recognise that this is not going to happen in the near future. So any British Government will have to do what they can.
    We can and should apply increasingly stringent standards on emissions and noise, leading to the withdrawal of the noisiest and dirtiest aircraft. I think that I heard the Minister say that he would be introducing proposals to do that and, assuming that they are practical and sensible, we shall welcome them. If we are going to develop usable and fair economic instruments—which I hope is one of the Government's long-term aims—we certainly need something less crude than the present air passenger duty. If we are going to allow more night flying, we need much more responsive attitudes towards local communities from airport operators and airlines, involving insulation schemes and the purchase of the worst-affected properties.
    Much of this is for the longer term, but there is a vital issue to be decided at the Transport Council over the next few days. The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State will be asked to sign up to a deal between the Commission and the United States Government that is supposed to provide a much more liberal regime for airlines in Europe and the US. I hesitate to intrude on the debate between the

    189
    distinguished Chairman of the Transport Committee and the Minister about whether those negotiations should be taking place at national or European level, but the fact remains that they are taking place between the Commission and the US, and that is what we need to deal with.
    The Minister ought also to be aware that the deal that the Commission has negotiated is a bad one for large parts of the UK aviation industry. It will open up Heathrow to all US carriers, and give US carriers unlimited access to carry passengers and cargo within and beyond the EU. It does not give rights in return for our airlines to fly within the US, to buy a controlling stake in a US airline, or even to change the rules that prohibit by law any US official from using a foreign airline.
    Other countries, with less to negotiate with, may well feel that an imperfect deal is better than no deal at all. However, it is very important that the Secretary of State resist this deal. Even if he is isolated, he should stand his ground. With an election coming up in the US, this is the perhaps the worst possible time to hope for flexibility from the American side. Waiting six months to get a better deal would be much better than rushing this one through.
    David Burnside: I want to support the hon. Gentleman's point by saying that American airline chief executive officers tell us that the best deal negotiated in the 1940s in Europe was the one negotiated by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the British airlines in the bilateral negotiations with the United States. That is why the American airlines target this country more than any other in the European Union.
    Mr. Green: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about that, and I am grateful for his words of support.
    The Conservatives want to see a more liberal regime on both sides of the Atlantic. I am aware that some UK airlines would love to see the slots at Heathrow freed up, and I sympathise with them, but that has to be done alongside a better deal from the Americans. If we miss this chance, it will damage the British aviation industry for years to come. The Secretary of State has a heavy responsibility this week, and if he fails in it he will rightly be castigated. I hope that he does not fail. That is particularly important given the continued and increasing worries about state aids.
    In the wake of the terrible events of 9/11, it was perfectly reasonable for the American Government to support their aviation industry, but some years on, there is now a clear disparity between the subsidies being given to American airlines and those in this country and other parts of Europe. The issue of relative levels of state support for airlines is often presented in terms of the UK being virtuous and other European Governments being less virtuous, and that is quite right, but the difference between those levels of subsidy and those being given to American airlines at the moment is quite stark. For instance, the US Treasury recently announced that some $1.8 billion will go to meet pension commitments. I hope that such figures will provide a background for the Secretary of State when he is considering the so-called open skies agreement.
    190
    As I have said, I do not wish to make a tour of the country in this debate to talk about every airport mentioned in the White Paper, because other hon. Members with particular constituency concerns will wish to speak later. However, I will mention White Waltham in Maidenhead—which has been given encouragement to expand—as an example of a location at which the local people do not feel that they have been properly consulted. It is a recreational airfield, but in the White Paper the Government have deemed it ripe to
    "offer potential capacity in the longer term for business aviation".
    My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has pointed out that
    "the noise nuisance to local people is bad enough today. Just think what it would be like with business flights landing at White Waltham. The Government can't simply ignore local people's views."
    I am sure that similar sentiments will be expressed on both sides of the House about various proposals in the White Paper.
    As I said at the outset, I recognise the conflicting pressures on Ministers. We have an aviation industry that we can be proud of, but everything that it does impinges on people who have nothing to do with the industry and also on the environment. Ministers therefore have to strike the right balance. The White Paper tried to do this, but failed in too many respects. This reflects the deeper problem that aviation policy is not integrated with the rest of transport policy, or with the Government's ideas on land use planning. This causes unnecessary distress in communities around the country, as well a promoting uncertainty among airlines and airport operators. The White Paper has been a missed opportunity, and we will need to put that right in the future.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I should remind the House that there is an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which applies from the next speech.
    3.9 pm
    John McDonnell: Six months on from the publication of the White Paper, my constituents and I are not much clearer on the process that we will have to undertake in future to protect our communities from the development of Heathrow. I thank the Minister, however, for his courtesy and co-operation in meeting Members of Parliament from the areas surrounding Heathrow, and for undertaking to meet us and local community representatives on a regular basis.
    Reference has been made to the difficulties of keeping people informed and it is important to establish some mechanism by which we can keep the information flow going directly to our constituents. The meetings that have taken place, and any future meetings, have not produced and will not produce answers to questions unless the work streams associated with tackling those questions are well under way. I have some doubts about how far some of those have been progressed. If it is a matter of resources being applied within the Department, I ask the Minister to look again at the prioritisation of some of those resources so that the work streams can be undertaken more thoroughly and effectively.

    191
    The White Paper concluded that Heathrow could be allowed to expand if the significant environmental problems were overcome with regard to air pollution. The first question that came to mind for my constituents was whether the White Paper was already out of date when it was published. Within the White Paper proposal for a third runway, BAA had slipped in a proposal for a sixth terminal. A sixth terminal would obliterate Sipson village. We would lose hundreds of homes, churches, community centres and a primary school. None of that was consulted on throughout the process of consultation leading up to the White Paper. It was referred to in only one submission by BAA, and in one paragraph in the White Paper. Slipping in a proposal of that magnitude undermined for many of my constituents the view that this was an open and transparent process undertaken by both the Government and BAA, and that undermined their confidence in the overall process.
    The second question for my constituents is: what is the Government's approach to tackling not only the threat of air pollution from a future third runway, but the air pollution that my constituents are suffering now and that they are predicted to suffer over the next two years? If we examine the different scenarios facing my community, it is clear that many of my constituents are increasingly facing the prospect of being poisoned by air pollution, most of it resulting from Heathrow, from both aviation movements and the associated car traffic.
    In relation to the scenarios given by the Government in their consultation papers, with terminal 5 built and a cap remaining at 480,000 traffic movements, it is predicted that by 2015, some 5,000 of my constituents will be poisoned by nitrogen dioxide, which will exceed the European limit set for 2010. Even without a third runway, that is the magnitude of air pollution poisoning that my constituents are facing. If we maximise the use of existing runways, however, as suggested in the White Paper, by a mixed mode operation, the traffic movements limit will be increased to, say, 515,000—which is a reasonable projection—and 22,900 of my constituents will be poisoned by nitrogen dioxide pollution within the local atmosphere. Those assessments are drawn from the Government's own figures. Even using the most aggressive assumptions in relation to potential future technology improvements, the south-east region airports study predicted that at least 5,000 of my constituents will still be exposed to levels above the EU limits if a third runway went ahead, and if the technology fails, 35,000 of my constituents will be poisoned by nitrogen dioxide. That is the prospect for the next two years that my community faces, and the prospect that it may face in the next 15 years.
    On the basis of all that information, my community declared an air quality management area in 2001. We have started work as a local community and local authority. Since our latest report, which was published three years ago, and despite all our efforts, nitrogen dioxide pollution has not improved—it has got worse. The predictions for 2005 are that it will worsen further. We need action immediately. I know the commitment that the Minister has given on environmental issues. The decision was not a sop to environmentalists, but a real decision that the third runway would not go ahead if environmental targets were not met However, we need action now.
    192
    We call on the Government to undertake an immediate, urgent dialogue with the local authority, the primary care trust and local community organisations on the mechanisms, strategy and funding, if necessary, that can be put in place not only to monitor air pollution levels in my area and the health effects, but to start to reduce the air poisoning of our community. It is not an exaggeration to say that unless immediate action is taken, we are moving ineluctably towards a major air poisoning crisis in west London. The figures are horrendous and the health effects are dramatic already. Those figures have not been drawn by campaigning organisations; they are in the daughter and sister documents published by the Government in December, and in some of the work produced subsequently. We need to construct a programme of measures to reduce air pollution. If funds are required, let us consider what financial contribution BAA, the airport operators and others associated with the industry will need to make to that work.
    In the light of future air pollution levels, I do not believe that the environmental conditions will be met and I do not believe that a third runway will go ahead. In the meantime, my community suffers from some of the severest blight that can be expected around any major development. People cannot plan for their futures. They cannot even plan for the education of their children because three primary schools will be demolished if the third runway goes ahead. Already, 2,000 families are homeless and in temporary accommodation. If a third runway goes ahead, 4,000 families will lose their homes. They cannot plan for their futures.
    People cannot comprehend the process of planning from here on in. We do not understand the status of the master plan for Heathrow airport. Although the Minister has tried to make clear today what will be the approach in developing master plans for each airport, BAA told us in a document sent only last week that it will produce an interim master plan based on existing runways and operating restrictions. Therefore, it is not even revealing its hand on the final location that it proposes for a runway and on the development of the terminal. That means further blight and uncertainty inflicted on my community, and we are not even sure of the process by which we can engage in that dialogue to ensure that we are protected. If not today, then in future dialogue with my community, I hope that the Minister can make clear that process and ensure that our environment is protected in the long term.
    3.17 pm
    Mr. Paul Marsden: May I start by apologising for arriving slightly late? I received a telephone call saying that my wife had wrapped her new car around a concrete pillar. Fortunately, she is not injured. However, we will no doubt be having further discussions later today about what exactly happened.
    I make no apology for the fact that I want to confine my remarks generally to the environment. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made clear his personal concerns about his constituents, but we must take into account a much more serious global problem that will affect the skies and the planet for years to come in terms of global climate change.

    193
    We recognise that the aviation industry is extremely important, providing 180,000 jobs and about 8 per cent. of the United Kingdom's national income—about £7 billion a year. Some 50 per cent. of the population travel by air at least once a year, and most people, on the face of it, thoroughly enjoy those journeys without always thinking about or appreciating the environmental pollution problems that result from air travel. There are serious problems in west London, as Heathrow has 15 million passengers per annum and about 1 million people live under the airport's flight path. That will create huge potential problems with health risks and environmental damage over the coming years.
    Dr. Tonge: They are not potential problems; they exist now with the present airport.
    Mr. Marsden: I accept what my hon. Friend says. She is absolutely right to flag up the problems now.
    I welcome what the Minister said about raising the bar to prevent a further runway if standards are met, but it is almost inevitable that figures will somehow be found to meet the target and that the runway will go ahead. That results from the Government continuing with the Conservative Administration's edict of predict and provide. It is a first resort to say that capacity has to be expanded and that demand will therefore be found to meet that new supply. To me and my hon. Friends, that is patently wrong. Expansion should come as a last resort, not a first resort. Nevertheless, I give credit to the Minister for placing on the record his concerns about the environment and future problems and for saying how seriously the Government take that.
    Only this year, the Prime Minister told the climate group that we were
    "talking about climate change, which is I think, probably long term, the single most important issue that we face as a global community."
    Yet in spite of that rhetoric, the Select Committee on Environmental Audit said in July 2003:
    "We regard the proposed growth in emissions into the atmosphere by the aviation industry as unsustainable and unacceptable. Were such growth to occur, it could totally destroy the Government's recent commitment to a 60 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050."
    That Committee has been in ongoing dialogue with the Government and the Department for Transport. Ministers refuted a number of the points and recommendations made, but the Committee followed up in its pre-Budget report for 2003, saying that
    "as the DfT's own forecasts in Aviation and Global Warming suggest… by 2050 we will be in a situation where aviation emissions alone will comprise 70 per cent. of the UK target."
    The Government disagreed with that, but even Department for Transport figures state that emissions will be responsible for 33 per cent. of the UK impact on global climate change by 2050—almost three times the present figure. That is the seriousness of what we face.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I may have misheard the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he said that the Government had refuted some of the figures produced
    194
    by the Environmental Audit Committee. Surely he meant to say that they had attempted to refute them, unsuccessfully.
    Mr. Marsden: I am happy to abide by what the hon. Gentleman says. Obviously, there is a dispute over the figures, but I am concerned that the Government's estimates err on the lower side of predictions and do not meet what the Environmental Audit Committee says.
    Passengers—certainly Ministers—do not realise the actual effects of pollution. It is easy simply to take off without seeing what comes out of the back of jet engines or understanding the impact it will have. Pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and dioxide have a huge impact on air quality. Already, a Select Committee has established, from estimates from the scientific community, that there are between 12,000 and 24,000 deaths every year from air pollution. Aircraft currently contribute 3.5 per cent. of global carbon dioxide emissions, and that will rise to about 15 per cent. over the next 50 years. We can look forward to sea levels rising by perhaps 0.9 m, so the fens and the coastal arms of this country will suffer. Alongside the health and environmental impacts across the country, we will see the real effects of global warming.
    According to the 2000 report, "Aviation and Global Climate Change", which was launched by the Aviation Environment Federation, the National Society for Clean Air and the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, air travel produces some 0.17 kg of CO2 per kilometre travelled, as against 0.14 kg per kilometre for car travel. What that means in figures that people can understand is that for every kilogram of air kerosene that is burned, about 3 kg by weight of CO2 is produced out the back of, for example, an Airbus A300.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Given that technological advance is not reducing emissions from aircraft in the way in which, during the past couple of decades, it has successfully done for cars, the only way in which the emissions that the hon. Gentleman so dislikes can be reduced is to have fewer flights. What exactly is his party's policy to bring that about?
    Mr. Marsden: I shall deal later in my speech with precisely what we would recommend.
    Because numbers of aircraft are rising by between 4 and 6 per cent. each year, noise pollution has a detrimental health impact. Cornell university in New York monitored the reading, memory, attention and speech perception of schoolchildren, and found that noise had a real impact. Over a two-year period, long-term memory, reading and speech were impaired in children newly exposed to noise near a new airport. Furthermore, it was found that reading and memory deficits in the group were more pronounced 18 months after the opening of the new airport than after the first six months. In other words, the problem was getting worse and worse.
    This is where the British Government have failed. For seven years, we have had apologies. Lip service has been paid to what should happen but fundamentally, the "predict and provide" ethos has continued.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if we had a predict-and-provide policy in this

    195
    country, we would have another runway at Heathrow, another one at Gatwick and at least one other at Stansted? Will he please introduce just a tiny element of common sense into the debate?
    Mr. Marsden: For the benefit of the Chairman of the Transport Committee, I am happy to reply. The precise point is that it is not only I and the Liberal Democrats who are saying that—umpteen organisations, such as environmental organisations, scientific bodies and other very astute people, are saying exactly the same thing, that—[Interruption.] I heard what the hon. Lady said, but if we continue as we are the Government's present plans in the White Paper will simply not be enough to meet the demand, which is going to treble during the next 45 years.
    Dr. Tonge: I suggest that the answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is that there would have been predict and provide during the past 20 years had it not been for the fantastic campaigning against the expansion of airports carried out by HACAN and other organisations.
    Mr. Marsden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the hope for the future: that common sense will prevail, that there will be a greater responsibility for the environment and the effects on people's lives, and that we will not get into that situation. If we continue as we are, however, that is what will ultimately happen.
    As the royal commission on environmental pollution said on 16 December 2003:
    "The White Paper fails to take account of the serious impacts that the projected increase in air travel will have on the environment. Earlier this year the government published an Energy White Paper setting out its strategy for tackling global climate change, and set challenging but necessary targets for greenhouse gas emissions."
    It says that, unfortunately, the
    "White Paper undermines those targets and continues to favour commerce over vital carbon dioxide reduction measures."
    The Government recognise the problem, there is no doubt about that. However, as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said, although it recognises that aviation
    "contributes beneficially to the economic development and social life of the UK… this was not without considerable cost to the environment."
    That is the pay-off. Are we prepared to accept it? The Liberal Democrats would say that expansion is perhaps the way forward as a last resort, but that it is not the first resort.
    English Heritage has recently said, in a briefing to hon. Members:
    "To protect the historic environment, measures to manage demand—and therefore reduce the need for increased airport capacity—are crucial."
    We have to manage that demand—that is what the Government's own watchdog on cultural and historical sites is saying.
    The Woodland Trust was particularly scathing in its recent briefing.
    It said:
    196
    "In the last century, nearly half of our remaining ancient semi-natural woodland was cleared and replanted with conifers or lost forever to agriculture or development. If the White Paper on air transport is anything to go by, it seems that we are starting the new century having learnt nothing and are heading down a similarly destructive route."
    Those Members who say that this is not a problem and that we can continue to expand and everything will be all right should reply to those environmental organisations, which are particularly concerned—[Interruption.] I am quite happy to come to the solutions.
    We have to start at a global level. We need to amend the Kyoto protocol to include an emissions trading scheme. In particular, we must press the US Government to sign up to Kyoto. On sustainable transport, we must strike a much greater balance by replacing short-haul flights with long rail journeys. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) has continually campaigned for high-speed rail links throughout the country, which would reduce the number of internal flights.
    We must continue to examine environmental standards on all modes of transport in order to reduce pollution. We must also consider regional airports. Such schemes should be dealt with through devolved powers, so that local people can decide whether they want such airports. A case in point is Bristol, where there are two sides to the argument. It can be argued that the trebling of capacity is not required, but there is a very good case for arguing that expansion is needed in the interests of commerce, and that such expansion should be located away from the south-east so that we can bring more jobs and greater economic development to the regions.
    Finally, we need an EU agreement on tax. It is clearly wrong that the aviation industry does not pay the costs associated with the noise and pollution that it creates, and it pays no tax on aviation fuel and no VAT on new aircraft. Liberal Democrats argue that the departure tax—the air passenger duty—simply is not working. It is another stealth tax and it should be scrapped. Instead, we should be working extremely hard—this Government certainly are not—to introduce a new form of tax on kerosene, which will begin to impact on airlines. The airlines must realise that they need to be far more efficient in the number of passengers that they carry and that they must invest in further new technology to clean up their planes. We have to get away from predict and provide and to say that enough is enough. We should put the environment at the centre of this agenda, rather than regarding it as a bolt-on.
    3.32 pm
    Alan Keen: Before offering any criticism, I want to make a point that I have made before in this place. There is a massive difference this time, in that—thank goodness—we have a consultation process. The terminal 5 protestors—on that occasion, I was not one of them—had to defend themselves and to pay legal fees after the planning application was made for the terminal. But at least we have a consultation process this time, and despite the fact that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) nor I are happy about the current situation, it is at least good to discover that the Minister is listening. That is a massive improvement on what used to happen.

    197
    I have lived within six miles of Heathrow for more than 40 years, and for 13 years I worked only half a mile from the touchdown point of the southern runway, directly underneath the flight path; so I understand what it is like to suffer such noise in a stressful situation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has explained what will happen if there is a third runway. We have all seen the television pictures of planes that look as though they are touching the chimney pots of houses, and the constituents in question are mine: they live in Waye avenue and Berkeley avenue in Cranford. To live under that is absolutely appalling. Even people who live two or three miles away from the touchdown point cannot go into their gardens in the summer for half the day—so no barbecues—because the situation is absolutely impossible. We cannot continue to ignore this problem.
    I am opposed to the third runway, but I should point out that this is the first time that I have opposed expansion of Heathrow. I was pleased to note that one Opposition Member who has always supported expansion is also against the third runway.
    I know at least one other Member who has changed his mind on the third runway. I regard myself as a friend of air transport and I was not happy when the Secretary of State launched the White Paper and sarcastically asked whether my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington understood the economic benefits of Heathrow airport. We have lived among people there for such a long time that we certainly do. We were not pleased to hear that question. It raises people's tempers when these issues are dealt with in that way.
    We have always been told that it is critical for Heathrow to compete with the Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol and Frankfurt airports, for example. Over the past 18 months, however, we have been told that Heathrow should not be a major hub, but a second-level one. I am not satisfied that that position is based on logic. It may be a form of words designed to persuade people that we do not need a brand new airport where planes can land and take off over water. It is a form of words intended to persuade us that the policy has not changed. We are now faced with the Government apparently backing short-termism—not looking far enough ahead—which we always used to criticise British industry for. I was able to secure agreement from someone in the airline industry that I was right on that issue, but no one is admitting it at the moment.
    I am a friend of British Airways, which I believe has done its best for local people, but it is always governed completely by shareholders. If the Department for Transport listens to BA, it needs to know that BA will never say that it needs to look well ahead and provide a new airport with less environmental damage to residents. BA is continually criticised for having a virtual monopoly in the south-east. If we had a new airport in the south-east, I am sure that BA would not be the operator because there would be too much opposition. We need to understand that BA is bound by its duty to shareholders and we need to take that into account as we consider the issues.
    In my remaining three minutes, I want to focus on local people. I have already mentioned Cranford. The Cranford agreement has existed for many years; it goes
    198
    back to the 1950s. There is no legal reason for it to remain. If there were no people living underneath the flight paths, mixed-mode operation would be quite acceptable.
    Before going any further, I want to make it clear that colleagues on both sides of the House often express two fallacies. One is that the footprint has got smaller, so that must mean progress. However, the planes would have to take off and land vertically for Cranford to be outside the footprint For the people that I am talking about, it makes no difference, however the aeroplanes are modernised. The second fallacy is that the planes are quieter nowadays when they take off than when they are landing. That fallacy is often perpetuated by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and colleagues in the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise. I have praised HACAN many times and do so again. The reason that take-off seems to be quieter is that by the time the planes are over Richmond Park, Sheen and Putney, most of them have already turned away, so people do not even hear them.
    Under the Cranford agreement, aeroplanes taking off to the east do not use the northern runway, so people living in Cranford do not hear such planes taking off over their houses.
    That is why the television always shows aeroplanes coming in to land, rather than taking off. We cannot afford to allow the Cranford agreement to be destroyed by a mixed-mode solution that would mean that the people there had to suffer from even more noise. That would not be acceptable, as they already suffer enough.
    I was pleased to hear that the poor quality of the air had been proved, but one does not need to be a scientist to know that the air is bad. One has only to stand with my Cranford constituents in their gardens, or even inside their houses, when a plane is taking off to realise that the conditions are not acceptable. No hon. Member would be prepared to live like that.
    We must look at all aspects of the problem. My constituents have been happy to put up with what has gone on at Heathrow because of the economic advantages that the airport has brought, but things have gone far enough.
    3.40 pm
    Mr. Mark Prisk: I welcome this debate, but I want to preface my remarks by expressing my disappointment that the Government have allocated only half a day to this very important matter. Does the Minister really believe that this short debate is sufficient to consider 30 years of air travel? I doubt that he does. People will conclude that the Government are not very interested in dissenting views or fresh ideas.
    Given the limited time available, I shall confine my remarks to the impact of the plans in the White Paper on Stansted airport. The decision to allow an additional runway there is both perverse and unworkable. It is perverse, not just because it runs counter to the original views of the inspector and the local community, but because it goes against the views of many people in business and in the aviation industry. The White Paper ignores the views of more than 60 local bodies, from parish councils to county councils, and the petition signed by 35,000 people that I presented to the House

    199
    some months ago. It also overlooks the opinion expressed by the 89 per cent. of people who voted against the runway in the referendum organised a little while ago by Uttlesford district council.
    Yet the opposition to the new runway goes far wider even than that. The National Trust, the Council to Protect Rural England, the Woodland Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds all oppose it, as do many leading voices in the world of business. In a detailed survey by the London chamber of commerce and industry, 80 per cent. of the businesses that responded made it clear that they preferred Heathrow to Stansted.
    Even in the aviation industry, it is clear that many airlines do not want to use Stansted. British Airways has stated:
    "A runway at Stansted would not get built. Nobody wants it. Nobody would pay for it. The tarmac wouldn't even get laid."
    If businesses, many airlines and the vast majority of people in my community do not want the runway, why do the Government want to press ahead with it? The answer lies in the Government's intimate relationship with BAA.
    When BAA was first privatised, that close relationship was perhaps understandable, but it now clouds Whitehall's judgment. The result could be a runway to which no one wants to go, and for which no one is prepared to pay.
    My concern about the new runway is that it will prove unworkable, both logistically and financially. As the House knows, our rail service struggles already to meet the demands of the 12,000 or so daily journeys from the airport. The new runway would generate over 20,000 daily rail journeys, but the Government have no plans or proposals to increase capacity. and no funds have been allocated for that purpose.
    The Government plan that a new runway will be in place in eight years, but many people may not be able to get there. That is a bizarre scenario. When he replies to the debate, will the Minister say how passengers from central London will be able to get to the new runway, given that the 10-year plan for rail contains no proposals to make that possible?
    I said that the decision was unworkable logistically, but it is also unworkable in financial terms. BAA plc estimates that the project—runway and infrastructure—will cost some £400 million. As always, that is an initial estimate, and the figure will undoubtedly rise considerably. Who will pay? The White Paper appears to give a clear commitment on that, when it states:
    "The Government will not promote or pay for the development of Stansted. New airport capacity should be paid for by airport users."
    That would appear to mean that Ryanair and easyJet, which represent 93 per cent. of Stansted's business, would have to stump up the vast majority of the costs through higher landing charges. But both companies have made it clear that they are not prepared—or, indeed, even able—to support a rise in landing charges.
    A commercial reality underpins that viewpoint. The market for low-cost air travel is very cost-sensitive, and the profit margins are tight. Therefore, unlike the mobile phone sector, for example, the money is not there to invest in long-term infrastructure projects. That is why
    200
    the Government are now planning to seek cross-subsidies from Heathrow and Gatwick to help pay for a new runway at Stansted. However, it is clear that such subsidies may prove commercially and legally unenforceable. One leading airline has said of cross-subsidies:
    "Virgin Atlantic is totally opposed to cross-subsidisation. Airlines operating from Heathrow and Gatwick should not be expected to fund an airport for which they did not ask and will not use, or equivalently, to subsidise their competitors."
    In my opinion, that is entirely right.
    Ministers should be under no illusion. Attempts to cross-subsidise will face challenges both in the courts and from the competition authorities. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what will happen if an agreement cannot be reached, or the policy is successfully challenged in the courts. After all, the development programme will probably be under way. Planning permissions may have been granted and contracts let. Who will pick up the tab then?
    The Government say that they will not promote or pay for the development of Stansted. What exactly does that mean? Does it include, for example, the road and rail infrastructure outside the airport area? Does "promote" mean that the Government would not be willing to grant planning permission to enable BAA plc to enjoy commercial development rights on its site? Does the policy of non-promotion extend to all arms of Government, including the eastern regional office and the East of England Development Agency?
    Those are crucial questions that will determine the viability of the proposals at the heart of the White Paper, but it fails to answer them. I hope that in his reply the Minister will do so. The proposal is neither commercially nor logistically viable. The original inspection said that a second runway at Stansted would be "an environmental disaster". That is true. The danger is that we will end up with a runway that nobody wants, few can get to and even fewer can afford. That is the reality of this misguided decision, and that is why I genuinely urge the Minister to think again, even at this late stage.
    3.48 pm
    Mr. Tony Colman: I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on sustainable aviation. The group is especially pleased that we are having this debate on the Floor of the House, and we look forward to hosting the launch of the response to the White Paper by the Sustainable Development Commission later this month. I particularly wish to thank Jeff Gazzard, of the Aviation Environment Federation, for his work in providing information to Members on both sides of the House to better inform this debate.
    I have spoken on aviation in the House on several occasions, because Heathrow airport, aircraft noise and pollution remain the No. 1 issues for my constituents. It is always good to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in such debates, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) will also seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The link between our constituencies is that we all suffer under the flight path.
    Two weeks ago—the Minister will note that this is, as he would wish, six months on from the White Paper's publication and not a knee-jerk reaction—the Putney

    201
    Society arranged a public meeting at the Putney Methodist church to bring its members up to date. The meeting was packed. Gerald Jones, the chief executive of the London borough of Wandsworth, spoke of his and the council's concerns. John Stewart of HACAN spoke about the forthcoming challenge to the White Paper, given that it is under judicial review in the High Court. I expressed my deep concern that the Government are not listening to my constituents, as is evidenced by the White Paper. Three key questions come from that meeting, and I should like the Minister to respond to them. I realise that there were perhaps clues to the answers in parts of his opening statement, but I should like to go through the questions quickly. The first question concerns the cap on traffic movement, the second is on night flights and the third is on mixed mode.
    First, will the 480,000 cap on air transport movements still be the legal limit for Heathrow? That figure compares with 457,027 air traffic movements in 2003. The Minister has said that a draft statutory instrument has been laid before the House today to allow local authorities around Stansted to decide whether any removal of the cap or any change in the number of air traffic movements is necessary. I hope that he will consider introducing a similar statutory instrument to cover air traffic movements at Heathrow, which should perhaps be under the control of the Mayor and the Greater London authority.
    Secondly, the Minister has announced—if I heard him correctly—that a new consultation on the 16 night flights at Heathrow that are the bane of my constituents' lives will be held in the very near future. Perhaps he could say what that means, thus enabling us to question him on the nature of that consultation, before the House rises for the summer recess. There are rumours that the definition of any possible new regime would relate not to the number of flights, but to the overall noise level during the night. Could the number of flights be increased beyond 16? Will the consultation allow for the banning of all night flights to and from Heathrow? Will it take account of the new World Health Organisation community noise exposure guidelines that have now been brought into play? I was concerned to hear the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), speaking for the Opposition, use the phrase—if I heard him correctly—"if we are going to allow more night flights". I would be interested to hear whether the Opposition are therefore in favour of more night flights, as that would be of great interest to my constituents.
    Thirdly, there is concern about mixed mode—the end of alternation on runways at Heathrow. Those at the meeting in Putney were concerned that the White Paper was ambivalent on the subject. I received a letter from the Minister in which he said that, as yet, there is no proposal to end alternation and that, if there were such a proposals, there would be full public consultation and environmental impact assessments, which could not be completed before 2007. Only then could consultation take place. Perhaps he can confirm that. Again, for the record, I wish to say, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, that I totally oppose the end of alternation. The Minister said that the press reports to date have been "just daft". I hope that he will keep us informed of the issues and ensure that the MPs who live under the flight path are fully involved.
    202
    We meet three days before the elections on Thursday. I understand that the Labour party mayoral candidate, Ken Livingstone, opposes the third runway and any night flights. The Mayor's significant planning powers must come into play on those issues, as they did not on terminal 5. Given the European elections, I should mention that Robert Evans, the current lead Member of the European Parliament for London on aviation, has also opposed the this d runway and night flights. If he is re-elected—I am sure that he will be—he will continue to work with the European Commission and the European Parliament for united opposition to night flights into major cities across Europe and to fight for new, more stringent noise and pollution standards. It is very important to bring together all the concerns that are equally expressed by those who live under the flight paths to Schiphol or Charles de Gaulle airports.
    I have previously begged the Minister to attend the International Civil Aviation Organisation meeting in Montreal this September, but he said that it is for civil servants only. Last month, I met Sharon Pinkerton, assistant administrator of the United States Federal Aviation Administration, and she is certainly going. She is lobbying Ministers for a voluntary emissions policy, not a mandatory one as the European Union wants. I ask that, at the G8 meeting in Georgia and the follow-up meetings, the impact in terms of global warming of uncontrolled aircraft emissions and the need for mandatory controls be on the agenda. Let me point out that the G8 meeting is literally "The Day After Tomorrow."
    The United States Minister pointed out that aviation fuel for domestic use is fully taxed in the United States, that tax being hypothecated to deal with environmental damage due to the aviation industry. I know that the Minister has met with his US counterpart: he might want to put on record his wish to follow that US lead in the taxation of aviation fuel.
    I note the Minister's commitment to meet local groups and MPs on whom changes at Heathrow will have an impact. To date, such meetings have not taken place with the Putney MP or Putney groups. It is extremely important that the BAA and all those involved in the debate, including the Minister, ensure that all those affected by the potential changes at Heathrow are involved and consulted at every stage. Sustainable aviation is possible, but it needs leadership from my Government beyond that which they have shown so far.
    3.56 pm
    Mr. Francis Maude: I have only a few points to make—indeed, that is all I have time for. I accept the need for greater runway capacity in south-east England. I am not one of those who believes that capacity should be controlled, restricted or capped: the free availability of air travel is an undoubted good. In addition, I am a Kyoto sceptic who doubts that reducing air travel will do much to alleviate the effects of global warming. I am not a luddite—I accept the need for expansion. I have said many times that my preference is for the Government to make long-term, serious investment in a new airport, preferably on the coast so that flight paths can be over water and not over people's houses, and where 24-hour operation is therefore possible. That seems to me to be the long-term way to

    203
    build a secure future for Britain's important aviation industry, but I concede that that argument is over—at least for the time being.
    I am not opposed to expansion at Gatwick—the airport with which I am most concerned from a constituency viewpoint. There are about 30 million passenger movements a year at Gatwick, and there is scope with a single runway to increase that number—an increase that I support—to 40 million or 45 million, if that is what the infrastructure can sustain. All of us whose constituencies are near Gatwick appreciate that it is an important economic motor for the area. We support the airport's continuing expansion, but that is a far cry from supporting either a second runway there, or the option of a second runway being allowed to remain open at this stage.
    Gatwick MPs might, at first sight, be thought likely to appreciate the Government's perhaps not so surprising commitment not to seek to overturn the legal agreement between West Sussex county council and the BAA that no new runway will be built before 2019. One might have assumed that that commitment would be taken as given, but it was not. However. our confidence in the commitment has been shaken somewhat by the lack of consistency in the Government's pronouncements on the subject of Gatwick in the past few years. In their original consultation paper, published in July 2002, the Government stated, in very clear terms:
    "The Government has concluded that an option for a new runway"—
    at Gatwick—
    "that could not be available until very late in the 30-year period of the forthcoming White Paper would create unnecessary blight and anxiety."
    Hurrah to that, we thought at the time. We all know that that decision was overturned by the High Court and the Government were forced to look again at least at the decision-making process that they went through, but we thought that the substance of the decision, which must have been carefully thought out before the Government put it in print in a consultation paper, would remain solid.
    Not a bit of it—when the White Paper eventually saw the light of day, that decision was changed in substance, and the Government proposed
    "to keep open the option for a wide-spaced runway at Gatwick after 2019."
    That is the Government's fall-back position, to be used if it is impossible for airport operators and developers to overcome the environmental hurdles against a third runway at Heathrow. One might expect that option to be bottomed out and a conclusion reached soon, but that has not been the case. I think that the Minister said—he will correct me if I am wrong—that it will be 2010 or 2012 before the issues relating to a third runway are resolved. In response to a parliamentary question in which I asked whether the Government would release the safeguarding of land at Gatwick when a decision was made on Heathrow, he said:
    "The situation at Gatwick will be reviewed at the stage when any planning application for a new runway at Heathrow has been decided."—[Official Report, 7 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1W.]
    Again, that postpones a decision on Gatwick. It took two years just to write the report on the inquiry into a fifth terminal at Heathrow, and the whole planning
    204
    process took seven or eight years. If we add seven or eight years to the date on a decision on overcoming environmental objections at Heathrow, we approach the time when the legal agreement on Gatwick comes to an end anyway.
    The position is unsatisfactory for many reasons. When the Government published their initial consultation nearly two years ago, they said many splendid and bold things that I applauded. In section 1.3 of the introduction, entitled "Why are we looking 30 years ahead?", they said:
    "A long-term framework will provide greater certainty both about those developments that are likely to happen and those that are not. This will help reduce the anxiety that uncertainty causes."
    None of that anxiety has been removed. A maximum amount of long-term blight has been created, and the Government have done nothing to reduce it.
    A second runway at Gatwick would have a devastating effect on the area. It is already highly developed, with increasing pressure for development. The Deputy Prime Minister has instructed that 50,000 houses should be built in West Sussex over the next 15 years or so. The economists hired by the two county councils affected by Gatwick concluded that a new runway would require the building of housing equivalent to another Crawley. We all love Crawley dearly, but the prospect of building another Crawley on top of the development that is already being imposed on West Sussex is not viewed enthusiastically in my constituency or in the environs of Gatwick. The maximum amount of uncertainty and blight has been created, not just around Gatwick but around all the airports in the south-east. I hope that the Government will think again, and do what they can to accelerate the decision-making process so that the uncertainty, blight and anxiety, to use the words that they themselves use, can be lifted from as many people as possible as soon as possible.
    4.3 pm
    Laura Moffatt: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). Gatwick is wholly within my Crawley constituency, and I must be one of the few Members to travel through an airport every day to work at the House of Commons. It is a fantastic airport that not only provides air travel but offers an excellent interchange for a fast and efficient bus service, coaches and trains. It is therefore a valuable resource that we very much treasure in Crawley.
    I have not come to these issues lately, as I grew up with the airport and the new town of Crawley.
    I have been a member of the consultative committee for some nine years and chaired the environment committee that put in place noise and track-keeping schemes and penalty schemes to make sure that our airport functioned properly and did not cause enormous trouble for the people around it. I consider myself to be a critical friend of Gatwick airport and continue to be so.
    It is important to recognise what a valuable asset the airport is, particularly as development goes on. The new bridge that has just been erected is a wonderful feat of engineering. Gatwick supports 26,000 people on the airport and many thousands more around it. The

    205
    conclusions that I reach differ from those reached by the right hon. Member for Horsham. On expansion, there are serious concerns about the way in which Gatwick has been left on what Sussex Enterprise inventively calls the subs bench.
    Listening to the debate, I thought how poignant it was that hon. Members were speaking about consultation. We as Members of Parliament have a crucial role to play. That is why on two occasions I have held major consultations with the people of Crawley—not just those who come to me to complain—about what they feel about expansion. In the first consultation we had a large seminar in our town centre that brought together all sorts of people who had an interest in our airport—in noise issues, employment and all the features that make an airport part of a community.
    The debate in Crawley has been much more finely balanced than elsewhere. It was important that people were able to express their views about airport development. As in the debate today, there was complete consensus that the use of our airports must be maximised at each site. It is good to hear that. I am keen to pursue surface transport issues, because with a fast efficient service between Gatwick and Heathrow, we would get much more out of those two airports. We could use the two airports as a combined London hub, as is done in the United States, although I entirely understand that the principle of a single hub is the only one that succeeds, sad as it is for me to admit that.
    The continuing success of our airports is vital. The outcome of the consultations, e-consultations and debates around my constituency was finely balanced. A small majority felt that there should be no further development. Many of those people were closely associated with the airport. It is important that we take on board the views of those who will bear the brunt of expansion. In other parts of the town, the views were different. People wanted Gatwick to be part of the development of air transport.
    If we had time, we could have a long debate about whether the aviation industry should grow. I firmly believe that it should, and that Gatwick should be part of that growth. I want it to be at the heart of future plans, but it is clear from the White Paper that we are in a difficult position. If there were to be expansion at Gatwick, my preference would be for a close parallel runway, because that would mitigate noise and disturbance for many more people than would a wide parallel runway.
    We are faced with the enormous dichotomy of environment v. expansion.
    It is no good MPs saying that the environment is important, but that we should move ahead and ignore it, and it is no good their saying that the industry is important, but that the environment is paramount. We must find new ways in which to move forward, and I have no doubt that the series of debates on the subject in the House will continue. New technologies can be used—they have been implemented at Gatwick, and I have seen how they can reduce noise in simple ways, such as ensuring that pilots fly their planes properly.
    Few people in Crawley criticise the Government's approach, which is a brave move forward on one of our most successful industries. Wherever I go, people
    206
    acknowledge that the Government have tackled the issue. Under the last Government, who ducked the issue, I sat through endless debates on the development of runway capacity in the south-east and on the south-east and east of England regional air services study.
    I understand the White Paper's objective. I want the Minister to tackle issues such as air passenger duty and fuel, but I also want him to think carefully about how we can ensure that all air passengers travelling abroad receive the same protection as those who travel as part of a package.
    The White Paper contains a raft of interesting and vital issues. The debate will continue, and, as MPs, it is our duty to ensure that our constituents understand that point—I will certainly ensure that the views of people in Crawley are brought to the House. The debate will continue until we reach a conclusion, but at last we have a Government who are tackling it.
    4.12 pm
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), whose constituency borders mine.
    As the Minister knows, the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am the Chair, yesterday published the Government response to our report, "Aviation Follow-up". In doing so, we took the opportunity to take issue with the Department for Transport about numerous aspects of its response, which we considered superficial and inadequate. We are therefore happy to invite the Government to have a second go. Next time, I hope that they address some of the issues that we have raised, rather than seeking to avoid them.
    In particular. I hope that the Government will resist the temptation wilfully to distort the Committee's views on aviation. For example, the Government response implies that we advocate that the growth of aviation
    "should be stopped in its tracks",
    which is simply untrue. For the record and for the benefit of the Minister, our position is neither that the Government should halt the expansion of aviation nor that they should set out to satisfy inflated predictions of future demand, but that, bearing in mind aviation's impact on the environment, which nobody doubts, and the current and likely future state of the industry, it would simply be responsible to plan for a reduced rate of growth. If that course were adopted, the Government would save itself a major headache, which they are hearing about this afternoon, and millions of people would be spared from blight and environmental degradation—it would also help to reduce the disturbing acceleration of climate change.
    As I said, the environmental impacts of aviation are hardly disputed. Equally, I do not dispute the economic benefits that aviation can bring, and I listened carefully and with some approval to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on that point. My constituency borders Gatwick, which is an important source of jobs for thousands of my constituents, and Gatwick is generally recognised as a key driver for the local economy. Although the overwhelming majority of my constituents are broadly content to see Gatwick reach its maximum use, they emphatically do not want another runway.

    207
    Turning to the White Paper, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and I were delighted by the unequivocal rejection of the frankly ridiculous proposal to turn Redhill aerodrome into an international airport, but I share the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham about Gatwick.
    The White Paper creates the invidious position whereby after 2019, Gatwick's fate is left entirely dependent on circumstances beyond its control—namely, whether pollution at Heathrow can be reduced to acceptable EU levels. The uncertainty of that was demonstrated when the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that there was no chance of Heathrow meeting those targets and the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) suggested that it was likely to do so.
    Where does that leave people who live around Gatwick, whose future environment depends on the decisions that are being taken? Gatwick has been given a conditional sentence but left with no control over how or whether those conditions can be met. That is a classic recipe for blight. Local people are rightly concerned about that. They are also extremely anxious about the profound and irreversible impact that a second runway would have on the local environment. Their concerns extend beyond noise and pollution to embrace the huge demand for extra housing that would be entailed, the loss of more countryside and the massive extra pressure on our infrastructure. Those concerns are not only for hon. Members and other people located around Gatwick—they apply equally to Stansted, to Heathrow and to every area where new runways are proposed. I regret that the Government have so far failed to place a monetary value on the impact of their plans on the landscape, tranquillity, heritage sites and biodiversity; they should do so as a matter of urgency.
    I hope that I can bring hon. Members some good news. The approach advocated by the Environmental Audit Committee is very clear and offers a solution to problems such as those described by the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington, for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) and for Putney (Mr. Colman) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk)—even by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, if I could persuade him to be slightly less Kyoto-sceptical.
    We need to look again at whether expanding runway capacity on anything like the scale proposed in the White Paper is really necessary, bearing in mind the existing underutilised capacity. I urge hon. Members to look carefully at the Government's forecasts. Two critical interrelated assumptions underpin the White Paper and all that follows from it. The first assumption is that demand for air travel will continue to grow at an average of 4 per cent. a year to 2030. That implies a threefold increase in air travel over the next 30 years, which must be highly questionable. There is every reason to believe that at some point, probably quite soon, the industry will conform to the usual law of economics and mature into significantly lower growth. It is important to understand that that 4 per cent. per annum increase over the next 30 years would lead us to a position in which by 2030 we will need a new airport the size of Heathrow every three years. That is a ludicrous proposition, but the White Paper asks us to accept it.
    208
    The other basic assumption in the White Paper concerns the cost of flying. The Department is assuming that the cost of air fares will fall by around 40 per cent. over the next 30 years. That was hard to believe even before the recent rise in the price of oil. We should note that for forecasting purposes, the White Paper assumes that the price of oil will remain at an average of $25 a barrel—right now, it stands at more than $40 a barrel. That seems challenging, to put it mildly.
    The Government also appear to believe that the voracious competition at the low-cost end of the industry will be sustained. It is more likely that many of the competitors will disappear from the market and that the industry will consolidate and gradually try to increase fares. Some hon. Members have also referred to increased landing charges. All that is supposed to happen without any new fiscal measures, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was right to mention as a possibility.
    It is beyond doubt that a policy that predicts a massive increase in demand for aviation and subsequently sets out to provide for it is a predict-and-provide policy. The environmental consequences are potentially devastating and I urge the Government to think again.
    4.20 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), but it will come as no surprise to him that I do not altogether agree with his arguments either in the Chamber or in the report for which his Committee is responsible.
    Let me make it clear: aviation will grow. It is like a child who is lolloping around in short trousers one day and the next day appears to be a full size male. That will happen whether we like it or not. We therefore have a choice—we can begin to face up to the responsibilities that that presents or run away and pretend that somehow it can be left to the forces of capitalism to decide our future.
    There is no question of predict and provide in the Government's policies. Were that the case, we would be considering the construction of a new runway at Heathrow almost immediately, a clearly delineated plan for a second runway at Gatwick in the foreseeable future, and growth in regional airports. That is not the Government's position. Some of us believe that it might have been better if they had chosen one of those three and decided to concentrate on future development there for the time being. However, such a position is not outlined in the White Paper and Ministers have not displayed such an attitude in debates.
    There is an immediate problem—much of our economy is directly tied up with aviation because we are considering the movement not simply of people but of goods. That constant movement is intimately involved in the development of aviation and we must therefore make several difficult decisions. It would be far better if we made them now rather than by default. Default is never a good decision maker.
    Mr. David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the debate has centred mainly on the south-east, any decision on that

    209
    area impinges on other countries in the United Kingdom—Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—and on the regions of England? The economic benefits or consequences of the decisions could seriously impinge on the rest of the UK. Does my hon. Friend share my hope that when the Secretary of State makes a decision, it will be in the best interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, not only that of specific localities?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I confidently expect that that will be the case. Airports in the south-east, which are becoming increasingly congested, will, in the next five years, have to decide their policy on transatlantic flights and regional flights. At governmental level, we will have to decide whether we can protect the interests of regions or whether we shall simply allow circumstances to develop in which those who have the money and can bargain for slots at busy airports will be the only ones capable of getting into the south-east.
    I want the Government to state plainly that they not only understand the need of regional airports for access to the south-east, but are prepared to protect that. It is noticeable that the Crown dependencies have not even been mentioned. Guernsey was faced with the prospect of losing its slots. It believes that it is essential to have such access and was therefore prepared to purchase an airline. Even so, access is not protected in the way in which it should be in future. The problem will arise in relation to Scottish airports, some Welsh airports and those in the south-west.
    We have to deal with these questions now; they will not go away. The chaos will not only cause great costs to fall on the taxpayer, but complicate and confuse our transport planning.
    The Airport Operators Association has stated plainly that it understands the need for sustainable development and the need to take the populations around airports with it. It says that it believes in an emissions trading scheme and that it will undertake the responsibility of consulting the populations that are most affected, in order to develop some important plans. However, the reality is that unless the Government are prepared to use the development of master plans to sort out certain priorities, we shall simply drift, over the next five or six years, without a clear idea of where we are going to expand. Given the conflict of interest between the British Airports Authority and the commercial needs of the industry, it is impossible to accept that the BAA should be the only people deciding on the development plans in the south-east. This situation presents us with a real difficulty, and it will present the Government with a real problem if it is allowed to continue.
    A number of important decisions will be taken this week at the Transport Council. I hope that the United Kingdom Government will stand up not only for the interests of the UK traveller, but for all those who want to see the planned and sensible economic development of aviation within the Community. Heathrow is a vital hub—it does not matter how we present that fact—and Gatwick must automatically be the second airport to be of concern. But unless their interests are looked at in terms of the United Kingdom economy, and not simply as a bargaining pawn for the European Commission in
    210
    reaching some kind of second-rate agreement with the United States, we shall all suffer. The House would then have to debate as a matter of urgency the decisions that had been taken.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Lady is making a most cogent speech, as usual. Is there not a grave danger that the United Kingdom, which has premier status on the north Atlantic route in particular, could lose that position in the longer term through its extraordinary decision to allow the European Union to negotiate on its behalf air service agreements that should properly be the interest of our country alone?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: That is exactly the case. This is frightening because, of course, the interests of mainland European airports will not be the same as those of Heathrow. How could they conceivably be? Nor will the negotiation of individual slots or services at both our major airports be capable of any simple solution involving half a dozen other national airlines. That would not only produce great confusion, but place considerable pressure on the Government.
    The production of the White Paper represents the first step towards a sensible appreciation of the fact that, as with so many other forms of transport over the past 30 years, we decided that we did not have to take clear planning decisions, and that they would somehow all look after themselves. The results of that lack of determination are plain to see in all the other forms of transport. In the one form that is really successful—aviation—the last thing that we should do is repeat the policies of chaos and indecision that have got us into such difficulty elsewhere.
    The Government have begun to confront that issue, but they must go further. They must accept that many unpopular decisions will have to be taken. We have heard hon. Members today expressing their genuine concern to protect the interests of their constituents, but we cannot allow this to become an esoteric argument based solely on some rather iffy science regarding what may or may not happen. We know what will happen: the economy of this country will suffer; people will continue to travel; and we shall not manage to restrict the development of aviation in the United Kingdom in any way. All that we shall do is damage the interests of the British people. The Government have the right idea, but they had better come clean and say that they are prepared to follow it up.
    4.29 pm
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe arid Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on a powerful speech, but I hope that she does not regard all environmental science as iffy science. It is the science of the future, and extremely important.
    This year is my 30th anniversary: the 30th anniversary of me campaigning against the expansion of Heathrow airport. That is 30 years of trying to hold back the tide of air traffic movements and the noise and pollution that they cause, and 30 years of broken promises. After the terminal 4 decision in 1979, we were promised no more expansion at Heathrow, and a limit was set of 270,000

    211
    air traffic movements a year. The Ministers of the day and the executives at the British Airports Authority must have been laughing all the way back to their offices. Almost before the ink was dry on the terminal 4 inquiry, plans for terminal 5 were announced. We now have the joy of a third runway to look forward to, and a sixth terminal will follow as night follows day.
    Heathrow is there, our hub airport, and the shops are lovely—"Airside Bond Street", as it was described in GQ magazine some time last year. Heathrow is there, so people come, so more facilities must be provided, so more people come—and it is spreading. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) have pointed out, Stansted and Gatwick are also in the south-east, and they are suffering the same fate. We, who have lived around Heathrow for the past 30 years, do not want the same thing to happen to Stansted and Gatwick. Why is it always the south-east? Other parts of the country need economic development and want more jobs. We are a tiny country. Why must it always be the south-east, and, of course, why Heathrow in particular?
    First, let us consider air traffic movements. I remind the Minister that the inspector, when giving the go-ahead for terminal 5 at Heathrow, limited air traffic movements to 480,000 per year. That was confirmed to me when I asked a question of the then Secretary of State. Some of my constituents were reassured, but others, including their MP and the redoubtable Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, were sceptical, knowing the betrayals of the past. Sure enough, when I challenged the present Secretary of State about saying that there would be 655,000 air traffic movements a year, I was told that that was with a third runway. But, of course, the previous Secretary of State had neglected to mention the third runway—economies of truth indeed.
    A new report from the Civil Aviation Authority in December 2003 admitted that numbers were underestimated—[Interruption.] I do not know what the Minister is saying from a sedentary position, but I know that among his many attributes, gallantry is not one. It was admitted that numbers were underestimated and that a third runway would mean 700,000 air traffic movements per year. Were mixed mode introduced, having already got a third runway—I do not put that past them, as they have betrayed us in the past—another 35,000 planes could use Heathrow, making a grand total of 735,000 planes a year, which boils down to 84 an hour. If we take into account daytime hours being more popular, that is about 100 planes using Heathrow every hour. That is ridiculous, but it could happen.
    Has the Secretary of State worked that out—as the Government have tried to do in the White Paper—in terms of global warming and adherence to the Kyoto protocol? A fuel tax is rejected on the ground that it would have to be international and that could not be achieved. The report talks of getting aviation included in the European emissions trading system. There seems to be no evidence that he will get any support for that. If he does not, where does his flagship policy of the polluter pays go?
    Why are the Government not making the aviation industry more responsible? We may think that it is tremendous to have extremely cheap flights. A friend of
    212
    mine recently flew to Milan for £1, but is having to save quite hard for the return flight, which will cost £5.99. Is that really responsible pricing by an airline that is polluting the environment to such an extent?
    Air pollution is a serious problem about which we have heard a great deal this afternoon. I just say thank God for the European Union. Long may it prosper and continue to set limits on our environment, make us look to the future of our children and stop the appalling pollution. The Government are looking at the third runway like Mr. Micawber and hoping that something will turn up so that everything will be all right in the end. However, the White Paper admits:
    "on the basis of the evidence available, we cannot be confident that air quality limits at Heathrow with a third runway will be met, even with aggressive mitigation measures."
    Those are the Government's words.
    Most of the complaints that I receive from my constituents are about noise. People who are hard of hearing cannot hear at all in my constituency. Teachers cannot teach and children do not learn properly because of the noise. Sunday afternoons in the garden are ruined, which can be a problem if it is one's only day off. We are constantly told that an average noise level of 57 dB marks the approximate onset of significant community annoyance—that is a nice phrase. However, aircraft noise is not average, and it is disingenuous of the Government to exclude from consideration early morning hours during which the bulk of the night flights disturb my constituents.
    Page 33 of the White Paper recognises that
    "noise from aircraft at night is widely regarded as the least acceptable aspect of aircraft operations"
    and says that the Government will
    "bear down on night noise accordingly"—
    so why did the Government challenge my constituents in the European Court of Human Rights after they had won the right to a decent night's sleep? We are all worried that having won the appeal in Strasbourg, the Government will try to increase the number of flights at Heathrow at night. I beg them to defend my constituents' rights to a decent night's sleep.
    Those of us who live near Heathrow have been promised much over the years, but we have been betrayed over and over again. Will the Government please stop the expansion of Heathrow airport before the south-east in the 21st century is turned into the equivalent of the noisy and polluted dark satanic mills of the 19th century?
    4.37 pm
    Mr. Graham Stringer: The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) cares passionately about her constituents, and I shall try to answer the question, why Heathrow and why London? The answer is simply that Heathrow is one of the world's premier airports. It is losing out competitively to Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol, and that is important not only to her constituents in Richmond Park, but to every single person in this country and our economy. The issue is not only local, and I may return to that point.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in our second debate on the aviation White Paper. In the first debate, I was moderately and constructively critical of

    213
    the Government's policy. They could be doing more and achieving that faster, and I agree with many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). However, after I read the report by the Environmental Audit Committee, I went scurrying to the barricades to protect and support the Government because at least they understand the essential importance of aviation to the country. The Committee has not even grasped the basics that would allow it the benefit of criticism. Its report reminded me of annoying undergraduate conversations that one can have in which after three or four hours of arguing, one suddenly finds out that the participants have been using completely different definitions of whatever they have been arguing about.
    I do not know why so few of my hon. Friends on the Environmental Audit Committee are here to participate in this debate, but I want to say to them that providing accurate definitions would be useful in taking forward a difficult debate involving hon. Members with constituency interests to look after and a Government who have the country's interests to consider. I ask for three definitions. I have yet to receive from anyone a clear definition of sustainability. Everyone is in favour of it but nobody uses the same definition. It would be helpful for future debate if we could agree on that.
    Secondly, the leader of the Green party in the European Parliament said today that we should not subsidise aviation. It would be helpful if we agreed on a definition of subsidy. Actually, the aviation industry gets next to no subsidy by comparison with buses and trains, but in the mad world of the Green party buses and trains are considered not to be subsidised and aviation, which supports itself commercially, is considered to be subsidised.
    Thirdly, the Government have been accused of taking a predict and provide approach. Let us define that. The Committee's report also accuses the Government of promoting growth. Excellent, say I: growth in aviation is growth for the economy. I want more of it, not less. I am amazed that hon. Members on the Committee are against growth, which is an excellent thing.
    David Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. At the centre of the debate is the tension between a standard of living and a quality of life. The standard of living is for the 7,000 people who work in and around East Midlands airport and the quality of life is that damaged for many thousands by night flying and other things. The same applies at other airports. How are those things reconciled in my hon. Friend's equation?
    Mr. Stringer: The aviation world has an excellent record on mitigating and dealing with such problems. Compensation can be made. Double glazing can be put in. Houses can be knocked down and people moved. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) said earlier that noise causes problems, and so it does, but he forgot to mention that around Heathrow about a sixth as many people are now affected by noise as were 25 years ago. That is the reality of improvements. I am not saying that the issue is an easy one, but that is the reality.
    214
    On predict and provide, if the Government really were providing, there would be a mass of new runways in this country. In fact, one new runway has been built since the second world war. There is no provision out of public funds. The Government are not predicting what will happen; they are saying, "If this happens, individual airport operators should, commercially, be able to expand to meet demand." That is a completely different point from the one made in a phrase that came from the anti-road movement about predicting and providing, and completely different from the odd theory, on the basis of Rocasta reports, that that would induce extra traffic, which is only the case in specific circumstances. There is no direct comparison between road movements and what is happening in aviation, and the Government are right to deny that there is.
    Mr. Paul Marsden: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's bulldozer diplomacy: sort out noise pollution by getting those pesky constituents out of the way. May I draw his attention to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which said three days ago that, in effect, the Government had abandoned their declared intention of adopting a sustainable aviation policy in favour of predict and provide? Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that the RSPB is a respectable organisation, which knows what it is talking about.
    Mr. Stringer: In previous debates the hon. Gentleman has failed to tell me what "sustainable" means. When he does so, I will answer that part of his question; I have already answered his points on predict and provide.
    Mr. Marsden rose—
    Mr. Stringer: I have relatively limited time and would like to move on.
    I hope that the Environmental Audit Committee will take my points on board. I should use the last half of my speech to mention something often mentioned in passing but not discussed as often as it should be; that is the air cargo industry and, in particular, the express part of that industry. I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State on not giving in to pressure to designate East Midlands airport so that there would be control on its night flights. It is not as well understood as it should be hew fundamental the express cargo industry is to industry in this country. Increasing numbers of businesses require widgets and machinery parts within 24 hours and for that, they need to have access to air freight that can get in and out very quickly. There are increasing restrictions on the London airports, and if East Midlands, Edinburgh and other airports are not allowed to have those night flights, businesses will move because if the cargo is not flown at night, they cannot carry out a 24-hour service. A CBI survey showed that if businesses could not have that night service, one sixth would remove and one third thought that they would lose business.
    To return to the position taken by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, more cargo is now going through East Midlands airport, but there are fewer planes. The airport has moved from chapter 2 to chapter 3 planes, so there is less noise. That is very good for the east midlands economy.
    Mr. Andy Reed: As someone who lives under the flight path of East Midlands airport, experiencing that particularly at night, I can assure my hon. Friend that the noise of aircraft still disturbs many of my constituents. I agree with him on the importance of air cargo and the future use of East Midlands airport, but to return to his views on sustainability and noise problems, how far would he go in giving powers to local authorities and others to restrict noise without stopping evening flights?
    Mr. Stringer: There must always be a balance in such issues. The 57 dB limit is a good one, but to try to contract that, or to reduce the number of people within the noise footprint or to get support to them for noise insulation are among the ways of achieving that balance. Basically, the question is whether we mitigate the effects of economic growth on those people who suffer bad effects from it, or whether we throw economic growth into the rest of Europe. That is what some of the constraint policies in this country have done. Schiphol, Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle, Brussels and Copenhagen are all benefiting because there is not sufficient capacity in the UK system.
    Transport in national policy is a Cinderella service. Over the past 10 or 12 years, what has been spent on transport has changed from 2 per cent. to 1 per cent. of gross domestic product—although that is partly because of economic success, and it is not a great measure. The real task of the Ministers in the Department is not only to fight for aviation and to ensure that our industry is competitive with Europe, but to get the resources needed to give those airports the ground transport system that will make them as efficient and effective as possible. Without that, the airports will not work. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department have a tough job because they have to compete with education and health, but aviation is vital to the future of this economy.
    4.48 pm
    Mr. Edward Garnier: I was interested to listen to the words of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) because I, too, want to speak about East Midlands airport. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is here, as are the hon. Members for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). We all have constituency interests in the thriving of East Midlands airport, but we also have constituency interests in ensuring that as it expands—as it no doubt will—it does so in a sensitive and co-operative fashion, without damaging the rights and interests of our respective constituents.
    It is interesting that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley thought it appropriate to mention East Midlands airport, and I accept that the cargo industry is of national importance. But what Members might not realise is that Nottingham East Midlands airport, as it is nowadays called, is part of the Manchester Airports Group, which, even though it is a public limited company, is wholly owned by the 10 local authorities of Greater Manchester.
    The former leader of Manchester city council has just addressed us. He, as a Manchester councillor, had more influence over the governing policies of the airport that
    216
    affect my constituents and whether they can sleep at night than I have as the Member of Parliament for Harborough. My constituents cannot even buy shares in Manchester Airports Group and attend the annual general meeting in order to sack the board, because the board is controlled by, and its appointments are made by, the leaders of the 10 local authorities in Manchester.
    Mr. Stringer: The hon. and learned Gentleman is completely right about the governance of Manchester Airports Group, but he is completely wrong in saying that I had any influence over East Midlands airport. At the time of my membership of the board, Manchester Airports Group had not acquired East Midlands airport, so I hope that he will accept that I was debating this issue in the interests of the United Kingdom economy.
    Mr. Garnier: I absolve the hon. Gentleman of any personal responsibility for the damage that is going to be done to my constituents; I was using him figuratively. A Manchester councillor has greater influence over the direction of Nottingham East Midlands airport's policies than I have as a Leicestershire MP, or any local authority councillors have, be they councillors in the city of Leicester, in the district councils or in the county council; still less is the influence of the voters and individual residents of Leicestershire who will be affected by the increase in the number of night flights into and out of East Midlands airport.
    Nottingham East Midlands airport says in its publicity material that it is
    "the largest pure freight airport in the UK and a hub for DHL and UPS",
    which are probably the two biggest freight-forwarding companies operating in this country. It continues:
    "It is also now the ninth largest passenger airport in the UK, largely thanks to the introduction of low-cost services from carriers such as bmibaby and easyJet."
    None of us wants the economy to be damaged, and we all want jobs to be drawn into the east midlands. If those jobs are at the airport, all well and good, but a balance has to be struck between the rights of a company controlled by the 10 local authorities in Manchester—operating in Leicestershire—and the rights of my constituents, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, and those of the hon. Members for Loughborough and for North-West Leicestershire.
    It is estimated that in the next few years, if the Government do not control Nottingham East Midlands airport's expansion—they show absolutely no sign of getting a grip on this issue—the continuous disturbance that night flights cause to my constituents will become intolerable. At the moment, flights come into the airport predominantly from the west. As I understand it, there are few if any approaches from, or take-offs in, an easterly or south-easterly direction. The proposal is that the airport's capacity to take in freight be expanded, particularly at night. Of course, although cargo does not mind at what hour of the day it flies, the freight customer does. They like it to arrive first thing in the morning, so that when the office opens, it is there. That suggests to me that there will be a great many more night flights over Leicestershire.
    The Civil Aviation Authority was invited to conduct a noise assessment, and it did so on the basis that most of the flights would come in from the west. It now

    217
    transpires that it was basing its calculations on a false premise, because there will now be two additional approach and departure routes. One route will fly over Market Harborough, and the flights will be so numerous that a stacking procedure will be needed over Market Harborough and the villages just outside it. What that will do for emission pollution, let alone noise pollution, time alone will tell.
    The other route will be from a slightly further north direction towards Melton Mowbray and between there and Nottingham. We are now going to be hit by an additional number of flights at all hours of the day and those flights will be completely beyond the control of the Department for Transport and, I have to say, beyond the control of the residents and elected politicians of the county of Leicestershire.
    I want to see the East Midlands airport designated under the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow are so designated, and the circumstances on the aviation scene in 1982 will soon apply to the East Midlands airport. It is growing to the size that those other airports were then, and it seems logical to translate the regime that applied to those airports in 1982 to what is about to happen to the East Midlands airport. If we do not, the only control over the adverse expansion—adverse to my constituents—of the airport will be the planning procedures that are available to the North West Leicestershire district council. If that council is similar in its financial dimensions to the Harborough district council, it probably has a revenue budget of about £7 million a year. I dare say that the East Midlands airport shop will shortly—if it does not already—take in that amount of money pretty well every week of the year. The imbalance in weaponry, power and political influence between a district council planning authority and the airport company only has to be described for one to see the consequences.
    Mr. Reed: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right to say that a balance has to be struck between the expansion of the airport and the controls necessary to deal with the noise problem. What impact does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that designating the airport would have, and what does he believe is meant by the White Paper's reference to "stringent" noise controls? So far, I have seen no definition to help us understand what that means. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman enlighten us?
    Mr. Garnier: The first advantage that designation will bring is that the number of flights and the level of noise caused by them will be controlled by the Government, who are accountable to the House rather than to any number of councillors in and around the city of Manchester. I have no idea what "stringent" controls means; nor does the hon. Gentleman. I do not suppose that the Whip or the Minister with responsibility for aviation—he has temporarily absented himself, no doubt for good reasons—knows either.
    Both I and the campaign group, East Leicestershire Villages Against Airspace, of whose committee I am a member, are anxious that the East Midlands airport is brought to realise that it must behave as a responsible neighbour rather than—I say this quite deliberately as a
    218
    Conservative MP—as a capitalist marauder. Unless it begins to realise that it must find a sensible and cooperative space in Leicestershire, it will lose out in respect of public appreciation and political support. I want the East Midlands airport to thrive, but I also want it to thrive in a sensible and agreeable fashion.
    The airport has produced a noise policy "10-point plan", but I want it to come up with some concrete proposals that can be enforced at the say-so of either local authorities or the Department for Transport. The intervention of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) highlighted the point. We cannot trust the organisation to produce a system that will operate to the benefit of the residents of Leicestershire.
    David Taylor: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the campaign that he is leading in south Leicestershire. Is he aware that consultants for the North West Leicestershire district council drew up the so-called Rupert Taylor—no relation—proposals, but they were not taken seriously?
    Mr. Garnier: I wish that they would be taken seriously.
    I have 25 seconds left in which to ask the Government to invite Nottingham East Midlands airport and the Department for Transport to behave like the Ministry of Defence. On 4 June, the Minister of State with responsibility for the aimed forces wrote to me to warn me that the Royal Air Force was to conduct exercises over Leicestershire. We get no warning at all from the managers at East Midlands airport. They do not even consult the county council, which used to own the real estate on which the airport stands.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I call Mr. Alan Hurst.
    5 pm
    Mr. Alan Hurst: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I make no apologies for devoting most of my time to Stansted airport, which of course lies in your parliamentary constituency. I concur almost entirely with the remarks made earlier in the debate by my near neighbour the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk). It is no surprise that hon. Members of different parties should agree about the proposal for Stansted. In north Essex and Hertfordshire, opposition to the proposals enjoys tripartisan support
    The county councils of Essex and Hertfordshire share the same approach as do the local authorities in Braintree and Uttlesford, even though those bodies have been under the control of all three main political parties over the past few years. That unanimity was described in a poetic prologue by Mr. Eyre, the Queen's counsel who chaired the 1985 inquiry, when the proposal was to raise the volume of passengers beyond 25 million a year. The inquiry concluded that the target would be an environmental disaster, but the present scheme would go even further.
    People are worried about the preferred option in the White Paper, which is not the somewhat easier possibility that a new runway could be squeezed inside the present boundaries. The current scheme amounts

    219
    almost to a gratuitous insult to local people, as the proposed site for a new runway lies well beyond the airport's present boundaries. If adopted, the proposal would mean that a much larger area of countryside would be destroyed, many more houses would have to be removed, and a much larger number of historic monuments and buildings would be lost.
    Does the proposal have any economic vitality? It may seem contradictory for people to be worried about what will happen if the scheme goes ahead, and also for them to ask if the scheme has any economic common sense but, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said, Stansted at present is a cross-subsidised airport. Most of the flights from Stansted—well over 90 per cent. of them—are cheap flights at giveaway prices that do not make real economic sense.
    In an earlier speech on this matter, I mentioned the half-forgotten figure of Freddie Laker. People of a certain age will recall that this is not the first time that cheap flights have been available. It has happened before, and essentially it came to nowt.
    The worry for people in the Stansted area is that schemes are sometimes begun but only half completed. The result is desecration: monuments are pulled down and land acquired, but the scheme does not reach fruition. I do not suggest that airport companies are engaging in a cynical ploy, but it might be more profitable for them to acquire valuable land that can be used for other purposes after a time than to go ahead with an airport scheme that appears to be a pure loss-maker in economic terms. That will certainly be the case if cross-subsidisation from Heathrow comes to an end, as will surely happen.
    The shareholders of the major airlines will not put up with cross-subsidy on a scale that means that they pay high charges at the airports from which they fly, when companies such as Ryanair and easy Jet can offer flights at giveaway prices. One does not need to be a corporate lawyer to see the potential for lawsuits in that area. Therefore, it does not seem sensible, in economic terms, for the BAA to go ahead with the proposed scheme. However, it could become the master of vast swathes of potentially very valuable land as it went about the process of implementing the proposals.
    Local people would find that equally difficult. They would lose all the things that they treasure—countryside, buildings and communities—and, even if the airport does not expand as much as is anticipated, the acquisition of land for commercial and other purposes would detract from the beauty of the area.
    One might argue that compensation would have to be paid, but under the Land Compensation Act 1973 only those directly affected—at least to begin with—would be fully compensated. The BAA would be required, under the terms of the White Paper to bring forward compensation schemes for those who suffer from more general blight. Indeed, it is fair to say that the BAA has produced two such schemes, but they cover a very limited number of properties and the hurdles that have to be surmounted include proving a loss in value or a certain level of noise.
    It is estimated by the anti-expansion groups that the fall in property values in the Uttlesford district is already some £28,000 for the average property, compared with the rest of the region. Properties in that part of the world
    220
    are fairly expensive, but that leads to the other unanswered question on expansion for Stansted: where will the people who work at an expanded airport live? We do not have an overabundant supply of economic housing in Braintree or Uttlesford. The only way for the necessary labour force to reach the area, which has almost no unemployment, is up the M11 or along the A 120, which is about to be dualled. They will almost exclusively have to travel by private transport, and therefore the benefit of the road improvements that we have seen recently will be lost, because the weight of traffic will increase manyfold.
    The railway connection does not have the capacity to bring in the numbers of passengers contemplated. The White Paper says that all the issues connected with the expansion will be a matter for the airport operators, but I cannot imagine that the BAA will say to its shareholders that they will need to pay for an expanded rail link—or for expanded road capacity, for that matter. If the expansion goes ahead, the burden will fall on the taxpayers to make it even halfway economically viable. For that and other reasons, which time prevents me from elaborating, I oppose the expansion of Stansted, and I think that my constituents share that view.
    5.8 pm
    Mr. John Wilkinson: I apologise to the Minister for not being here for his speech, but I had to attend a civic funeral in my constituency. I also apologise to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but I am sure that I would endorse his remarks.
    It was notable that Members from both sides of the House who have constituencies near Heathrow airport opposed the building of a third east-west runway there. Some hon. Members who have always supported the full development of the airport, including the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) and myself, believe that a further runway would be unacceptable on environmental grounds. To locate a runway to the north of Heathrow, between the A4 and the M4, in an area of green belt with no proper surface access—or tube access, where an additional terminal and parking facilities would be necessary—is wholly unacceptable. It would also cause great damage to Harmondsworth village and its historic sites.
    The Government have rightly adopted stricter criteria for engine emission pollution when considering whether a third runway should be built. It is not acceptable, for all Londoners, and I hope that the Government will bear that in mind. The White Paper is half sensible, although I am in serious disagreement with one of its suggestions.
    The Government are correct to take a gradualist approach. The future of air transport is exceedingly uncertain. We are correct also in trying to make the best use of existing facilities, rather than going down the predict and provide route, which many hon. Members have described.
    It is noteworthy that those who really understand aviation—such as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who chairs the Transport Committee and whose authority on these matters we applaud, and the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and for Crawley (Laura

    221
    Moffatt)—all spoke eloquently about civil aviation's economic benefits to this country. We are all deeply saddened that, during our political lifetimes, we have seen great industries virtually disappear from the United Kingdom—shipbuilding, textiles, whole swathes of engineering, and much of motor and motor-bike manufacture too to a large extent—but civil air transport is a great provider of jobs. It brings prosperity to whole regions of the country that otherwise would have been passed by, and it brings in a great deal of foreign exchange to Britain, which we so badly need.
    The Government also need a measure of commendation for stressing the regional development aspect of civil aviation. One has only to consider the crucial factor of air access for the highlands and islands and air access to important airports from the Crown dependencies, alluded to by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. I chair the British Manx group, and the fact that airlines from the Isle of Man no longer have access to Heathrow is regretted on the island.
    There are many considerations, and I wish to put before the House some of the uncertainties. Given the current oil price rise, there is a possibility of a serious reduction in the profit expectations of the low-cost carriers, Ryanair and easyJet. Big airlines, such as United and US Airways have been under chapter 11 protection in the United States. Swissair and Sabena went bankrupt after the 11 September tragedy. Alitalia is now in trouble. The conjunction of the effect of the 11 September atrocities and the rise in oil prices poses a serious challenge to the industry, as does equipment: whether major carriers will go down the A380 route—ultra-large, jumbo-sized airliners—or something like the 7E7 ultra-economic airliner, which is better suited to point-to-point operations.
    Another key question is whether hub airports are of prime importance or whether, in the new civil air transport environment, there will be further development of point-to-point services. I rather incline towards the latter, but if we want to develop civil aviation in Britain, we must also take into account the social and economic changes in the south-east of England. With the Thames gateway developments and the likelihood of further growth in population, business and economic activities in the corridor from north-east London, to Stansted and on towards Cambridge, the Government are correct to go for a second runway at Stansted. That is where much of the growth in civil air transport movements has occurred because of the burgeoning of the low-cost carrier sector.
    It would be sensible in the longer term to start the further development of Stansted, which could be a better location for a major hub airport than Heathrow in the decades ahead, although the Government disagree. If there were, for example, further al-Qaeda terrorist outrages, people would question the wisdom of building a further runway at Heathrow, in the middle of a very densely populated area. I doubt the wisdom of that.
    There is still further potential—is there not?—for high-speed rail in Europe, and we have only started to see the beginning of its development in this country, with the eventual extension of the channel link to St. Pancras.
    222
    The Government are on the right track, especially in terms of the development to the full of existing airports. As the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who is another aviation authority, might tell us, Luton airport offers immense potential, with the extension to the runway foreseen in the White Paper and the development of a parallel taxiway and other infrastructure and services. Birmingham, too, has potential with another runway, as does Edinburgh. We are, by an large, getting it right. What pleases me most is that we as a country are acknowledging that aviation is a golden goose for Britain. We must not let the Liberal Democrats kill it with crazy tax impositions.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I rise to praise the Government for their wise decision to give the go-ahead to the expansion of Luton airport, making the maximum use of its single runway—extended, of course. That is a significant development, which will quadruple the number of passengers going through the airport and make a serious contribution to passenger numbers in south-east England. In addition, the airport is a major economic boon to my constituency. Although situated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), my constituents look to the airport for jobs following the decline in manufacturing in my area. The Vauxhall and Electrolux plants have closed, as have many smaller companies, so Luton airport is important to us and I applaud the Government for their decision.
    We would like the Government to encourage and facilitate Luton airport's expansion at an early date, because Luton could solve some of the problems that we have been hearing about this afternoon. A green light to growth at Luton could alleviate, at least in the medium term, some of the tensions and difficulties at Heathrow and Stansted. Initially, we thought that BAA was pushing for its own airports to be expanded and that Luton was being marginalised—indeed, I think it was on no one's radar screen but ours. The decision is testimony not only to successful lobbying by us, but to the fact that the Government listened to the arguments. We made the case and, in the end, the Government acknowledged that it was a sensible one.
    We have heard talk of forecasts of the growth in air passenger traffic over the next 25 or 30 years. Forecasts are always hazardous. Passenger forecasts for the channel tunnel proved to be overblown—its construction was predicated on forecasts that never came to fruition and seem unlikely ever to do so. The salvation of the channel tunnel's economics lies in pushing a lot of rail freight through it, not in passenger numbers. We can make the trains faster and encourage as many people as possible to travel by Eurostar, but there will never be enough passengers to make the channel tunnel economic; vast quantities of freight are needed to do that.
    The White Paper sets out a range of forecasts. Some may prove to be overblown, but whether or not they are correct, Luton's case will remain strong. If the high forecasts prove to be accurate, Luton will clearly be needed, but it will he needed even if the lowest forecasts are not realised. We can then make a case, not for having additional runways at other airports, but for maximising the use of existing runways at those airports

    223
    and maximising Luton's expansion on the single runway solution. I have here some figures, drawn from the White Paper and elsewhere, which state that maximum use of existing runways at Heathrow could result in an extra 26 million passengers passing through that airport, at Gatwick an extra 11.5 million passengers, and at Stansted an extra 10 million passengers; and developing Luton could result in an extra 23 million or 24 million passengers passing through the airport. Therefore, even if no new runways were built, airports in the south-east could accommodate an extra 70 million passengers a year. If serious problems arise in relation to oil or terrorism, or if we encounter economic problems that we cannot predict, or if we face serious environmental problems with which the world has to deal, there might be less demand for air passenger transport than we have come to expect.
    I suspect that those additional 70 million passengers will not be enough, but Luton can make a great contribution even at the lowest forecast. Moreover, if expansion of other airports proves unacceptable to this Government or a future one, there is the option of a second runway at Luton, which would make the airport ten times its present size. That option was rejected as unfeasible by the White Paper, but it remains a possibility in the longer term. Even in difficult circumstances, Luton might provide solutions.
    We need economic expansion locally to compensate for job losses in manufacturing. We have a ready-made work force, in contrast to other airports, who are experiencing labour shortages. There is significant unemployment in parts of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South, even though Luton is in the south-east of England, so we can provide workers for jobs. I can say without fear of contradiction that we have the best further education college in the country, as it was the first one to be awarded beacon status. We have the capacity to train people locally in every possible skill, and have a work force who need work.
    There is everything to be said for expanding Luton and giving it the go-ahead as soon as possible. My only qualification concerns the master plan. Yesterday, I spoke to the airport management, who say that the time scale for its completion is too short. It is a time-consuming exercise that they want to get right, so I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to allow a little more time for the plan to be completed properly.
    Finally, to strike a note of current interest, I am pleased that yesterday the England football team flew from Luton. As an English person, I hope that they will win, and I hope that the Scots, Welsh and Irish will support us—but that is another story. The team flew from Luton in a British Airways aircraft, and we were pleased to see that aircraft there.
    John McDonnell: There could be many more.
    Mr. Hopkins: Indeed. We could offer Luton as a base for some British Airways services, as we have the capacity and workers. We would welcome the company, should it choose to fly from Luton, which has a great future, and I hope that the Government will continue to support it.
    5.22 pm
    Mr. Alan Duncan: May I risk shocking the Minister by paying him a compliment? Since the war, successive Governments have been extremely bad at planning. When Ted Heath was Father of the House, he was asked what was the longest period for which he had planned as Prime Minister, and he said, "Oh, about 10 years." I can therefore extend some measure of congratulation to the Government for at least trying to take a 30-year view or even longer. People might take a view of only 10 years when building a motorway, tunnel or airport, but time flies by, and when work is completed everything is out of date.
    Such a long-term view, however, throws up stark projections. The statistics that affect Nottingham East Midlands airport are of most concern to me, as they are to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). Paragraph 9.25 of the White Paper says that
    "our consultation document forecast that there could be over 60,000 cargo flights a year by 2030, and a substantial proportion of these are likely to be in the late evening or the night."
    At a rough estimate, that could involve 100 or 200 night flights that, unlike Heathrow, would grow from a base of almost nothing. Because of current flight path routes and the volume of flights, there are almost no night flights to disturb our constituents. They are just beginning, and are beginning to annoy people. The projections in the White Paper, however, are massive.
    That throws up a serious question of policy. Does the current policy or any policy in the White Paper properly cope with the magnitude of the issue described in it? Is there a control or planning process that can redress grievance and adjust, tweak or change what is predicted so as best to balance the environment with the economy? The answer at present is no. There is no planning process for freight volumes. There is a planning process for the expansion of an airport apron, but there is no planning process for where those flights go and how many of them will be permitted.
    The Minister has yet to answer the question how great the scale and impact of such a change must be before it triggers some sort of formal approval regime. I cannot think of any other area of activity that has such widespread detrimental consequences which is not subject to some sort of control. Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow, the three big airports, are subject to control, but no other airport is. Nottingham East Midlands airport, which will have 60,000 cargo flights well within our lifetime, is subject to no regulation whatever. There is nothing contractual or statutory that is able to govern its growth.
    The Minister spoke about master plans. I am not familiar with master plans and I do not know much about them, but I do not see that they have the force of law, compulsion or influence that a growing number of our constituents are demanding. Perhaps the Minister would tell me that there is a process of consultation. Our experience of that so far is pretty bitter. Apparently it has been going on for a year—no one knew about it. A letter to a council provoked a letter back, and it is only in the past two or three months that people have begun to comprehend the consequence of the changes being proposed. Our constituents are shocked. They did not know that that was happening, and they are shocked by

    225
    their lack of power as individuals through their representatives and through the process of government, consultation, appeal and planning to do anything about it.
    John McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Duncan: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I want to see the point through, if I may.
    We were told at first that there would be a few night cargo flights coming in down the A47 towards the south-east of Leicester, and that they would be at about 8,000 or 10,000 ft so we would not hear a thing. We are suspicious that the flight path has been shifted from west-to-east to east-to-west, so they are now coming over all of rural east Leicestershire, that the numbers are enormously higher than anyone has ever been prepared to admit, and that the altitude of the flight path is nothing like that described to us by Nottingham East Midlands airport.
    We have no confidence in what we are being told. We do not trust what we are being told. In the White Paper there is nothing that describes a process whereby we can invoke our power as representatives to reflect our constituents' concerns. In fact, matters are worse. Paragraph 9.28 states:
    "At the same time, given the particular importance of air freight to the future national and regional economy, and of East Midlands Airport as a centre of these operations, we consider that the projected expansion of air freight operations at East Midlands should be permitted."
    Mr. Stringer: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman making a good case for consultation and for regulation. I am sure the House listens to that with sympathy and understanding. Does he accept the case that the country needs night flights for express cargo somewhere in the country?
    Mr. Duncan: Yes, I do, but I am perturbed, because it seems that established patterns of flight are about to be turned on their heads. Those who are used to flights going over their houses will suddenly find that flights—potentially 60,000 flights a year within 30 years—are moved to areas in which people have no experience or expectation of them, which is what I object to. The process by which flights are apparently being switched on the sly causes severe upset for my constituents, the constituents of my neighbour, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, and others. We are suspicious of the process—in fact, a process is not apparent, and the White Paper does not contain one.
    Returning to my earlier intervention on the Minister, we must try to find a way to bridge the complete gulf in trust between the management of Nottingham East Midlands airport and MPs, councillors and parish councillors representing constituents in east Leicestershire, who are concerned not to be cheated or deceived. We need a means to join the facts with the administrative process of approving or amending the apparent proposal.
    I should like the Minister to invoke his authority and verify the proposals at Nottingham East Midlands airport, which would allow us to hold the airport to
    226
    account. We must record what the airport says and monitor what subsequently happens. We cannot identify culprits 8,000 ft up in the air from ground level, and we need administrative co-operation and honesty to link the concerns and observations of people on the ground with the noise in the air.
    On noise, although 57 dB might be okay in a busy urban area with a lot of background noise, it is not good in a rural village in east Leicestershire.
    Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at this late stage in his remarks. If 60,000 cargo trucks were to move down the A47 or the A6, the Department for Transport might do something, but it seems utterly careless about 60,000 cargo aeroplanes flying over the A47 or the A6.
    Mr. Duncan: I totally agree with my hon. and learned Friend.
    In the few seconds that I have left, I ask the Minister in a spirit of co-operation to establish a process that goes beyond the White Paper to engender trust, which is severely lacking at the moment, on NEMA's planned expansion. Trust has not been established and the facts have not been verified. My constituents are suspicious that thousands of planes will suddenly start flying over their houses at relatively low levels in the middle of the night and that they will have no statutory opportunity to amend the proposal or to object to it.
    In conclusion, I ask the Minister to confirm that he will work with all of who are involved in the matter to ensure that the threat that unfairly looms over our quiet rural environment does not turn into reality.
    5.33 pm
    Albert Owen: I shall concentrate on the Welsh dimension to air travel. Indeed, I am the first Member from the Celtic fringes to speak in this debate, although I see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) is trying to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    The White Paper is important for the future of aviation in the United Kingdom, and it is also important for the future of integrated transport per se. True integration means road, rail, sea and air, and as someone who represents an island constituency I am conscious of the needs of all those modes of transport. The White Paper is comprehensive and it contains the first forward planning for many decades.
    Historically, principal towns grew around seaports, and rail and road links followed much later. The challenge for the future is that we plan to integrate extended airports into the modern transport system. Regional air services in general, and in Wales in particular, are important and new. I shall concentrate on the maximisation of the economic benefit to periphery areas that are served by conventional modes of transport.
    Aviation makes a great contribution to employment, trade and the economy in general, but that does not detract from the important issues of the environment and the planning process that hon. Members have mentioned.

    227
    The White Paper acknowledges the importance of links with the south-east and other regions of England, as well as the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, it suggests increasing the capacity of the major airports and possible enhancements to the highlands and islands. I have travelled from Campbeltown to Glasgow on several occasions—that model could be repeated in many parts of Wales. In Northern Ireland, the White Paper focuses on the international and city airports of Belfast, but also on more regional airports in terms of linking and working with the Irish Republic Government.
    In Wales, the White Paper correctly concentrates on the south-east in the shape of Cardiff International airport. Cardiff is a vibrant European city—one of the fastest-growing cities in Europe—and it needs that attention. However, it is important to acknowledge the importance of an intra-Wales air service that links the north and the south of the country. The White Paper notes that Wales relies a great deal on English airports. Although it is true that Manchester and Liverpool serve a great proportion of north Wales, Birmingham serves the middle of Wales, and many people travel to Bristol from the south. So there is a standard London-centric view that all Welsh roads and rails lead to England. In fact, the nearest international airport for my constituents is in Dublin, which is some two hours away by fast ferry.
    The advent of devolution offers new transport opportunities for the people of Wales. I welcome the cooperation that has already taken place between the National Assembly for Wales and the Government. Co-operation on transport matters is important in planning integrated systems and dealing with the reserve and devolved matters that lie in Cardiff and London. Last night, there was a debate in the Procedure Committee on the draft Welsh transport Bill, which is an experiment whereby the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs will work with the National Assembly to achieve a properly integrated system.
    The White Paper has allowed the Welsh Assembly Government to work out a network of intra-Wales air services linking north and south Wales, thereby reducing road journeys. Anyone who travels down the A470 or takes the rail journey from north to south Wales—as I am sure that you have, Madam Deputy Speaker—has to go via England, and the journey takes four to five hours. The Welsh Labour party included the new air link in its manifesto for the Welsh Assembly and is now committed to developing it. I am pleased that the White Paper gives close attention to that idea.
    North-west Wales has suffered economically as a result of being on the periphery both of Wales and of the United Kingdom. Many potential investors have cited travel as a barrier to relocating to the area or setting up businesses there. A regional airport would help to remove that barrier, enhancing the railway and the links between my constituency's principal port of Holyhead, which could in future cater for large cruise vessels.
    Since the White Paper was published, I have worked with the business community, the unions, the RAF, the Wales Tourist Board, the Welsh Development Agency and the county council to put forward a plan to make RAF Valley in my constituency the principal north Wales airport. As it already has the, infrastructure in place, that would very much reduce any environmental
    228
    damage caused by building new runways. It is used to noise, because it is the main RAF Hawk training school, and it is close to the A55 Euro-route, the main line and the sea port, with the potential for offshore gas and oil installations.
    The RAF has been very supportive and I led a delegation to the Ministry of Defence. That shows that we have genuine joined-up government on transport issues. Consultants are working on a business plan with the Welsh Assembly Government. The north-south link from north Wales to Cardiff has the potential to provide another link to Dublin, thereby connecting two vibrant European capitals. The Welsh Assembly recently debated intra-Wales services and was supportive in principle. I want to put it on the record that RAF Valley is the top candidate for such a service. The catchment area is wide and some 200 public sector workers travel along the route from north to south every day. If only a third of them were encouraged to use a new air service, they would provide the core for the future.
    There are working models. I have already mentioned Campbeltown to Glasgow and there is also the service between Newquay St. Mawgan's airport to Stansted. Three quarters of it is full through the new demand for tourism and windsurfing. I hope that the public service obligation matter can be sorted out and that route development will shortly be established. Airbus in north Wales has provided the air industry with a great structure and I want north-west Wales to be part of that.
    Irish success shows that regional airports work and have spread economic prosperity throughout the Republic. I want that to happen throughout the United Kingdom. I want Wales to be an integral part of that and my constituency to benefit.
    5.41 pm
    Mr. David Wilshire: My starting point is the wish for Heathrow to continue to flourish. Some 26 per cent. of my constituents in work depend on it for their jobs; many of my elderly constituents derive their pensions from it; many of my local businesses owe their profit to it; many national and international firms choose to be in my constituency because of the airport; and local house prices are high because Heathrow is successful. I therefore make no apology for approaching the debate with the best for my constituents at the forefront of my mind.
    There are two questions. What would happen to Spelthorne's economy if all new runways went elsewhere? What would happen to Spelthorne's environment if Heathrow got one of the runways? The answers lead in different directions and the challenge that faces my constituents is how to strike a sensible balance between those considerations.
    Early public debate was led by environmental campaigners. Much of it was based on exaggerated claims, a few of which we heard again this afternoon. As the Minister said, most of it was knee-jerk. However, I am ready to admit that if the worst predictions of the anti-Heathrow campaigners are true, the price to be paid for a new runway would be too high.
    I therefore welcome the research that is being undertaken and the commitment of BAA and the airlines to do their best to solve those problems. Until the research has been completed, we need to keep our

    229
    minds open. In the meantime, it makes sense for BAA to start its planning and I welcome its open and honest dialogue with my constituents. However, the chances are that the final decision will flow from a planning application. Please God we do not have a rerun of the stupidity, waste and delay of the terminal 5 inquiry. It has been incredibly difficult to persuade those with strong views about Heathrow to consider the possible economic consequences of its not getting another runway. They could be catastrophic for the airport and for local business and jobs.
    To keep its place as Europe's No. 1 hub airport, Heathrow needs to stay ahead of the competition. No airline wants to leave Heathrow for Stansted or Gatwick. Indeed, airlines are queueing up to get in. If they are to go elsewhere, we must have new traffic distribution rules to force them to move. If forced to move, some airlines would move most or all their operations elsewhere and some would probably move to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris rather than to Stansted or Gatwick.
    If that were to happen, and without another runway, Heathrow would, at best, decline and, at worst, close. No other airport in the world has two neighbouring, flourishing hub airports.
    I realise that some people consider me to be alarmist when I claim that Heathrow is under threat. They tell me that it is bound to survive, whatever happens. My response is to invite them to join me at my favourite Thai restaurant overlooking the Pool of London—a port that many said would survive, whatever happened—and if they can spot a docker while having lunch, I will pay for the meal. If they cannot, they pay. To date, no one has taken me up on that offer.
    There are others who accuse me of wanting to help the airlines only to help their shareholders. That is utter rubbish. Trade unions are not noted for putting shareholders first, yet they accept the economic case for another runway, as do the local and regional chambers of commerce. In addition, national and international businesses say that a flourishing Heathrow is absolutely essential to the success of UK plc. But however worthy these supporters of the economic case are, the opinions that I respect most are those of my constituents. The majority of those whom I was elected to represent do not support the anti-Heathrow campaigners who keep claiming to speak on their behalf. I shall give the House an example. I recently came across a press release on the proposed new runway issued by one of my local councils, which stated:
    "We will continue to support our residents in resisting these developments".
    When challenged, the council's chief executive told me:
    "I can confirm that we have not carried out any recent opinion research on the third runway proposal."
    Well, I have.
    Since the White Paper was published, I have distributed to my constituents more than 40,000 questionnaires that include at least one question about the possible new runway. The results in 2002–03 showed that between 50 and 55 per cent. of them were in favour of the runway, and that 40 to 46 per cent. were against it. After the period of reflection that the Minister
    230
    mentioned earlier, two recent large surveys have suggested that support for the runway in 2004 is higher. They reveal 63 and 66 per cent. in favour, and 43 and 28 per cent. against. That might come as a surprise to those who knock Heathrow, but it does not surprise me. That is because my constituents want not only to live in a pleasant environment, but to keep their jobs. They want to support their families, pay their mortgages and protect the value of their homes.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In the surveys that my hon. Friend carried out, was there a way for people to express the view that they were more interested in seeing a decision being taken, so that the uncertainty could come to an end?
    Mr. Wilshire: My guess is that that is absolutely true. By the end of the farce known as the terminal 5 inquiry, even those among my constituents who were against the proposal were almost on their knees begging for somebody to take a decision, to put them out of their misery. That was the stupidity of the matter, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point.
    I started by saying that I was going to speak up for my constituents. Before I finish, there is one other group of people for whom I want to speak up: air travellers. I understand the anxieties of the environmental campaigners, but I see no need to apologise for supporting cheap and easy access to air travel for as many people as possible. I do not believe that air travel should be the prerogative of the better-off who can afford to pay the extra tax and duty being called for by the people such as the Liberal Democrats.
    I am glad that we are having this debate and I am pleased that the Minister said earlier that he was keen to hear what my constituents thought after a year of thoughtful reflection, even if he does not like the ties that their MP wears wears comes to the House to tell him about it. I would add in passing that the choice of some of my ties is down to the Minister goading me all the time to go out and buy more. He is therefore to blame for them, not me.
    In Spelthorne—this is the message that I want the Minister to take away with him—a huge majority of my constituents want Heathrow to flourish. A smaller but growing majority accept that that will probably mean another runway, provided—it is a big "provided"—that the real environmental problems can be overcome.
    5.50 pm
    David Taylor: First, may I apologise to the Minister and the House for not being present for the whole debate, despite having put my name down to speak? I was at the funeral of my friend Jim Marshall, the former Member for Leicester, South, who was a magnificent ambassador for his adopted city, an effective voice for the dispossessed in that city, and a powerful champion for the friendless in all parts of the country. I felt that that was a priority.
    To the north of the North-West Leicestershire constituency lies East Midlands airport or, as we must now not call it, Nottingham East Midlands airport, a former local authority initiative and enterprise, owned jointly by Derby city and county councils, Nottingham

    231
    city and county councils, and Leicestershire county council, in shares of ninths. At the point at which its expansion was halted because of difficulty of access to capital, it was sold to National Express.
    Prior to that sale, the population in the vicinity at least had access to elected members, who indirectly operated the airport, who were able to respond to the concerns that they might have from time to time. The key concern then and during the ownership of National Express—it remains so under the more recent ownership of Manchester Airports Group—was night noise, which is linked predominantly to freight flights. A history of difficulty has worsened over the years. I can only agree—unusually, perhaps—with my county colleague, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), in urging the Minister to look for designation under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 as an appropriate way ahead.
    When the Secretary of State for Transport launched the White Paper, there were frequent references in that speech, and since, to stringent controls on noise and particularly on night flights—an elusive phrase. The detail on that is lacking. I hope that the Minister, in summing up today, or in the months that follow, will direct the efforts and energies of his experts and civil servants to putting some flesh on the bones in relation to what is meant by stringent night noise controls. Designation has something to offer in that regard.
    My other county colleague, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), talked about community involvement, although he did not use that phrase, and the fact that when new directions and flight paths were introduced, those populations who were affected had hardly been consulted and had received very little information. That is all of a piece with what has happened in recent times, sadly, under the ownership of the Manchester Airport Group. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) has said, one would hope that the 10 local authorities would be more sensitive to community concerns. Their very raison d'être is to listen and respond to the communities for whom they are responsible. Their normal way of working is to respond to the concerns that are raised, but that is not happening. I know that my hon. Friend chairs the relevant parliamentary group, and I hope that he will use his influence to get Manchester to listen much more closely to the communities that lie around East Midlands airport.
    Night flights are the problem. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton has pointed cut that within his lifetime, as he is a relatively young man, but perhaps not within mine, we shall see something like 60,000 freight flights a year—200 a night—within what is an almost unrestricted environmental framework.
    That is the problem. Under local authority ownership, rigorous control of the pattern of usage and the timing of flights was, perhaps, not considered a high priority, since local authorities could respond to concerns that emerged. We now have the largest dedicated freight airport in the country working with almost no control framework.
    We have heard a bit about low, cost airlines. The White Paper sets out growth for the industry to 2030, and much of it is allocated to the low-cost sector. About
    232
    36 million passengers fly with the likes of Ryanair and easyJet, to name but two who, when this speech started, were still in business. The Government foresee about 103 million people flying with low-cost airlines by 2030. I am pleased to see the Minister back in his place, and I ask him whether he really thinks expansion is likely to continue at that rate. In his in-tray, filled by appropriate civil servants this week, he will find the authoritative industry magazine Flight International, which has a clear article analysing the battle in the skies between low-cost carriers and charter companies. In essence, the charter holiday market is being hit very hard by low-cost operators. One can only agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) about some of the lunacies of the low-cost market, which can function only because of the special low-taxation status that the aviation industry has learned to enjoy in recent years.
    Will the Minister discuss with the Secretary of State the Department for Transport's and the Civil Aviation Authority's route licensing policy, which currently seems not to take environmental considerations into account, such as the extra impact of noise and road traffic around East Midlands airport, caused by air wars that mean airports vying to outdo each other in how much subsidy they give to airlines? Can the Department take more effective action in that regard?
    I travelled today to Leicester and back through St. Pancras station, where the huge investment into high-speed rail to our continental near neighbours is clear. Will the Minister use the DFT-CAA route licensing system to discourage air routes to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam, and to divert that traffic to the effective intercontinental rail system that is being built in north London and the area around it? It would be economic and environmental lunacy not to ensure that the new framework was used to greatest effect, discouraging some of the hugely environmentally damaging and unnecessary short-haul flights to certain European capitals.
    5.58 pm
    John Barrett: I have a direct interest in the debate and the Government's policies on aviation. The White Paper, "The Future of Air Transport", contains extensive plans for the development and expansion of Edinburgh airport, which is in my constituency. The plans come on top of existing, ongoing developments, such as the extension to the taxiway, a project that is well under way. I have watched the airport grow over the past 30 years from a small regional airport into a major international link.
    Even if I did not have that specific constituency connection, however, I should, as someone concerned about the environment, be keeping a close eye on the words and actions of the Minister. It is clear from the debate, and the debate going on outside this place throughout the country, that I am not alone. As a number of Members have said, the debate, the White Paper and the issue are very important. They have an impact on business and communities the length and breadth of the country.
    Four months ago I secured a Westminster Hall debate on this issue, and I shall not repeat what I said in February. One very important addition to the discussion on air transport since then, however, has been the publication of the report by the Select Committee on Environmental Audit.

    233
    That report has to be one of the most critical that I have read. It is not the longest report produced, but it presents a serious case for the Government to answer. For that cross-party group to provide such criticism in a parliamentary report only confirms what many of us had feared: that the Government have no idea of what they mean by sustainable development. In a spirit of helpfulness to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), I suggest this definition of sustainable development: development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Is there anything wrong with that definition?
    The question now is what can and should be done to mitigate the considerable impact that an expansion in air travel will undoubtedly have. Whether we listen to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Institute for Public Policy Research or the House's own Environmental Audit Committee, there is wide consensus that the White Paper, if implemented, will run every risk of wiping out all the Government's progress on reducing carbon dioxide emissions and could undermine their entire climate change strategy. It is important not to forget the nitrogen oxide and water vapour pollution produced by air transport, emissions that make a considerable additional contribution to global warming. The White Paper makes no mention whatever of those.
    The Government have, of course, consulted extensively on the fiscal measures that can be exploited to ensure that aviation pays for the damage that it causes, yet for all the consultation there seems to be precious little progress. The Government have, to all intents and purposes, put all their eggs in the emissions trading basket. They must look again at the issue of aviation fuel taxation, because there are without question enormous disparities between how we tax different modes of transport. It seems that the air transport sector is getting off pretty lightly at present, a situation that is simply not sustainable in a sustainable aviation policy.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Before the hon. Gentleman waxes even more eloquently in favour of the Liberal Democrat policy to put further taxation on aviation, will he tell us his view of the White Paper proposal to safeguard land at Edinburgh airport for the possible construction of a second, parallel runway?
    John Barrett: It makes sense to protect the land, but no decision needs to be taken yet. There might be no requirement for a second runway—a subject that I shall come to later.
    One of the most disappointing aspects of the White Paper is how little it says on air-rail substitution. I find it extraordinary that a Government who espouse the importance of an integrated transport policy seem to view air transport policies as separate—almost in isolation—from other modes of transport. The fact is that short-haul flights, which make up an enormous amount of the traffic arriving at and departing from Edinburgh airport, are the most polluting. By providing good, reliable, affordable high-speed rail links between north and south, we would create an alternative, much
    234
    more environmentally friendly, way of connecting Scotland with London and the south of England. Approximately 50 per cent. of all flights into and out of Edinburgh are to and from cities in the UK that could be reached by rail. Back in February, the Commission for Integrated Transport produced a thorough report on that very issue. As the Secretary of State and the Minister will know, it argued that Edinburgh to London journey times could be cut to as little as two and a half hours. At present, it takes much longer to get from the centre of Edinburgh to the centre of London, a journey that I do every week by four separate modes of transport.
    As I have said, about two thirds of flights arriving at Edinburgh airport come from other UK airports accessible by rail. Just think of the pollution that could be prevented if the passengers on those flights were transported by rail instead of air. Yet, for such a long White Paper, relatively little is said on the importance of investment in the development of rail routes. That is yet another example of this Government's mistaken priorities.
    The Minister will know that, without question, the most controversial parts of the White Paper from an Edinburgh perspective are the statements surrounding the second runway
    The debate rages about the degree to which projected capacity can be accommodated at Edinburgh by the one existing runway. Surely such a question would not even arise if the short-haul flights that take up so many of the existing slots were redundant because of high-speed rail. High-speed rail would also help to free up airport capacity for the direct international flights that so many of us in Edinburgh want to see expanded, and it would be good for local tourism and for business.
    The current construction of the Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters next to the airport will create 3,000 new jobs in the constituency. But given the location of a major airport in my constituency, and coming as I do from a city that is heavily dependent on tourism, I recognise the importance of air transport to Edinburgh and to the wider Scottish economy. The airport acts as a gateway to Scotland. It employs thousands of people directly and indirectly, it is increasingly providing my constituents with a greater choice of direct international holiday destinations, and it offers a greater number of potential foreign visitors a direct link to Edinburgh and Scotland. In the past year alone, new direct flights have been established to Prague, Moscow and New York.
    These developments are to be welcomed. I am not against all expansion of air transport, but I am not in favour of uncontrolled expansion, which is almost what the Government are proposing. It is vital to get the balance right. A balance must be struck between economic interests and the environment, and it is clear to me and to many of my constituents that the Government have a long way to go before that balance will be struck.
    6.6 pm
    Mr. McNulty: With the leave of the House, I shall bring this extremely interesting debate to a conclusion. I want to start by associating myself fully with what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire

    235
    (David Taylor) said about our friend, Jim Marshall, the former Member for Leicester, South. He will certainly be missed.
    The contribution of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) is a timely and useful place to end our deliberations. There have been some extraordinarily useful and thoughtful contributions but he was the first to argue that, as I understood it, he wants a runway but does not want it. He wants to tax aviation far further, but he wants to welcome tourists to Edinburgh. He wants significant investment in even more high-speed rail links—without recognising the investment that has been made thus far—but he wants tourism in Edinburgh to flourish. That sums up the Liberal Democrats, a point to which I shall perhaps return shortly.
    John Barrett: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. McNulty: Given that I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman, of course I will.
    John Barrett: Will the Minister complete his summary by saying whether he agreed with my definition of sustainability?
    Mr. McNulty: If that was the best definition of sustainability that the hon. Gentleman could come up with, we had best leave the matter there. [Interruption.] It was not a broad definition of sustainable aviation in the context of the White Paper, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) was seeking.
    This has been a very useful debate and, as I said, Members on both sides of the House have made thoughtful contributions. Some contributions rightly focused on national policy, and others focused on economic and environmental issues, as is equally right and proper. Yet others rightly focused on local issues and raised specific concerns about local airports. I shall try to deal with as many of the contributions as I can.
    The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) struggled to find fault with the White Paper. Reference was made to fudges and a lack of joined-up government, and there were some frilly bits around the edges, but his heart really was not in it. I am extraordinarily grateful to him for repeating a speech that he made to the aviation club on 1 April, which I missed. It is quite useful to have the advantage of simply reading out a speech, which one often does for the benefit of one's own colleagues. It was not a bad little speech and I am grateful to him for sticking to it; consistency is surely to be admired. However, its bare substance showed that he found little to disagree with in terms of the White Paper's thrust. Indeed, not many Members found much to disagree with, save for their concerns about their local airports, which I fully recognise.
    Like other assorted panaceas offered in a simplistic fashion during the day, rail substitution has been mentioned, but it is not necessarily the full answer, and the notion that the Government have no policy on rail at all belies the experience of the last couple of years. That will be made more than clear by the time we get to the rail review.
    236
    The notion that, simply because there has been significant investment over the years in high-speed rail in France—whereas there has not been in this country—there are suddenly no short-haul domestic flights is absolute nonsense. The best part of 250 domestic flights are made in France every single day. The notion that, if there is more high-speed rail and more encouragement for people to operate on rail, lo and behold, they do and there is no longer a need for shorter-haul domestic flights is simplistic nonsense, which does not add any substance to the debate.
    As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West will know, about 93 per cent. of business trips from Scotland to the south-east are by air. I suspect that, whatever happens to the west coast and east coast main line, that will still prevail. I glory in the fact that that is partly why there is such substantial investment throughout the curtilage of Edinburgh airport. That is why—it is not because of rail links.
    David Taylor: I am disappointed that the Minister uses the old debating tactic of summarising what people have said in a wholly inaccurate way and then knocking the argument down. No one has suggested that substitution to fast rail services would remove the need for internal flights. We are talking about containing growth and securing the best benefit from the welcome investment that the Government have made in the St. Pancras to Ebbsfleet line and elsewhere. Could the Minister please be a little more accurate in his summing-up speech?
    Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend would have been better served—I know the reasons why he was not—had he been in his place for the whole day and listened to the whole debate and the whole of the rail substitution arguments advanced today, rather than just part of them. With the best will in the world, I understand why he was not—I said that at the outset and I respect that—but to enter the debate belatedly and to make comments about the course of the whole debate is not entirely fair on my hon. Friend's part. I say no more than that.
    It is the same when we come on to taxation. Saying that we should scrap air departure taxes paid by passengers and that it would be much fairer if airlines paid a duty on every plane—passenger or freight— taking off from a British airport, as though that were a new way forward that would solve all our environmental problems, is again short-sighted nonsense. The proposal to tax the aeroplane and not the passenger is based on the principle of the polluter paying, but that is not the case. It does not take a genius to work out that those charges would immediately be passed on to business, commercial and personal flights. It will not be the polluter that pays.
    That idea is simplistic and crude, at best. It does nothing about providing incentives to cut back on emissions, as we are proposing, either in respect of landing charges or the EU emissions trading scheme. It does nothing to incentivise people to reduce noise through noise charges or to bring about compensation and mitigation measures, which already apply to freight rather than passenger flights. It makes no allowance for discerning qualitative differences between aircraft—both this and the last Government have recognised the importance of that—and it takes no account of the

    237
    economics of an industry that already creates incentives to obtain high load factors. Of itself, the idea is crude and it is not necessarily a panacea, which is the usual context in which it is offered. It comes from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). It does not go far enough and it is in no way a substantive contribution to the debate: it is entirely knee-jerk.
    The comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and others, including the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, on the EAC's report are entirely right. It is one of the most critical reports ever made of the Government, but it is equally, as I said earlier this morning, one of the most flawed reports that a Committee has ever produced. The EAC persists in comparing aviation total climate change impacts with CO2-only impacts of other non-aviation sources. The figures are simply wrong. We have made the offer in substance, and I repeat it now, to sit down with members of the Committee and anyone else and go through the figures in detail.
    The EAC report is manifestly wrong. It does not acknowledge that figures for international aviation emissions include all emissions from flights departing from the UK, even though the Kyoto protocol does not allocate those emissions to states. I suspect that that will be news to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge).
    The UK is the only country in the world to produce figures that allocate international aviation emissions in this way. There is much noise about Kyoto and the attempt to sort out emissions, but the White Paper's provisions, if they came to fruition—
    Mr. Paul Marsden: That is a big if.
    Mr. McNulty: Of course it is, but would the hon. Gentleman prefer us to do nothing? The White Paper's proposals, if they came to fruition, would go way beyond Kyoto. They include emissions that are not mentioned in Kyoto, and in an environmentally managed system. That must be good for everyone.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. McNulty: Of course, given that I am talking about the hon. Gentleman's Committee's report.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The Minister is being more than usually patronising. He is also incorrect in his analysis of the EAC report, with which he disagrees. He knows that we have calculated—using the Government's own numbers and forecasts, and the policies announced in the White Paper—that aviation will account for about 70 per cent. of all UK CO2 emissions by 2050. We discussed this matter on the radio this morning, but he did not explain then why the Department has assumed that there will be no decrease at all in non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions for the next 50 years. Will he explain it now?
    Mr. McNulty: I did deal with that this morning. I said that those figures were simply modelling constants that
    238
    statisticians tell me are factored in, in a standard way, to provide a description of prevailing conditions in 2030 and 2050. However, I repeat that the EAC report compares apples and pears—that is, two distinct sets of figures.
    We have dealt with the national and regional dimensions of this matter, but the international dimension is also important. The EAC report quotes selectively from the Johannesburg declaration, which makes it clear that sustainability involves a range of economic, social and environmental measures. The declaration rightly deals also with the need for efficient and affordable transportation and access to markets. It recommends that transboundary pollution should be dealt with through international consensus and not unilateral action.
    How can we penalise smaller third-world and developing countries that want to grow by imposing on their aviation systems the standards that prevail in the developed world? The question has arisen before, and the answer is that a balanced approach is required.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. McNulty: I will, as long as the hon. Gentleman answers one key question to do with his report. He exhorts the Government to deal with "unnecessary" air transport. I should be grateful for a short definition of what "unnecessary" air transport might be, and how it might be policed.
    Mr. Ainsworth: It is for the Government to respond to our report, not for me to respond to the Minister. He will know that the Government signed up to a sustainable consumption policy as part of the Johannesburg commitments. How does he square that policy with the fact that air traffic is to treble over the next 50 years?
    Mr. McNulty: Again, the hon. Gentleman selectively quotes the Johannesburg declaration. I agree that the declaration talks about sustainable consumption, but it also talks about efficient and affordable transportation, access to markets. and about dealing with transboundary pollution by international consensus as opposed to unilateral action. The Johannesburg declaration dealt with all those elements, which are all very important when it comes aviation's international role, especially in respect of developing countries. It is not sufficient to focus on one line of the declaration.
    The EAC report contains no suggestion as to what "unnecessary" air transport might be, but I forgive the hon. Gentleman for that. I am sure that "Is Your Journey Really Necessary?" posters will be put up at all airports. The suggestion in the report was ridiculous, and remains so.
    David Taylor: I sense that the Minister is about to leave the topic of missions trading, so will he confirm that there will be a stringent cap on emissions under the emissions trading scheme? Will he assure the House that that cap will be progressively lowered, that the process will be transparent and that alleged reductions will be independently verified?
    Mr. McNulty: If my hon. Friend reads the ICAO—International Civil Aviation Organisation—report on emissions trading, which was partly funded by the Government, although the Committee suggested that it does not exist, he will see that the mechanisms involved are discussed. That work has been repeated by both OXERA and DG ENV. Appendix B of the White Paper contains some of the early work on a possible emissions trading scheme for the European Union. I cannot confirm that the system he has just described will be the one that prevails but it sounds not dissimilar to a system that I would intuitively be happy to accept.
    Someone said earlier that there was little support for an emissions trading scheme in the EU, but they were profoundly and utterly wrong. The support in the EU for a trading scheme grows by the day and the month. I freely admit that there is some resistance to the scheme, which is why we want to get some impetus behind an EU scheme at the ICAO level—not least from some of the larger member countries. It is no accident that the larger members of ICAO who are resistant to such a scheme are not unlinked to those who have yet to sign up to Kyoto, let alone ratify it.
    The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) will have to forgive me but I shall not discuss Stansted when we do not even know whether the legal challenge permitted by the High Court will be successful.
    Mr. Prisk: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt attempt to draw me further on that issue, and I can assure him that if he does, I will not reply.
    Mr. Prisk: I would not want to upset the Minister, who is naturally very sensitive, by trying to lead him in that direction. However, the issue of cross-subsidies is not related to the legal case and I specifically asked what would happen in that area, given the changing competitive environment.
    Mr. McNulty: The sensitivity relates to the legal dimensions that I must respect as a Minister. On the issue of cross-subsidies, I say simply, as I have said before, that the day after the White Paper was published, Sir Roy McNulty—no relation—said that the CAA, as the regulatory body, had no plans to change the system that prevails, and the Government have not demurred from that statement.
    Some hon. Friends asked about the master plan in detail and when the guidance would be published. I will seek to ensure that the guidance for the master plan is published before the summer recess.
    Mr. Hopkins: I made a specific point about the time scale for the delivery of the master plan, because I know that London-Luton airport is concerned about that. We do not want to rush it, because we want to get it right.
    Mr. McNulty: That is why we will insist, as someone else mentioned, that all airports with traffic movements above a certain level should submit at least an interim master plan by the end of this year. We will then discuss
    240
    the approach to a finalised master plan, and that will be in the guidance when it is published. I understand the concerns. Whether one supports the master plan or not, clarity is important.
    John McDonnell: I raised the issue of interim master plans. It would be helpful if the guidance clarified the relationship between the master plan and other planning guidance or mechanisms, and what impact the master plan will have on those.
    Mr. McNulty: The master plan will not be a statutory planning document. It will not be part of the package of development documents that will prevail under the new system. Nor will it be statutory planning guidance under the existing system. However, it will clearly be a material planning matter.
    What is in the master plan will need to be duly considered in subsequent planning processes. For those hon. Members who do not know, a material planning matter is an item that does not have statutory force, but must be taken into account in any subsequent planning inquiry.
    John McDonnell: I am sorry to persist on this point, but is it therefore open to people other than the airport operator to develop the master plan for any airport site?
    Mr. McNulty: In one sense, strictly speaking under the law, yes, of course it is, in the same sense as I am entirely free to submit a master plan and a planning application for the house owned by the hon. Member for Ashford, although I have no desire to do so. People are allowed to submit such plans, but they would not have the same force rooted in the requirement for the master plan in the White Paper, so such plans sit between statutory documents and material planning matters.
    The White Paper makes clear the importance of clear guidance on considering the public service obligations and route development funds, and we are considering those details at the moment. We will issue draft guidelines for consultation shortly. Some regions have made considerable progress in respect of RDFs—not least Northern Ireland, where quite significant route development support seems to have been developed during the past couple of months, which is encouraging. Taken together, RDFs and the public service obligations—my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) mentioned them in relation to the periphery—will seek to protect both the viability and the development of regional airports, as well as the crucial interconnectivity to London.
    I am grateful to those hon. Members—clearly, not everyone—who suggested that this is not about predict and provide. It simply is not about that. I can be certainly nowhere near as eloquent in that regard as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Clearly, to use predict and provide as a charge against the White Paper is nonsense. If predict and provide were used and things were determined purely on economic and demand-led criteria, there would already be a rush to build a third runway at Heathrow, at least a second at Stansted and certainly a second at Gatwick, without real discussion. If just economic criteria drove the final policy decisions, the White Paper would take a very different shape.

    241
    I half take the point about the notion of drift. The master plan process does not equal drift; it starts to provide at least some direction. I take the point made by my hon. Friends and others, including the hon. Member for Ashford, that some serious and far-reaching decisions need to be made, at least in some regards, during the forthcoming Thursday and Friday meeting of the Transport Council, including on the EU-US talks, flight-time limitations, training and other issues. We will report the outcome of those discussions to the House in due course.
    Mr. Wilkinson: The slot system currently operated in the UK has worked well, by and large. Airport committees have reached consensus agreements in the end, after much haggling and bargaining, thus ensuring grandfather rights and the right of new entrants to fly services into those airports. Will the EU take over total power to allocate slots in the EU? Is that the EU's objective? Would Her Majesty's Government accede to such an idea?
    Mr. McNulty: I will certainly not speculate about what may or may not be the objective of the Commission or anyone else in the EU. We have said before that we want a slot allocation system that encourages the more effective use of scarce capacity, and we are considering in some detail the report that came from the Commission in January. The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of that report may differ from the Government's, but we are considering it in some detail, and I am sure that that will help to inform the UK's negotiating position. As has been said, we start from the premise of recognising Heathrow's importance not just to London and the south-east, but to the whole economy.
    I think that I have had three full meetings with hon. Members to discuss Nottingham East Midlands airport, and at least one with the Manchester Airport Group at which I conveyed local MPs' concerns in respect of night noise and plans for the airport. Provided that the largest group possible is involved., not little groupuscles, I am more than happy to meet all the MPs involved again to try to build a bridge of trust between local MPs and Manchester Airport Group and to introduce a little clarity into the process.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: At the risk of being seen as someone who is even smaller than a little groupuscle, may I ask the Minister to consider whether in our planning procedures there is not quite a gap between extreme regulation and no regulation? Does he not think that the White Paper offers scope to reconsider the guidelines and procedures that govern a change of such magnitude, which is currently totally unregulated?
    Mr. McNulty: There might be something in what the hon. Gentleman says. At present, all we have is informal local agreements, or planning inquiries at which all matters can be revisited, or designation, which, as he implied, is the nuclear option. Perhaps there is scope to look at that matter. However, within current
    242
    parameters, I am more than happy to meet the group of MPs concerned about Nottingham East Midlands airport to see whether we can make progress. As I said, I have raised the matter with Manchester Airport Group, so it is aware of my concerns and everyone else's.
    Mr. Reed: I am grateful to the Minister for that offer. I am sure that many MPs present today, especially those from Leicestershire, will take him up on it. I accept his comments about the choice being between the nuclear option and no restrictions whatever, but I hope that he will discuss the term "stringent noise controls". We shall be happy to work with him to achieve a clear definition of such controls. Perhaps some form of regulation based on that will offer a way forward in which we can all work together.
    Mr. McNulty: We can discuss that when we meet. The White Paper says that, among other things, we shall consider legislating in that respect. However, when we meet, I do not Want to discuss recent history and opportunities missed to get more rigour in the control relationship between the airport and the locality. I could go on about that now for another 20 minutes, but I shall not.
    Any change to Heathrow's 480,000 air traffic movements limit would require planning permission. It would be for BAA to make a planning application, which would be considered through the normal planning process. There are rumours and speculation about night flights. I want to ensure that the first consultation in that respect takes place before the summer recess, so that we can at least get started.
    Mixed mode has to be considered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) said, it would require the cessation of long-standing arrangements, such as the Cranford agreement and runway alternation agreements. We are at a very early stage of consideration and, despite what the hon. Member for Richmond Park suggested, there is no on-off switch—it is not a simple alternative. There are huge technical, environmental and other issues to take into account. As we said in the White Paper, between now and the taking of a decision on a third runway, it is incumbent on us to examine optimisation of capacity at Heathrow, as we are doing at all other airports through the master planning process. Revisiting mixed mode is part of that process, but I assure the House that we have an open mind. There are no secret deals and no hidden theories—incidentally, it is the latter that are daft, not the individuals concerned, as I made clear in my opening speech. However, I shall be very surprised if we have anything on which to consult the public before early 2006.
    Mr. Wilshire: In my 17 years as an MP I have been trying to find a copy of the Cranford agreement. Does the Minister have one?
    Mr. McNulty: I have lots of paper about my person, but not a copy of the Cranford agreement. It is not an illuminated manuscript kept under glass in the Department, but if I find it, I will certainly give it to the hon. Gentleman.

    243
    It is important to keep an open mind on the mixed mode option, and the technicalities mean that we will consider it later rather than sooner. The first phase of consultation on night flight guidance, however, will be issued in summer. These are serious matters, and the publication of the White Paper is far from the end of the process. Huge work streams at a national, international, regional and local levels spring from the document. Different progress has been made on each one depending on the position of each airport. I repeat that we are determined to get the balance right between, on the one hand, the significant economic contribution that aviation makes throughout the country, the importance of airports as key economic drivers, access and links to London and, on the other, as everyone would agree to some extent, a genuine concern with environmental issues, including emissions, CO2, noise and the impact of airports on the locality, about which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton spoke. Environmental considerations are extremely important, but they are not served, to conclude on a happily discordant note, by simplistic panaceas offered up to satisfy the green lobby and make everyone feel good. In fact, they achieve nothing and, paradoxically, do not serve the environmental cause. Simplicity is not in anyone's interest in public policy, whatever side of the fence one sits on. I thank hon. Members for the it contributions in the main, and I am sure that we will have another debate on the White Paper, which deserves more than only seven or eight hours of debate. I look forward to everyone being here next time.
    Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that this is difficult matter for you and other occupants of the Chair to manage, but this is an important debate, both nationally and for many of us with specific constituency matters. The Minister spoke for 40 minutes in his opening speech—I am not criticising him, as he was subject to frequent interventions—and 30 minutes in his winding-up speech. I believe that there are 22 minutes left for debate, yet Back Benchers were subject to a severe eight-minute limit on speeches—a discipline that I was perfectly happy to accept, but the debate was unduly skewed away from Back Benchers, and that might have been avoided.
    Mr. Speaker: There are two ways of looking at it. If there had been no time limit, a Back Bencher might have taken 20 or 30 minutes, and put other Back Benchers at a disadvantage. I think that I did the right thing by imposing a time limit—I do not have a crystal ball and do not know what is going to happen. In the Minister's defence—I do not often defend Ministers except this one—on such a subject hon. Members tend to intervene
    244
    on Ministers to make a point. I believe that everyone in the Chamber has been able to make a contribution, which makes me very happy indeed.
    Vernon Coaker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Tuesday 15th June,
    (a) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) and the limits on half-days in paragraph (2)(b) of that Order, proceedings on a Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, or until Four o'clock, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and
    (b) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to New Financial Perspective and EU regional policy not later than Seven o'clock, or three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, whichever is the later; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Vernon Coaker.]

  PETITION

    Post Office Closure
    6.39 pm
    Mr. Tony Colman: I present a petition signed by my constituents opposed to the closure of the post office located in a successful retail outlet at 2A Montford place, Princes way, Southfields. The closure is opposed not only by me and my constituents, but by Wandsworth council, and is being strongly queried by Postwatch.
    The petition reads:
    To the House of Commons
    The petition of residents of Southfields in the constituency of Putney,
    Declares that the Post Office has proposed the closure of the post office in Princes Way in Southfields; protests that this closure will have a detrimental impact on the local community, especially the elderly, less mobile and disabled and parents with young children; notes the hilly nature of the terrain in which that post office is situated and that there is not another post office within easy walking distance and deplores the farcical so-called consultation process initiated by the Post Office in which the general public's and other stakeholders' views are contemptuously set aside.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge on H M Government to exercise their shareholders' rights to direct the Post Office to withdraw this closure proposal.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Educational Psychologists
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coakerl.]
    6.41 pm
    Mr. David Heath: I understand that today we witnessed an astronomical phenomenon, the transit of Venus, which occurs very infrequently. From my research, debates on the role of educational psychologists appear to be equally infrequent. Not only is it remiss of the House not to consider an important profession, but it is odd, given that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House frequently have cause to look into the work of educational psychologists because of casework emerging from our surgeries. We are often approached by parents who have children with special educational needs, and we often make pleas on their behalf for the support that the parents would like their children to receive.
    Educational psychologists are a crucial part of much of the Government's thinking, as I understand it, in terms of multi-agency work and some of the inclusion work that is clearly laid out in the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", and much of the ongoing work of the Department for Education and Skills. We are speaking of a small but important profession and the work that it does.
    I express my thanks to my friend Dr. Sandra Dunsmuir, who first approached me on the subject, and her colleague from University college, London, Norah Frederickson, and to the Association of Educational Psychologists and the British Psychological Society, both of which were helpful in providing me with information in support of this debate.
    In the time available, I shall touch on three broad matters—first, the supply of educational psychologists within the profession; secondly, their training; and thirdly and briefly, the role that they play. On supply, it is recognised throughout the country that there is a significant problem with the number of entrants to the profession and the number of educational psychologists who are available to local education authorities to do the statutory work and the extended additional work that we would like them to do.
    I had a discussion earlier today with David Webster, the president of the Association of Educational Psychologists and the chief officer for Lancashire county council. He tells me that his authority is typical of many throughout the country in holding three vacancies out of an establishment of 41. In addition, several members of staff are on maternity leave. He cannot fill the vacancies successfully, but without filling the vacancies he cannot begin to ask people to apply for the temporary vacancies that would enable the authority to do some of the non-statutory work that we would all wish it to do.
    Brian Harrison-Jennings, the chief executive of the Association of Educational Psychologists, told me that a major authority in the north of England recently advertised for three senior educational psychologists and received not a single applicant for those three posts, which is surprising, given that one would expect people in the profession to apply for such posts. One's initial reaction might be that it is good for the profession that
    246
    educational psychologists are fully employed and that those who are qualified can find posts, but I suspect that that is not the case. Local education authorities increasingly face a lack of cover and over-extension and educational psychologists are being forced to perform statutory duties as a priority, simply because that is what LEAs require, and do not have time to do their jobs in a wider sense.
    Those who want to enter the profession face difficulties. A statistic struck me. As the Minister knows, 110 training places are currently available each year for educational psychologists and 482 people applied last year. Those 482 applicants have degrees and are ready to enter the profession, but the required training places are not available. That only 110 places are available is, of course, part of he problem. In December 2003, the Department for Education and Skills commissioned a report—I see the Minister nodding—that identified the need for 150 places a year in order to provide for the sustainable development of the profession.
    The lack of available qualified educational psychologists has an impact on their work. Children often need to wait for assessment and, as I said earlier, many hon. Members know from their advice surgeries how frustrating it can be for parents and children when a child must wait or a long period for an assessment, which prevents the sort of therapeutic intervention that we would like to see at an early stage. Educational psychologists are spending less time with children. For an educational psychologist to see a child for a second time is a luxury, which is not what we want to see in a profession that provides ongoing support. As I said, that places the emphasis on statutory duties rather than on preventive work, on which I know many in the profession would like to concentrate.
    The answer has already been identified, and it is to the credit of the Department for Education and Skills, the professional associations and the employers, through the LEAs and the Local Government Association, that they have been able to come together and identify it. As the Minister knows, the answer, at least in part, is the new model for training educational psychologists. It involves increasing; postgraduate professional training for educational psychologists from one year to three years, while removing the obligation for educational psychologists to hold a teaching qualification and two years' teaching experience. The net result is to reduce the overall training period from eight years to six years and to concentrate or experience that is relevant to the actual profession that applicants want to enter, rather than on training in a profession—classroom teacher—that applicants have no desire to enter, valuable though it is.
    That model has a high level of acceptability. In May 2001, the Department for Education and Employment—as it then was—provided a summary of the responses to its consultation.
    Of the 101 responses—the fact that 77 came from local education authorities indicates that a strong view was expressed by the employers as well as the profession—90 per cent. agreed that the new model would meet the training needs of the profession in future and 94 per cent. said that the package would be viable from the perspective of higher education providers and

    247
    employers. A clear picture is emerging: this is a solution that it is in everyone's interest to implement at an early stage.
    Moving on from that consultation, the Department engaged in discussions on an implementation strategy, and it was believed that it saw the proposal as a high priority. It is right that it should do so. We have to deal with the current shortages, and the fact that everyone is pointing in the same direction at once represents a window of opportunity that should not be missed. Moreover, as the Minister will be aware, in March 2003 the Department of Health introduced a requirement for the statutory regulation of psychologists. That suggests that regulation via the Health Professions Council, which starts in March 2005, would be met by the new arrangements, but not the present ones.
    There is substantial impetus behind the proposal and a generally agreed view that it needs to be put in place at the earliest opportunity. The implementation date was set for September 2005, and that has been the working assumption of those in the profession for some time. There has to be a two-year transition period"one cannot immediately switch on the tap from one training module to the other, because people are already involved in the training process. In the course of that two-year transition, some of the cohorts in training would start at the point of the new three-year postgraduate professional training process, some would be in the middle of the previous process, and some would be at the end of the previous process.
    That means that a transitional cost is involved as well as the ongoing costs of providing such training. It has always been understood that local education authorities, although they are perfectly satisfied with the arrangements and believe that they can sustain the outcome, will always need help from the Government in achieving the transition from one process to the other. There is no reason why that should not be the case. However, a fly in the ointment appeared in the shape of a letter dated 2 March 2004 from the Minister for School Standards to the Association of Educational Psychologists. That letter sent a disturbing signal to the profession. In it, the Minister says:
    "However, it is important that you understand that funding agreed for the Department in the Spending Review will reflect overall Ministerial priorities; there can be no guarantee that funding will be found to enable implementation from 2005."
    That is clearly true. The Minister must have the flexibility to direct priorities within the Department in the coming year, the comprehensive spending review is still under way, and sanction from the Treasury is necessary for the global spend in the Department. Not a single word in the letter is untrue.
    However, it sends a signal that there is uncertainty about implementation. Although I am not sure about the Department's total spend, I suspect that we are not considering a high percentage of it. The letter conveys the message that the Department is unclear about whether it can find the necessary cash—£4.7 million in the first year—for implementation on the expected date. That figure is petty cash for the Department for Education and Skills. Nevertheless, it appears to be in question. The figure for subsequent years is £10.4 million.
    248
    The effect has been not only confusion but some dismay. That applies not only to the profession, but, crucially, to those who are applying for training places. They do not know what they should do—whether to enter teaching training and whether to assume the existence of funding packages. Many educational psychologists who are currently training are self-funded. We could start a debate about the effect of top-up fees and loans, but that would be out of place. However, if people must fund not only their way through university but their professional training, some will consider the subsequent debt and wonder whether it is worth while.
    Many potentially good applicants are asking for advice and the professional associations and the higher education establishment are unable to provide answers simply because of the uncertainty that the Department has engendered. Some applicants are going ahead regardless, some are wondering whether they should take an odd sort of postgraduate gap year and others are simply going away and saying that perhaps they will return when the Department has sorted itself out and they know where they stand. That is not satisfactory, so if the Minister can provide any clarity he will do a great service to the profession and those who need its services in future.
    I want to conclude with a few words about educational psychologists' working practices. I express my opinion purely as a lay person who sees people in my surgery and teachers in schools. There is something desperately wrong with the assessment process. I get the impression that educational psychologists are increasingly finding themselves producing reports, assessments, reports on whether a report should be prepared, reports on whether an assessment should be conducted and so on, instead of dealing directly with the children.
    The statementing process, which was once a protection for the child and the parents, became a protection of a funding stream for the school. Nowadays, schools appear to prefer not to have devolved special educational needs funding budgets because it pre-empts their decision making. They argue that a statement is often unnecessary. It is sometimes an obstacle to children getting the support that they need.
    I understand why parents feel cautious about the matter, because they want a guarantee that their child will get the necessary support. However, if the process of creating the guarantee soaks up the resources that should provide the support, something is wrong. We would all like educational psychologists, who are highly skilled, not to write endless reports but to deal with children, take a more holistic approach to the children in their care, and perhaps work more generally on the design of school teaching and the causes of exclusion in the school environment. They should be allowed to work one to one with a child. They rarely get the chance to do that. They should be able to do more preventive work rather than statutory work and concentrate on some of the schemes that the Government are anxious to promote, such as portage schemes, Sure Start and behaviour improvement projects.
    Most of all, educational psychologists should deal with inclusion. They are a critical factor in creating the circumstances for proper inclusion for children who are disaffected, have specific needs or could do better in their school environment. I hope that the Minister can

    249
    assure us that that is also the Government's understanding and that they are taking the necessary steps to reassure the profession and enable it to move forward.
    It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coaker.]
    7 pm
    Mr. David Drew: I shall make just a few guarded remarks. I welcome what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has said. He performs an invaluable service in dealing with the Cinderella subjects that are so often ignored.
    I would like to make two observations. Some educational psychologists have written to me to say that they are a wee bit worried about the implications of the changes to their profession. I know that they welcome the additional resources, but I suppose that their starting point would be—as the hon. Gentleman made only too clear—to ask how the training will take effect, what impact it will have on people already in situ, and whether there is any danger of a two-tier service developing. It would be appropriate if my hon. Friend the Minister could allay those fears.
    My other point follows the hon. Gentleman's final remarks about the role of educational psychologists. Traditionally, this service has been directed by and through local education authorities. Now, with devolved budgets, schools are much more able to determine how they want their special educational needs budgets to be allocated. To some extent, that means that there is the potential for conflict in the role of the educational psychologist, in that schools might want to allocate the money for SEN on a more general basis, while parents might wish to identify the particular problems of their children. We have had an active debate on the value of statementing as a means to an end rather than an end in itself, so it would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister could allay any fears that we could be creating a more complicated situation in which there is even more room for disagreement, if not conflict, between the different parties.
    In all the dealings that I have had with educational psychologists, I have found the service that they provide to be greatly undervalued and very important. At the end of the day, children who have difficulties in the schooling system clearly have to be looked at and helped by educational psychologists, and there is always a risk that the service might be spread a bit thinly. The Government can therefore be proud of anything that can be done to ensure that our children are given the appropriate help in a transparent and fair manner, and anything that my hon. Friend has to say about that will be gratefully received by the whole House.
    7.3 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for his intervention in it.
    250
    In opening, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome informed the House that debates such as these are infrequent, so I thank him for giving us this opportunity to address this important subject. We are talking about an important group of professionals who make a vital contribution to our education service and, more generally, to children and young people in education. I certainly concur with what both he and my hon. Friend said about these issues coming up in our own constituencies and all hon. Members will be aware of cases in which failings or weaknesses in the service have undermined the education and upbringing of children and young people in our constituencies.
    Educational psychologists play a major part in helping to identify the learning needs of individual children and young people, including those who have special educational needs, and a critical role in supporting local authorities and schools in meeting those identified needs. They are a key resource in building the capacity of the education system to respond to children's learning needs.
    At the end of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman addressed some broader challenges that we face in relation to assessment and special educational needs. I want say a few things about the broad picture with respect to SEN before addressing the specific issues that he raised in the main part of his speech about the role and training of educational psychologists.
    The theme of building up capacity is central to our recently published document on special educational needs, "Removing Barriers to Achievement", the new strategy on SEN, and to the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and the associated legislation currently going through Parliament. The SEN strategy sets out our long-term vision and an ambitious programme of sustained action nationally and locally to enable all children with SEN to realise their potential. We are seeking to recognise some of the weaknesses and inconsistencies to which he referred. It is not about changing the legal framework, but about setting out ways in which real effect can be given to it, so that we make sure that the current system works as effectively as possible to meet the needs of children.
    There are four key themes to which I will refer briefly: early intervention; removing barriers to learning; raising expectations and achievement; and delivering improvements in partnership. Each of those is relevant to some of the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
    With respect to early intervention, we want to ensure that children with learning difficulties can receive the help that they need as soon as possible, and that parents of those children have access to suitable services, including child care. The strategy therefore seeks to embed in national practice the principles of the early support pilot programme for very young children and their families, and to implement a new strategy for child care for children with special educational needs, including working with voluntary organisations to consider the feasibility of establishing a national early intervention centre of excellence to use evidence about what works to inform practice. This emphasis on early intervention provides a real opportunity for educational psychologists to spend more time working with schools, working with individual pupils, and supporting teachers

    251
    and other staff in putting in place programmes and interventions to address the individual needs of each child at the earliest possible stage.
    The second strand in that strategy is removing barriers to learning. Children's learning difficulties often arise because the learning environment is not suitable. In developing the kind of inclusive practice about which the hon. Gentleman rightly spoke, we seek to meet the needs of every child. A new inclusion development programme, bringing together education, health, social care and the voluntary sector, will therefore develop effective approaches to provision for children with special educational needs. Initially, the programme will focus on autistic spectrum disorder, behavioural, emotional and social difficulties, speech, language and communication difficulties, and moderate learning difficulties. We are developing proposals to improve the quality of education for children with more severe behavioural, emotional and social difficulties, including addressing the regional planning of provision and providing practical guidance on reducing reliance on high-cost placements. We will also be developing minimum standards for SEN advisory and support services.
    In terms of raising expectations and achievement, we have set out a strategic approach to developing the skills of staff working with children with SEN, and we are discussing with the Teacher Training Agency and others practical ways of ensuring that teacher training, induction and continuous professional development provide a good grounding in SEN.
    We are sharpening the focus on SEN within our national primary and key stage 3 strategies, ensuring that we make the very best use of the data available and breaking down barriers between the Government and the voluntary and private sectors to improve the quality of planning to support young people in making the transition between the different stages of education and adult life.
    Finally, we seek to deliver improvements in partnership working. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, despite some progress in recent years, children still face a postcode lottery in terms of the support available. That applies with respect to educational psychologists and more broadly to special educational needs. That is why the strategy contains a number of measures to promote greater consistency, including a team of SEN advisers working with local authorities to provide support and challenge, and a key role for our network of SEN regional partnerships in spreading effective practice. We are also building on the opportunities provided by the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", and the Children Bill to integrate education, health and social care around the needs of children and families. The children s national service framework will set national outcome standards for health and social services, and we seek to align it with the SEN strategy through a joint implementation plan.
    I do not at all underestimate the scale of the challenge that we face, which was well set out in both speeches earlier. I do believe that our strategy, combined with our work on inclusion in the White Paper and the Bill, will
    252
    provide a real opportunity to get system-wide improvement for all children with special educational needs.
    Mr. Heath: I wholly welcome the framework that the Minister has set out, particularly the fact that teacher training will include specific training for children with SEN. Does he accept, however, that most of it cannot work without sufficient trained educational psychologists to underpin the system? That is why recruitment and retention are critical to the strategy's success and why early decisions are necessary.
    Mr. Twigg: I am coming to that point, and I certainly accept that it is important that we should have the right people in place to ensure that the strategy can be effective and successful, and consistently so across the country.
    Educational psychologists have a central role to play in working with children with SEN. Their work on statutory assessments and the drawing up of statements is a key function, but they also have an important contribution to make in the area of early intervention and providing support when a child's needs are first identified. I have already addressed early intervention with respect to educational psychology. Four years ago, we published the report of the educational psychology working group, together with a major piece of research on how services operated and how they were seen by their users. That work identified core functions in the areas of working with early years settings, schools and multi-agency teams. It also identified critical factors for success and pointed to good practice. It recommended that all educational psychology services should: apply psychology to promote the attainment and healthy emotional development of children and young people from 0 to 19 years; ensure that early intervention is a priority; be linked to local authority strategies to meet local and national priorities for raising standards in schools and supporting inclusion; be delivered in school settings as well as in local authority and family settings; focus on assessment, intervention and consultation; develop multi-agency approaches to support schools and parents; and be accessible to users independently of schools.
    The research confirmed what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said about parents and schools finding educational psychologists a hugely valuable resource. Parents see them as a key link to the school and other agencies and placed particular value on home visiting.
    Teachers and SENCOs value educational psychologists for the advice that they give on strategies for the classroom and for providing practical demonstrations, and see them as having an important contribution to make to training. Similarly, educational psychologists make a key contribution to work with children who have, or who are at risk of developing, behavioural, emotional and social difficulties. They are a vital component of the behaviour and education support teams.
    The hon. Gentleman rightly focused on the numbers of educational psychologists working in our communities and, in particular, the numbers who are

    253
    being trained to enter work in future years. I am pleased to say that the data that we have available, which we collect from local authorities, suggest that there has been an increase in recent years in the total number of full-time equivalent educational psychologists. In 1997, the figure was 1,768. In 2003, it was 2,026, a not insignificant increase.
    I absolutely accept, however, the hon. Gentleman's central point that although that is progress, a great deal more needs to be done if we are to meet all the needs that we know exist in the communities that we serve. The figures that he set out are correct. Unfortunately, the Local Government Association decided last year to reduce the number of funded training places to 110. We accept the figure of 150, which the hon. Gentleman cites, as ideal, and we have welcomed the LGA's more recent decision effectively to reverse that cut and to take the figure back up to 130. That is clearly better than 110, but we still believe that 150 is the figure for which we should aim. I shall address that issue right at the end of my remarks.
    I turn briefly to the work of the working group, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which brings together all the key people working in this sphere: the Department for Education and Skills, local government and the various associations representing psychology, and educational psychologists in particular. The working group commits us to working with that range of interests to review the initial training of educational psychologists and their continuing professional development. That work has been carried on through a smaller sub-group of the original working group, and I am grateful to all those who have contributed to its deliberations.
    It is from that working group that the new training route that the hon. Gentleman described has emerged. Discussion has focused in particular on the need to develop a new entry training route for educational psychologists. The existing route is lengthy, at eight years, and its arrangements are not wholly in line with those for comparable professions such as clinical psychology. That is viewed as contributing to some of the recruitment problems in the profession. We have to be careful on that, because the Government are not the direct employer, but we see ourselves as having an important role in facilitating bringing people together to do the greater investigative work.
    We have commissioned, as the hon. Gentleman described, two detailed implementation studies on the practicalities of introducing a slimmed-down entry route that would extend over six, rather than eight, years. That has been widely discussed and consulted on, and the six-year model has secured clear, unmistakable endorsement during the consultations run by the Department. The studies have drawn together the views of all the key interested parties, including the Association of Educational Psychologists, the British Psychology Association and some of the training providers in higher education.
    254
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud questioned whether there was a danger that that approach could lead to a two-tier system, or that there might be some contention over that change. From everything that I have seen, I am reassured that the professionals working in the field, as well as local government, the universities and we ourselves, are confident that that does not need to be the case, and that the new system can be made to work. The working group has considered issues such as the status of educational psychologists in training, different regional arrangements, the nature of work placements and associated supervision, and the funding needed to underpin a revised scheme. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has put his case very strongly today.
    The studies confirm that implementing the new route will entail significant additional expenditure. Officials previously informed the various parties with whom we have been working that the case for such expenditure needs to be considered in the context of the 2004 spending review. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the uncertainty that that creates, and I am not going to deny that such uncertainty exists in the system. What is important is that we get matters right. I can give him an assurance today that although I am not in a position to go beyond the terms of the letter of a couple of months ago that he read out to the House, we are considering the final allocation of the spending review settlement in the light of our overall priorities for education and for children's services, which are now within the specific remit of the Department for Education and Skills.
    Unlike other Government Departments, we received our overall envelope of money in the Budget, which means that we are planning at a different stage from other Government Departments. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the points that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised today will contribute to our consideration All our spending priorities. Much as the hon. Gentleman tempts me to go beyond that, I am not in a position to do so today. What I can say is that we take this issue very seriously, and we will decide the long-term position within the next few months.
    I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting this issue on the record today via an Adjournment debate. He has demonstrated the strength of his case, and the issue that we are addressing is how we can make the very best use of some of our finest professionals to meet the needs of individual children and young people. All three of us who have spoken in this debate have paid tribute to the excellent work done by educational psychologists, which I want to put on the record clearly and explicitly. I hope that, as we move forward, we can ensure both a sufficient supply of good, high-quality people to do this work, and that the very real need and demand out there is met in a consistent and inclusive way that gives the very best possible start in life to children and young people in communities throughout the country. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put that on the record today.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Seven o'clock.

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

Sierra Leone
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Paul Clark.]
9.30 am
Mr. Win Griffiths: I have to say that there has been quite a wait for this debate. I first applied for it in January, which was the second anniversary of the end of almost 11 years of fighting. Unfortunately, the lottery system that we have for such things—I am not complaining about it, but simply placing the matter on the record—meant that there was a six-month delay before I was finally lucky enough to have my name pulled out of the hat.
My desire for the debate arose partly as a result of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation visit to Sierra Leone from 10 to 17 November 2003. The delegation included my hon. Friends the Members for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), Lord Freeman and Lord McColl of Dulwich. I pay tribute to the delegation, because we had an extremely action-packed programme, and it was sometimes a little difficult to get to every place, but we all stayed good-tempered and had extremely good relations with everyone we met.
I should also thank the CPA staff in this country, who, in liaison with the Sierra Leone CPA and other bodies, organised an excellent programme for us. Likewise, I thank the Sierra Leone parliamentary staff; the Speaker, Justice Edward Cowan MP; and the acting Speaker—the Speaker was away for part of our visit—Elizabeth Alpha-Lavalie MP. Finally, I thank the Clerk of the Parliament, Mr. Joseph Carpenter, and all his staff—three parliamentary Clerks were with us for the whole of our visit.
Our visit was absolutely outstanding. The programme that was arranged for us—several changes were made to it as we were preparing for the visit—was absolutely impressive. If Sierra Leone can work with others in the same way that people there worked with us, the road to success is virtually certain.
Let me quickly run through our programme. Interestingly, many of our visits were called courtesy calls. One would imagine that a courtesy call would be a matter of, "Hello. Nice to meet you. How are you? Thank you for sparing a bit of time for us." However, each visit involved quite an intensive discussion of the problems facing Sierra Leone or a particular Department. Everywhere, there w is appreciation for the role that the British Government are playing in helping Sierra Leone on the road to recovery.
The delegation had a briefing with the High Commission. We had a substantial meeting with President Kabbah, followed by visits to the truth and reconciliation commission and the registrar of the United Nations special court. We met representatives of
2WH
the army and went to the Horton academy, where great work is being done with the Sierra Leone armed forces. We went to the Milton Margai college of education and technology, the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone and to the Guma Valley Water Company, which supplies water for Freetown.
We also visited the British Council, which was excited about a major refurbishment that was about to begin—it was the first for 30 or more years. This week, I received a letter saying that the refurbishment was virtually completed. The British Council is working closely with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to help strengthen and develop civic society, and it is playing a vital role. The Department for International Development and other Departments need to look a bit more closely at how they can support the British Council's work.
We then met Members of Parliament and talked about human rights in Sierra Leone. We had quite a debate about the world scene. I leave all that to hon. Members' imagination.
We visited a secondary school, the Prince of Wales school, and a major Sierra Leone company, Shankerdas, to see how it was doing. We saw a limb-fitting enterprise in Aberdeen village in Freetown. We made a call on the police and the chief justice. We went on an extensive tour of projects run by the national association for social action and reconstruction in and around Freetown. We also went to a place called Bumbuna, the site of a major hydroelectric project that was almost finished at the start of the war, to see what more needed to be done to bring it on stream and provide power for Freetown and many villages along the route to Freetown.
We had a little free time, but even that had an association with the future of Sierra Leone. On the Sunday we went to Lakka beach. Of course, questions arose about tourism and what could be done to make Sierra Leone a tourist destination and earn it many dollars. We had an exciting evening with the Sierra Leone national dancing troupe—again, arranged through the British Council. We saw a preview of the show that the troupe put on for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nigeria. Our programme was action-packed.
Of course, visitors to the country see the legacy of war immediately, in the number of people on the streets of Freetown who are without arms or legs or are in wheelchairs. One is aware not only of the 75,000 or more people who died during the fighting but the thousands whose lives were wrecked by the disfigurement of the loss or arms or legs, or sometimes both.
A peace was made in January 2002. We were impressed by the huge effort of reconciliation and the forgiveness that is being shown in Sierra Leone, towards reconstructing the country and avoiding war in future. At the Aberdeen limb-fitting centre it was amazing to see the dedication of the staff, and the way in which people who had suffered in the war were trying to get on with their lives.
We are aware, too, of the huge importance of international aid for Sierra Leone, which is one of the poorest countries in the world. Part of the purpose of the visit was to discover how aid could be a basis on which Sierra Leone could generate its own wealth, and escape

3WH
the vicious circle of poverty and aid that seems to be a permanent aspect of the existence of many African countries.
From the evidence of our visit and of the six or seven months since, I would say that so far the recovery has been successful. I do not say that problems do not remain. There are still massive problems. The Government in this country say that things are getting better, but there is much more to do. However, in Sierra Leone that is true, multiplied by 100 or even 1,000.
One reason why I feel that we can speak of success in Sierra Leone is that there has been peace for more than two years. In May 2002 successful, peaceful presidential and parliamentary elections were held, in which the opposition accepted the outcome even though they were disappointed with it. Everything has gone well. I was pleased, having feared that change was occurring too quickly. In the presidential and parliamentary elections, the Sierra Leone People's party virtually swept the board. President Kabbah had a huge majority and that of his party was overwhelming—akin to that of the Labour party here.
Although I do not think that this will happen in the United Kingdom on Thursday, it was interesting that in the local government elections—which went ahead successfully, so far as I could see; there was not a single item in the British press about them—while the governing party won convincingly outside Freetown, inside Freetown, where about 40 per cent. of the population live, the Opposition won the day. Although the Government are not too keen on it, that is a healthy step in the development of democracy in Sierra Leone. There was no news in the newspapers—in a sense, that was good—and I did not receive any faxes or phone calls from the politicians I know saying, "It is terrible, the electoral commission is fixing the election and the government are influencing it." It is clear that the elections were free and fair. That is another step on the road to successful recovery.
What elements did we consider to be important? The first thing that struck me was what I would call stability, although I note that last July, when President Kabbah was here and gave a speech to the Royal Commonwealth Society, he focused on national security. The two are linked—one needs stability; that is the basis for a continuing peace and for people's hopes for prosperity.
Mr. John Bercow: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman at this early stage. He made an important point about the local elections being free and fair. In so far as that is so, it is extremely welcome, and I appreciate the importance that he attaches to it. However, is he aware of, and what thoughts does he have about, the report in the Freetown Chronicle of 25 May, which says that the turnout in those elections was low? It went on to suggest that the elections were relatively badly organised, with candidates' names being put down for the wrong parties and so on. I do not cavil at the success of the elections in terms of freeness and fairness, but has the hon. Gentleman any concern on that front?
Mr. Griffiths: Local government elections generally have a poor turnout; I am not sure what the turnout was
4WH
there. Let me take the opportunity to say something about the press in Freetown—I am not sure what happens elsewhere. The press in Freetown is thriving, and some elements of it might be regarded, particularly by the Government, as rather scurrilous. Nevertheless, it is allowed freedom of expression and there is no doubt that the paper that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is concerned about strengthening democracy.
There might have been problems, and they might have been accurately reflected in the report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. However, consider this: in the run-up to the presidential and parliamentary elections, I had several phone calls and faxes asking me to look at A, B and C. I contacted the National Electoral Commission and tried to help however I could to deal with the problems. During the local government elections, I did not receive a single fax or phone call from any of the parties expressing concern about how things were going. I accept that there might be criticisms of the nature that the hon. Gentleman has described, but overall, the people it Sierra Leone were pleased that the local elections happened as they did.
On the issue of stability and the Government's confidence in the whole process, the support that we are giving through UNAMSIL is due to be drawn down by December. We discussed how easy that might be, particularly with countries like Liberia, and others a little further away such as Guinea and the Ivory Coast that still have an element of instability. Of course, it was the Liberian incursion into Sierra Leone that started the whole terrible process.
We had the feeling that UNAMSIL was aware of the need for flexibility. We are trying to create armed forces and a police force that can operate in a democracy, especially as they have been operating for many years in a free-for-all and have no real concept of how to work in a democracy. We were there when the Horton academy opened; there, the international military advisory and training team will provide invaluable training for officers in the Sierra Leone army on how to work in a democracy. Indeed, the vast of majority of the team—98 of its 114 members—are British officers. We stepped in on a group involved in an interesting conversation about some of the moral issues that people involved in the civil war had to deal with, and how such people should be treated in places such as the United Nations special court.
A lot of investment in stability is going on. The Sierra Leone truth and reconciliation commission, whom we met, is due to report this year. I have not yet seen its report; it had hoped to publish by the beginning of the year. Interestingly, it was also going to produce a report aimed at children, because so many children suffered in the war and were dragged directly into the fighting. I shall be interested to see that report. I imagine that the process will be rather like what happened in South Africa after the release of Nelson Mandela.
There is some controversy about whether there should be a United Nations special court. As it is voluntarily funded, it has not been able to match the heavy expenditure of some of the other special courts. The United Kingdom has given about £500,000 out of a £3.5 million budget to the court, but people were still concerned that it might not be sufficiently funded to try

5WH
the nine to 11 people who were likely to be brought before it. However, I understand that that has now been done; perhaps that can be confirmed this morning.
We also met the chief justice. A major programme of law reform is being funded by international institutions and the British Government. That is important, as it gives the people of Sierra Leone the feeling that justice will be delivered in their country; the fact that there will be good governance is another part of that important process. In particular, corruption should be eliminated. There is an anti-corruption commission, and there have been new judicial appointments, including judges from the United Kingdom. Although I have not heard any reports lately, it appeared at the time of our visit that the process of dealing with corruption had begun to speed up. People were being investigated, and their cases were coming to court.
It is not connected with the fact that I had this debate, but I was interested to receive an e-mail from Victor Sylver, the editor of the Sierra Herald in Freetown. He raised the issue of corruption in the context of something that the Americans have done, which I regard as rather odd. On 25 May, the Americans announced that there would be visa bars for corrupt officials in Sierra Leone. Some had already been placed on the list due to their corrupt practices, but the Americans were not going to tell the Sierra Leone Government who those people were. They were also looking at additional cases. Getting on the list did not require a conviction for corruption; the United States Government just had to have a reasonable belief that the officials were corrupt.
The editor of the Sierra Herald, Victor Sylver, has expressed concern that we are not using sufficient strength to tackle corruption. and asks that our Government play a more proactive part in dealing with corruption. He thinks that there are about 300 corrupt officials in the system; however, that is only his guess. There is the important issue of whether our Government could speak to the Americans to try to ensure that the process is a bit more open. That might help to speed up the tackling of corruption in Sierry. Leone. Certainly, President Kabbah, in his speech to the Royal Commonweath Society, attached great importance to dealing with the problem.
On economic management, the record so far looks pretty good: there has been 6 to 7 per cent. growth in the past two years; inflation has remained relatively low; and agricultural production is up by about 6 per cent. The Government have a national recovery strategy and a poverty reduction strategy. Also, there is a partnership between the Department for International Development and the Sierra Leone Government. That long-term partnership for development has within it benchmarks and checks, and hard work is being done on it. I would like the Minister to comment on what he thinks is the longer-term future of British aid to Sierra Leone, because in 2002—03 there was a dip in aid spending. I will be interested to see what happens in future. There is also a privatisation programme, in which British advice is being given—I hope that none of the advisers had anything to do with Railtrack—and there are priorities for economic development.
Diamonds are obviously seen as being very important for the Sierra Leone Government. They want to make sure that they are producing clear diamonds that go through official channels, so that tax can be collected
6WH
and Government programmes for redevelopment can go ahead. I was interested to read an article by Peter Penfold in The World Today. It dates back to April 2002, just before the elections. He ventured to say that diamonds need not be seen as critical to the future of Sierra Leone. He mentioned its fertile soil, mineral resources, rice production, palm oil, coffee, cocoa, the fishing off its coast, and the oil deposits that are currently being explored. There is also the potential to develop the Mano River Union—bringing Guinea and Liberia into an economic union—and to exploit rutile deposits. With such natural resources, Sierra Leone has an excellent chance to recover.
Towards the end of his article, Peter Penfold said:
"In Sierra Leone, Di Wor Don Don",
as they would say in Freetown. He transmutes that into his English:
"The flames of conflict have been extinguished, but the embers are still warm and the wood remains tinder dry."
More than two years after that article, I think that we can say that we have overcome the worst problems to do with the reignition of fighting in Sierra Leone, and that things are going well.
We visited the Shankerdas factory, which is run by a Sierra Leone company. We were all impressed by the commitment of the owner to investing, despite the fact that much of the factory had been destroyed in the war. He gives a good example of having the confidence to invest in Sierra Leone, which British industry should take on board. There is the recently formed UK-Sierra Leone business forum, in which Lord Freeman has played a critical role. At the beginning of this year, we had a visit from the vice-president of Sierra Leone, Solomon Berewa, underlining his Government's commitment to get foreign investment—in particular, British investment—into the country.
A small company anxious to develop a significant project in Sierra Leone raised an issue with me recently. It found that when it made its first approaches to DFID, no one told it about the African infrastructure fund, which is organised by the Standard Bank but officially supported and sponsored by DFID. The company found out about the fund only through a meeting with a DTI official, and it will receive significant help for the project that it wants to develop.
The company also found that no one in the United Kingdom trade and industry body, which exists to help companies to invest abroad, had specific responsibility for Africa. I know from my work on Indonesia that there is certainly a consultant in that body with specific responsibilities for Indonesia and south-east Asia. This company felt that it needed someone, but that the DTI in its view of the world outside does not have a specific person with responsibilities for Africa. It would help if it did.
The small company also found that, although there was general advice and assistance, unlike in other countries, the Government did not stand by or give direct help and support to get its project off the ground. In the United Kingdom, the Government stand by and support both companies in the UK and companies investing in the UK in those areas that require special help. They are almost like sponsors if they think that a project is good. However, the company has found that it has not been given the extra hands-on help that other

7WH
countries provide for their small and medium-sized enterprises. The Government could usefully look at that.
In infrastructure terms, we went to see the Bumbuna hydroelectric project, which was 95 per cent. completed when the civil war started. It now looks as though the Italian Government will provide the additional support to get that project off the ground, which will make significant improvements in providing the power needed not just for households but for economic development. Guma valley is a fantastic setting for the reservoir that supplies Freetown. Additional projects have also been spoken about because of the way in which Freetown is growing. I hope that we look at that again.
Besides all the natural resources and physical infrastructure are the personal resources. We visited Milton Margai college and a secondary school. When we consider that teachers and lecturers wait months for their salaries, and that it is incredibly difficult for children to afford to go to school, we should remind ourselves of people's commitment and determination to succeed. We have pulled back a little from secondary and university-type education funding and have focused on primary education, although I am pleased to say that all children in Sierra Leone now have access to such education.
I conclude by quoting from an early-day motion that I tabled after the successful presidential elections. It gained 400 signatures, which is the second highest ever in the history of Parliament; it is a tribute to Sierra Leone that so many hon. Members signed it. The motion was
"That this House…looks forward to the new Government of President Kabbah extending democracy to local government, rooting out corruption, promoting freedom justice and prosperity with continuing international support for the rebuilding and renewal of the Sierra Leone economy and civic society; praises the opposition parties for committing themselves to the democratic process and looks forward to them playing an effective role in Parliament and in helping to strengthen civic society."
All that is happening to some extent, and my best wishes go to the Sierra Leone Government and our own Government as they provide continuing assistance to make that a success.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members wishing to speak should bear it in mind that the wind-ups should start no later than 10.30 am.
10 am
Tony Baldry: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has done us all a service in persistently balloting for this debate and giving us an opportunity to comment on Sierra Leone. As the Register of Members' Interests shows, I am still a practising member of the Bar. I am now joint head of my chambers, and we are proud that President Kabbah was formerly a member of our chambers.
8WH
My predecessor as head of chambers, Desmond Da Silva, is prosecuting the war crimes in Sierra Leone. His connections go back a long time; many years ago he defended President Kabbah in a treason trial in Freetown. It is appropriate that Desmond should be prosecuting war crimes in Freetown now.
The war crimes were horrific. The hon. Member for Bridgend gave a summary of them. What happened during the years of conflict in Sierra Leone was horrific, and the indictment goes to many pages. It is important that a clear signal should go out to the world that those responsible for war crimes, whether perpetrated in Rwanda, the former Republic of Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone or wherever, will be brought to justice.
I have a concern, which I have raised in the House before, about the most serious indictment against Taylor, who has been given asylum in Nigeria. I understand the realpolitik of getting him out of Liberia, but there is a valid UN indictment against him. I hope that the Nigerian Government will find an appropriate time in the future to ensure that Taylor stands trial in Freetown. After all, all of us who support the Commission for Africa and the New Partnership for Africa's Development put great store on peer review. Nigeria is a leading member of the Commonwealth and one of the architects of NEPAD. If peer review does not work to bring Taylor to justice—if Nigeria does not ensure that he is brought to justice—that would be a great sadness. No one in Sierra Leone will feel fully safe until Taylor is brought to trial.
I am slightly more pessimistic than the hon. Member for Bridgend, and that may be because I had the opportunity of travelling outside Freetown. Sometimes we underestimate the impact of the war on Sierra Leone. I do not gainsay anything that the hon. Gentleman said. However, we must recognise that Sierra Leone is right down at the bottom of the United Nations Development Programme leagues of development.
The conflict led to two things. First, it led to double migration. There was substantial migration from the countryside—the rural areas—into Freetown. People with initiative and get-up-and-go, got up and went to Freetown. That has meant that there is little leadership left in the countryside. I was fortunate enough to spend several days on an island south of Sierra Leone called Bonthe. I am patron of a small non-governmental organisation caller Friends of Africa, which has provided funding for two community bakeries and a new fishing boat in Bonthe; many of the fishing boats were destroyed.
Bonthe was really prosperous in years gone by. It produced large amounts of rice, palm oil, piassava—the material from which brooms are made—and coconuts. The Wellesbourne research station helped with the development of a particular sort of coconut. There is no agricultural production in Bonthe at present, but the area is fertile and can produce large amounts of rice. I suspect that one of the reasons why the Opposition parties have done so well in the Freetown local elections is that the cost of rice there has been at record levels recently—the highest that it has ever been. That is because Sierra Leone is having to import rice; that is a crazy situation.
Leadership is not something that one can just whistle up. However, I suggest to the Minister that perhaps we ought to engage with non-governmental organisations

9WH
such as Farm Africa to see what can be done in the countryside in Sierra Leone to get agriculture moving again. I asked a taxi driver in Freetown where he came from. He told me that he was a tractor driver in Bonthe. There are no tractors left in Bonthe and it has no electricity. The power station has gone, as has the infrastructure. The only people showing any real leadership are the Members of Parliament, many of whom are very impressive. I mean no criticism by that; the people have gone through a terrible war.
There has been another migration from Freetown to the UK and to Baltimore in the United States. The Select Committee is carrying out an inquiry into migration development, and held a fascinating meeting, organised by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), with the Sierra Leonean diaspora in Southwark town hall. One of the things that we want to understand better is the work and the role of diasporas in development.
I do not know the size of the Under-Secretary's private office. I suspect that he has four or five people working for him. He has three or four officials here today. I do not criticise that. That is fine; the Cabinet Office is a huge Department. I suggest, however, that he visits Solomon Berewa, the Vice-President of Sierra Leone, who has one Secretary. That is no criticism of Solomon Berewa; it is simply the resource that is available. The burdens on him, on President Kabbah and on other Ministers are phenomenal. They desperately need officials who can help to formulate policy. The Department for International Development will soon move to budget control, but all that we require is people to write the cheques. We should be training all these good officials to help to develop policy elsewhere. I have other thoughts on the matter, which I shall express another time.
We should think about the possibility of a fund to help to recruit Sierra Leoneans in London and in Maryland who would like to return to Sierra Leone to help to rebuild it but who, in the intervening years of conflict, have taken on obligations here such as mortgages, families and schooling commitments, and would be reluctant to return to earn the money that one can earn as a civil servant in Sierra Leone, but who have a great amount to offer to their country.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is making a series of interesting and original observations. Given the importance of leadership by example, is he politely suggesting that the Under-Secretary should second at least half his private office to Sierra Leone so that it can do the sort of work that he has in mind?
Tony Baldry: I was not being quite as mischievous as that. Rather, I was saying that vie in Whitehall are privileged to have some very able civil servants. Indeed, I believe that DFID has the highest number of fast-stream entrants in the civil set vice. The Under-Secretary's private office has about four times the resource available to the Vice-President of Sierra Leone. It sometimes falls badly from our mouths and the mouths of colleagues in the US to make allegations about corruption when often there is not corruption but gross inefficiency born out of a lack of resource. How can one or two people be expected to grapple with the policy issues of a whole country?
10WH
In an earlier incarnation as a junior Minister, I was privileged to help to privatise the electricity industry. I know how complex these things are. The privatisation bureau in Freetown simply will not work with a tiny number of staff. Perhaps we could think of ways of encouraging by financial means members of the Sierra Leonean community in this country, without financial prejudice to themselves, to return to Sierra Leone to help to rebuild it in key areas of public policy with a shortage of skilled resource.
Diamonds were the root cause of the conflict. Notwithstanding the best efforts of many—not least of President Kabbah—Sierra Leone is still receiving far too little of the proceeds of diamond wealth. It has some of the best diamonds in the world. It is suggested that a 3 per cent. tax should be levied. That is a tiny amount, but if it were levied on all diamonds, it would make a huge difference to the income of the Sierra Leonean Government. We must address this issue. DFID has been working hard on the development of a new diamond code and new systems, but we cannot be allowed to fall back to a system where outside influences simply spirit the diamonds over the borders into Liberia and other neighbouring countries.
One of the reasons that there was great pressure for a war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone—I suspect that the Sierra Leoneans, left on their own, would have preferred a truth and reconciliation commission, as in South Africa—was that when people started trying to find the bank accounts for al-Qaeda, they could not. One of the reasons was that al-Qaeda had been using a lot of conflict diamonds for arms sales and other sales. Conflict diamonds are easily transportable and one does not require bank accounts. In these days of heavy regulation and heavy money laundering, diamonds are moveable. We have to encourage a system in Sierra Leone where there is transparency about diamond sales and where more of the proceeds of the sale of diamonds go to the benefit of the people of Sierra Leone.
I know that DFID is on a watershed as far as Sierra Leone is concerned. It did excellent work in the post conflict period. That involved a great deal of work helping ex-militia members to do worthwhile jobs—rather like the community service programme in the UK—and a lot of repair to the immediate infrastructure. DFID has now to decide whether it will move to budgetary support and which bits of the economy it will support by way of budget help. I suspect that it will be a case of different countries providing support—for example, Italy supporting electricity. I want to recommend two areas that I hope that DFID might support.
There was much destruction in the schools. Rebel troops had used schools throughout the countryside as headquarters and many school buildings were destroyed. Non-governmental organisations such as Plan International have done excellent work, but the schooling system has been devastated. One of the consequences of people not going to school in a country such as Sierra Leone is that people fall back on their own language. English is a great—excuse the oxymoron—lingua franca in Sierra Leone. It brings people together, and gives them access to the outside world. If people do not have the opportunity to get to school they are cut off, not only from the outside world but from the other

11WH
parts of Sierra Leone. It is a disuniting feature. I hope that we can think in terms of offering budgetary support for education in Sierra Leone.
The other area of concern is primary health. Sierra Leone is an unaccompanied post for Foreign Office officials. Why? It is considered unsafe by the FCO for wives and children to go to Sierra Leone, not because of rebels or the dangers of muggings on the street, but simply because of the lack of basic health care, even in Freetown. At the moment, the international community is supported by a field hospital run by the Jordanians, which will probably pull out when the UN peacekeeping troops start to run down. Frankly, outside Freetown, if anyone gets sick, they die. It is as simple as that—they die. If there are any complications—gallstones, any slight problems—there are not the medical resources to deal with them.
The EU has built a number of clinics around the country, so the physical buildings are there. However, one day I spent some time resting in a clinic because the car in which I was travelling had broken down. There is no kit, no equipment, no drugs and no support. Some very good ladies are working as community midwives, but there is no support.
I would make the following requests to the Government and the Minister. First, so far as war crimes are concerned, the job will not be complete until Taylor is brought to trial. We have to recognise that there has been a considerable movement of leadership from the countryside to Freetown and from Freetown to the rest of the world. We need to think of ways to reinforce civil society and the machinery of government in Sierra Leone. We need to give thought to how we will give budgetary support to health and to education, and to how we will ensure that the wealth of Sierra Leone—primarily diamond wealth—is used to the benefit of the people of Sierra Leone and is not ripped off for the benefit of others in other parts of the world, who make no contribution to the people of Sierra Leone.
10.14 am
Helen Jackson: I would like to start by thanking the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for organising an excellent and worthwhile visit. I particularly want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) who was assiduous and tireless in keeping us together and focused on the job in hand. That was done with good humour and we formed a positive and friendly group. He is right to put a positive approach on our findings in Sierra Leone, because it is a country that is emerging from a horrendous anti vile conflict. Until the embers and difficulties from that finally start to be put to rest, it is tough to put together an emerging democracy that will go places and will capitalise on the immense wealth and potential that there is in that country.
I believe that the satisfactory conclusions of the recent local elections bode well and that there is an overwhelming determination among all people in civic life to ensure that they do not descend back into civil war. Without that determination it is difficult to be hopeful. Wherever we went, whether it was to see the
12WH
emerging police force, the schools or the colleges or to the rural areas in Bumbuna, the determination not to return to that situation was evident. That is a hopeful sign.
Following some work that I had been doing earlier last year with the British Council in Malawi, I was interested to look at the work being done by the 50/50 Group of Sierra Leone. I was impressed at the way in which Sierra Leone and the 50/50 Group, which, for those who do not know, aims to get 50:50 gender representation in most areas of democracy and public life, are going about it.
In a debate about at the international role of women, which I think took place in March in Westminster Hall, I used the example of Sierra Leone and what we were hearing from the ministry that is responsible for economic affairs about its policy on grants and small loans for small businesses. It was increasingly focusing on small businesses and small agricultural concerns that were headed by women or run by a co-operative group of women in local communities. It said that in that way there was far more certainty that the grant or small loan would be put towards growing the vegetables or towards making the clothes or textiles for the community for which the money was sought and, indeed, that the loans would be repaid. Therefore, it now has a conscious policy of working through small businesses that are headed by women. The meal that we had at one of the best restaurants in Freetown, which was mentioned in our report, was a tribute to how successful some of those small businesses are.
The restaurant was run by a member and key organiser of the 50/50 Group. That group has produced a good Sierra Leone women's manifesto. Some of the proposals took me back to the work that we have done in this place on the post-conflict situation in Northern Ireland. I will quote a couple of those that relate to peace-building. It urged its Government
"to include at least 30 percent. of women in all Peace Missions and conflict management teams."
That took us into the detail of quotas. In addition it wanted them
"to train both women and men in mediation, lobbying and negotiation skills."
We saw some of that in the peace and reconciliation movement that was taking place. Similarly, in the move towards democracy, the parties are taking steps to include more women candidates in the elections. I have not heard what the results of the local elections are in terms of gender representation, but if anyone has those figures, I would be interested to find out. We also all felt that we should pay tribute to the work of the British Council and Mr. Rajiv Bendre, who was doing a superb job.
My main point is about the value and sustainability of democracy. I was left concerned that, in a country where resources for anything in the public sector are so scarce, democracy is underfunded. The way in which Sierra Leone Members of Parliament were struggling with the resource side of their jobs was risky to say the least. Such a situation can so easily lapse into corruption and a lowering of esteem among the population. When we were planning to visit the half-finished hydroelectric project at Bumbuna, the woman MP who was hosting the trip said, "I'll have to leave the day before, of course,

13WH
because although I may have the opportunity of a ride in the official Land Rover today, normally I have to use public transport, which might take one or two days". We have problems going to and from our constituencies, but we are not crowded on to buses for two days.
I came away feeling that the difficulties, hardships and problems faced by the elected representatives whom we met in the Parliament there were massive. I urge the Minister to take on board the point about finance, both in relation to the Government's own funding and in consultation with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the British Council and any other bodies that are there actively to support such work. Funding should not just go into salaries—they are very low indeed—but into the resources available to Members of Parliament and local councils.
Mr. Win Griffiths: May I add something? My point has nothing to do with the physical movement of people around the country, but the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, in association with the National Democratic Institute, is developing an internet resource for Members of Parliament in Sierra Leone.
Helen Jackson: Yes, I appreciate that point. As many Members there told us, training programmes in how to make best use of resources and link them with offices in constituencies are an absolute must.
We also discovered that an understanding of both NEPAD and the overall policies for Africa were not filtering through to ordinary parliamentarians there. The parliamentarians whom we met made very little mention of HIV/AIDS, although the problem is not so acute there as it is in sub-Saharan Africa. On those two issues, I wondered whether there were not positive signs for the future, including the increasing importance of the Economic Community of West African States—ECOWAS—and the regional element of government in Africa as a whole, in improving the infrastructure of democracy. People may say, "It's bureaucracy and a waste of money". However, in an emerging continent such as Africa, such programmes are not a waste of money and are a way of making progress, rather than reverting to civil war or corruption. Our Government and DFID rightly place great emphasis on good governance, but the seeds of corruption are laid when public expectation is much greater than the politicians' capacity to deliver. The politicians then look for other means of maintaining their status within their communities, which can lead them down the road of lining their pockets, giving jobs to their families and so forth.
Huge resources were rightly going into the development of the police and the security forces in order to solidify the move towards democracy. I agree with the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that they now need to be linked more closely with the democratic process and to start to be matched by the necessary investment in the public service sector—the education and health services. Most of all, it is important to recognise and pay tribute to the huge determination that is being shown by the elected representatives and the people in all areas of civic government throughout Sierra Leone to make a go of things and to take the country forward to prosperity—
14WH
well, prosperity is perhaps a long time in the future for them, but a little more prosperity is something that they can aim for and achieve.
10.27 am
John Barrett: I thank the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for securing the debate. This is riot the first time that he has kept Sierra Leone on the agenda in this place. Unlike him, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), although I have been to a number of African countries I have never been to Sierra Leone, so I will bow to their expertise and first-hand experience.
The nightmare that has been lived through by the old and young in that country has left many scars, both physical and emotional, and it will take years for them to heal, if they ever do. Sierra Leone is a country with a long and tragic history that stretches back to the slave trade. The flow of slavery was reversed in 1787 when freed slaves were returned to Sierra Leone. Thousands of liberated slaves made their way to Freetown, and many stayed there. It became one of Britain's first colonies in west Africa.
That history is important. Other African nations lost their youngest, strongest and best to slavery. One would have hoped that Sierra Leone, where the reverse effectively happened, would be different from those other African nations, which have ended up with long civil wars. The people have experienced the worst of human nature because they were the victims of slavery and they must have relished plans for the start of a new life in a new country, yet that was not the case. Crimes against mankind have been committed in Sierra Leone, bringing the country close to hell on earth, with executions, amputations of limbs, ears and lips, mass rapes and more.
The story of the boy soldiers sums up the tragedy of Sierra Leone. I recently read about one 12-year-old boy who said:
"The rebels told me to join them, but I said no. Then they killed my smaller brother. I changed my mind. The rebels trained me for a month. They gave me an AK47. I was good at using the guns. The first time we went out on patrol, we attacked a village and we killed so many people. I don't know how many people I killed, because I was just shooting. I couldn't see anything. They just told me to shoot."
He also said that they always gave him blood to drink before he went into battle, and that they encouraged him to kill people. There are stories of children being injected with cocaine before they carried out their roles as soldiers. That is not a childhood; no child should start life like that. We must do what we can to ensure that Sierra Leone puts the past behind it and moves on to the future. With that start in life for some, what hope is there for a future?
I share the optimism of the hon. Member for Bridgend. We must all have hope for the future, or we would we give up. That applies to parliamentarians, including those in the Department for International Development and the Government generally, as well as non-governmental organisations—many NGOs are doing good work out there—the EU and the UN. We must keep the flickering flame of hope alive and hope that it will burn brighter for those who were child

15WH
soldiers, so that when they put down their guns they can play in the sunshine like children anywhere else in the world.
The history of the country and its civil war is important, because what is happening now in Sierra Leone is a direct result of that. Much attention has been paid to the special court—the first war crime tribunal to sit in the country—but many are asking whether the guilty will get away with murder. I certainly hope that they will not. If the tribunal is to deliver justice, and the chief prosecutor, David Crane, is to deliver what Sierra Leoneans expect, there must be full and open trials. They should be no less than we would expect here, or anywhere else in the world.
If many people continue to go hungry and without clean drinking water or basic education while money is being spent on justice, the court will have even more to prove, because those with aching stomachs and no shelter at night want to see that the money has been well spent. With a budget of $85 million, and having been four years in the planning, it must now get on with the job. The UN has a lot riding on the court: war criminals must not go unpunished.
While the court gets on with the job, those involved in the judicial process are taking a real risk with their personal security. We should pay tribute to them, and hope that they remain safe throughout the process. What can the Government do to help to ensure that adequate security is maintained for those people so close to the end of the process, which must be effective and thorough?
Is it true that only 13 people have been indicted and that only nine are in custody after one of the greatest human tragedies of all time? After 11 horrendous years of violence, what can our Government do to bring all those responsible to justice?
The nightmare that was the reality for the people of Sierra Leone unfolded over 11 years and is well documented, yet, to some degree. it is forgotten by many. I have said many times in this House that it takes television news crews to make a difference because, try as we might in this place to keep an issue on the agenda, nothing does it better than having an image on TV. Fifteen years on from Tiananmen square, who can forget the image of the student standing in front of a tank? Why was there so little coverage of the trouble in Sierra Leone? It was not so much forgotten by the west as never really given the appropriate volume of coverage. It may well be that the news crews were in Kosovo at that time, where battles were being fought over human rights violations and the systematic killing of an entire race by the Serbian-led army of Milosevic. Whatever the reason, few cameras followed the struggle in Sierra Leone, where the same human rights violations were occurring in the most depraved of ways over long periods of time.
Sadly, more and more of those who obtain such images for our newspapers and television screens pay an ever-increasing price. On Sunday BBC cameraman Simon Cumbers paid with his life. We wish his colleague, who is critically ill, a speedy recovery.
There are still too few images of Sierra Leone on our televisions, but, hopefully, the world will become more aware of what is happening there, so that the court can
16WH
not only do its job, but be effective enough to ensure that this is the last time that Sierra Leone experiences anything like its recent past. Although some of the main culprits are dead, others such as the former Liberian President, Charles Taylor, who is exiled in Nigeria, must be brought to justice. What is being done to put pressure on countries that can help to ensure that Charles Taylor and others are brought to justice?
The UK and the UN deserve credit for their involvement in Sierra Leone, which has been a success, but it is time to support that success with peace and security. Can the Minister detail any future plans to train forces to support democracy in Sierra Leone? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) has reaffirmed Lib-Dem support for U K Government action on a number of occasions. A well trained police force is as vital as trained armed forces. Will the Minister say what future plans he has for continuing with police training in Sierra Leone?
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough mentioned AIDS. It is true that the percentage of people suffering from HIV and AIDS in Sierra Leone is not yet as high as in other sub-Saharan countries, but there is always a risk of the increasing prevalence of AIDS. Once a country gets back on to its feet, mobility and transport increase, people have more disposable income, move around more and ate more economically active, so there is a danger that HIV and AIDS will spread. Education is the key to stop that happening. If our Government, through DFID and NGOs, can support educational projects to teach people how best to avoid AIDs, it will be money well spent.
Has DFID assessed the food aid requirement for Sierra Leone? As the hon. Member for Banbury said, there is the capacity dramatically to increase production in the country, but it has not been used often. Basic support, like basic technology, can make a huge difference. The same is true of the mining industry, which stopped completely in some areas of the country during the civil war. What support is available to get the mining industry up and running and avoid corruption as the income starts to flow? Sierra Leone has been working with other countries through the Mano River Union, but that needs to get back on track and be revitalised so that the hope and optimism can be turned into reality for the people.
UNICEF's humanitarian action document reveals that only 35 per cent. of the requested funds have materialised. By a December 2003, only $4.4 million of the $12.4 million was received. What can our Government do to help UNICEF achieve its funding target? The scale of the problems facing Sierra Leone is daunting. About 70,000 people died as a result of 11 years of civil war. Another harrowing fact is that every year approximately 100,000 children die from immunisable diseases—malaria, measles and so on. During the civil war, almost 3 million children died. Funding for health must be a priority, and within that must come access to clean drinking water, which is only available to about 40 per cent. of the population and is urgently needed.
Sierra Leone has suffered too much in the past. We must play our part co help its children have a peaceful future.
10.38 am
Mr. John Bercow: I begin by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), both on his persistence in seeking to secure the debate and on the compelling speech that he made on introducing it. Similarly, I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who made a characteristically thoughtful contribution to the debate, and the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), for developing some of the key features of the problems facing Sierra Leone.
As all who have attended the debate will know, the fighting in Sierra Leone has been savage. The human rights violations that took place during the civil war are as mind-boggling as those that have been witnessed in any country in the world. The damage to the country's infrastructure and its population has been immense. The challenge of change and reconstruction is monumental and urgent. I shall focus on a number of specific points, to highlight the issues for the Minister, in the hope of a useful, informative response.
First, the Under-Secretary will know that his Department is committing £5 million over three years to the African Agricultural Technology Foundation; it is mentioned in its 2004 annual report. That project is important to Sierra Leone, because it supplies affordable agricultural technology to African farmers. The economy of Sierra Leone and the people generally would greatly benefit from a rejuvenated agricultural sector. Can the hon. Gentleman offer some indication of the output so far achieved as a result of the welcome input that his Department has made on that front?
Secondly, the Department funds a community reintegration project to provide employment for ex-combatants and to resettle internally displaced persons, while rebuilding essential infrastructure in the Port Loco and Kambia districts. I think that I am right in saying that that project has now been running for three years. It is an important project, and its purposes are laudable. It would be useful to us arid to others outside to know the Minister's assessment of what progress has been made through that project.
Thirdly, I am concerned to know what assessment the Minister has made of the law development project. At the heart of the country's problems are the phenomena of lawlessness and corruption, and an absence of the transparency that we take for granted as a necessary condition for a healthy, functioning democracy. The objective of improving and strengthening the country's legal institutions, which is supported by DFID, is of the first importance. What can the Minister tell us about progress in that respect?
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury made an important point when he said that the absence of schooling in substantial parts of the country was effectively a force for fragmentation—and, at its worst, for disintegration. Health, too, is important. My hon. Friend spoke about primary health care, and a number of those hon. Members who referred to the importance of the fight against AIDS acknowledged that the problem was not a pandemic on the scale found in other countries, notably in sub-Saharan Africa. It is important to focus also on malaria in Sierra Leone.
18WH
The Minister will be aware that Médecins Sans Frontières has urged donor countries to help Sierra Leone introduce new drugs in order to overcome local resistance to traditional malaria treatments. The disease has reached a truly critical stage in the country, and whatever the Minister can tell us about his Department's efforts on that front would be of interest to all hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West referred to the need to train the police. He was right to do so. The reality is that the Sierra Leone police force is fundamentally weak. It has too few personnel; it suffers from inadequate funding; and, to date, it has received relatively poor training. That is a problem for the force, but more of a problem for the population. If the force is thought to be weak, fragmented and under-trained, it will not be able to deter potential civil uprisings, and it will be poorly equipped to cope. Again, whatever reassurance the Minister can offer on the scale of Britain's contribution to the force would be of interest.
The Minister will be aware that as many as 66,000 Liberian refugees remain in Sierra Leone, predominantly in eight camps in the south-east of the country. Returning those refugees safely to Liberia is crucial to the internal politics of the country and to the regional picture. What can the Minister tell us on that front?
I endorse what a number of hon. Members said about the importance of eventually extraditing and indicting Charles Taylor, but I cannot improve on what has already been said. However, I flag up a couple of further points.
The Minister will know of the recommendations of the International Crisis Group, which is the beneficiary of direct financial support from his Department. He will know that the recommendations to the British Government and the Commonwealth include a reference to the importance of continuing
"to support the international Military Advisory and Training Team…by focusing attention on training to handle border areas and threats of incursion, champion high standards to keep unqualified 'political' candidates out of the armed forces, and help the armed forces reduce size and weed out unqualified soldiers and officers as well as remaining troublemakers."
That is of the essence to the integrity of the reform process. What progress is being made on keeping unqualified "political" candidates out of the armed forces?
The Minister will know that the recommendations to donors urge the use of
"explicit benchmarks as the criteria for distributing…aid"
and, where necessary, for its periodic suspension. They also refer to the importance of securing
"demonstrations by officials that they are increasing their capacity to function independently…that accountability and transparency measures are in place"
and that officials will
"stop funding projects until benchmarks are met."
The recommendations go on to talk about the importance of assisting
"the government to create and implement new investment",
advance "land ownership" and develop
"corporate laws to encourage international investors to return."

19WH
Of all the practical steps that are important to sustaining and bolstering the country's movement towards democracy, prosperity and self-sufficiency, those must rank pretty high.
Solemn commitments have been entered into, and I am sure that work is being done to translate those important words into practice. However, the Minister will not be surprised to know that I would like a progress report and I would like it now.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing the debate and on the assiduous way in which he continues to keep the issues facing the people of Sierra Leone on the agenda of the House. I also pay tribute to the contributions by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett). We have had an interesting and useful debate, which has covered the panoply of issues facing the people of Sierra Leone.
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend that Sierra Leone has successfully emerged from conflict, although as the debate has clearly demonstrated, it has a long way to go down the development road. The two elections that have taken place since peace was successfully concluded and the end of the war was officially announced highlight that progress. In one case, the country held its first local elections since 1972—it had spent 30 years without democratically elected local government. That is an indication of the progress that has been made.
All parts of the country are now accessible, and, as we heard, the press and media are thriving. Furthermore, the international financial institutions are pleased with the economic management of the country.
The removal of Charles Taylor and the putting in place of a national transitional Government in Liberia have removed the main external threat to the security of Sierra Leone. Several hon. Members asked about Charles Taylor's trial before the special court in Freetown, and we continue to put pressure on the Government of Nigeria to return him to the court. As hon. Members have said, it would be a powerful demonstration of the process of reconciliation to bring to justice the people who were responsible for the atrocities that marked the 10 years of conflict. We continue to exert pressure to encourage the Nigerians to bring Charles Taylor to justice.
Britain is committed to Sierra Leone's long-term progress. There has been positive and successful cooperation between the British military and diplomats and those working in development. The 10-year memorandum of understanding signed at the end of 2002 demonstrates the UK's commitment to the longterm development of Sierra Leone. 'We have committed 120 million over the first three years of that memorandum of understanding. That does not include the considerable cost of the international military advisory and training team, nor our share of the costs to
20WH
the UN mission in Sierra Leone. We remain committed to Sierra Leone because the success that has been achieved so far is fragile, as hon. Members have pointed out.
The key to building on the progress that has been made, as some hon Members have suggested, will be the development of an effective security sector that will be able to take over responsibility from the UN mission and British troops in the long term. The international military advisory and training team is working hard training the armed forces of Sierra Leone so that they can take over responsibility for the security of their country.
We have put substantial investment of £26 million into the Sierra Leonean police and are also working hard to support the development of a politically impartial intelligence system—again to support Sierra Leonean security needs. We also want to build capacity with respect to the Ministries responsible for security sector reform.
Hon. Members raised issues about the special court, which is also an essential part of the security process. The UK's strong support for the special court was demonstrated by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State Mended its opening in March. We remain one of the main funders of the court, having put in a total of £6.6 million. There is funding for the court until the end of 2004. We shall keep the court's funding needs in view, given its importance to the process of reconciliation in Sierra Leone.
Several hon. Members were concerned about the capacity of government in its wider sense—the Parliament, the civil service, or local government. The remarks of the hon. Member for Banbury gave rise to an interesting suggestion, which may perhaps be attractive to members of my private office. More seriously, a series of measures is under way to try to deal with the capacity issues that the hon. Gentleman in particular alluded to. They are not unique to Sierra Leone. They are, unfortunately, a feature of countries emerging from conflict. Afghanistan comes to mind as experiencing something similar.
We are supporting a programme of civil service reform and training. Similar efforts are being led by the World Bank, with our support, to develop the capacity of local government. The local elections were the first part of the process of decentralising responsibility for government and helping with the provision of services such as education and health in rural communities and urban communities outside Freetown. However, we must clearly continue with the development of capacity.
The hon. Member for Banbury also alluded to the considerable difficulties facing the President and Vice-President. We have offered to support a programme of reorganisation and strengthening within several ministries, including the presidency and the vice-presidency. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough also referred to the capacity issues facing the Parliament. We are about to give support to a 30-month programme to support parliamentary committees so that they can hold the Sierra Leone Executive to account more effectively.

21WH
A number of hon. Members also referred to the considerable importance of minerals in Sierra Leone: one thinks not only of diamonds, which get all the headlines, but rutile, which is a key mineral. In that context, the re-establishment of Sierra Rutile is a welcome, albeit slow, sign of the country's increasingly encouraging economic development, and it will potentially offer scope for new jobs, which is also welcome.
The economic development of Sierra Leone is beginning to take off. The hon. Member for Bridgend alluded to the steady economic growth in the past two years. The Bumbuna project, which is now fully funded, will provide access to cheap electricity, which is a key precursor for the development of business. We are funding a consultant to consider the liberalisation of many state-owned enterprises to try to get them re-established and up and running. That will send positive signals about Sierra Leone's economic prospects.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way at this crucial point. He may come to this issue, but given the sterling work that has been done by the high commissioner in London to develop the Sierra Leone-UK business forum, has he anything to say about issues relating to the specific focus on Africa in the DTI and in UK trade?
Mr. Thomas: I was just about to welcome the fact that a Sierra Leone-UK business link has been established. The Birmingham chamber of commerce has already visited Sierra Leone to look at opportunities. The hon. Gentleman made a specific point about concerns identified by the one business with which he has had links. I will write to him about that.
22WH
The hon. Member for Banbury mentioned minerals, and specifically diamonds. A consultant is helping the Sierra Leone Government to develop a comprehensive strategy for diamonds. We are working on revising the legislation governing the diamond industry. Progress is being made. The revenue coming into Government funds from diamonds is steadily increasing. The sanctions on Sierra Leone diamonds have been lifted, because the export certification systems have been revised, are in place and are delivering more effective, transparent regimes. However, the Government must continue to speed up these improvements, and we are committed to supporting them in that process.
A number of hon. Members referred to corruption. It is interesting to note that a series of national surveys carried out in Sierra Leone have identified that the people view corruption as the single most important issue for the security of their country. The UK has been the leading donor supporting the fight against corruption through the Anti-Corruption Commission. We are working with the Commonwealth secretariat to try to establish a number of expatriate judges to deal with the backlog of corruption cases and put in place a prosecutor who can deal with corruption and specialise in it in the long term.
Crucially, later this year we expect to see the publication of a poverty reduction strategy, which has taken a bit longer to surface into the light of day than we wanted. That strategy offers the Government of Sierra Leone an opportunity to set out for its people how they will deal with the education and health needs referred to by the hon. Member for Banbury and other hon. Members. We do not work specifically on education and health, but other donors do. We will review what we are doing in the light of the poverty reduction strategy. We will work to encourage all donors to align themselves with it, so that we can make sure that all the issues identified in the strategy are properly addressed.

World Oil Prices
11 am
Mr. David Stewart: I welcome the opportunity to introduce this debate. Three major interests have led me to request it. First, I have a long-term interest in North sea oil and gas production, particularly due to past constituency interests relating to oil fabrication; however, sadly, there is no longer such production in my constituency. Secondly, I have a long-term interest in the pump price of oil and its effects on motorists and hauliers, particularly in the highlands and islands. A few days ago I looked back at my maiden speech, which I made three weeks after the 1997 election, and I found that I had mentioned the subject then. Thirdly, I have a wider interest in the economy as a whole.
I do not want to start by painting a picture of doom and gloom. The offshore oil and gas industry in the UK supports 260,000 jobs, a third of which are in Scotland. We all know that the UK is the fourth largest producer of gas; crucially, we are still a net exporter. Also, the UK is still the 10th largest producer of oil.
I shall consider three factors that have a bearing on the world price of oil and its effect on our economy. I will first discuss supply issues—basically, that has to do with the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries—and then the demand issues that have caused the spot price of oil to shoot up. Then, I will mention the speculation that has contributed to the trend of increasing world oil prices. I will also touch on some of the worrying issues for not just our economy but industrial western economies in general.
First, what are the supply issues? As we all know, the biggest player is OPEC. It accounts for 40 per cent. of world oil production and two thirds of oil reserves. Perhaps crucially, it contributes nearly all of the world's excess oil production. There are 11 members of OPEC. Hon. Members will be familiar with them; they include Algeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. Saudi Arabia is clearly the most important card in the pack. It is the only member with substantial extra oil capacity. We know from last week's OPEC summit that OPEC has agreed to increase output to between 2 million and 2.5 million barrels a day. Most of that will come from Saudi Arabia.
I will touch on terrorism later, but targeted terrorist attacks, especially against Saudi refineries, clearly have worrying implications for the west, specifically in terms of oil supply, loss of life, damage to infrastructure, and the haemorrhaging of trained western staff essential for the operation of Saudi refineries.
Indonesia currently holds the presidency of OPEC, but ironically it is now, for the first time, a net importer of crude oil. On 20 May, the Financial Times questioned Indonesia's status as a member of the oil cartel. It has had great difficulties, caused by its inability to attract sufficient investment. It has fields that are in decline, and there has been an increase in domestic gas consumption.
Iraq is another very important country in OPEC. It has the world's second largest oil reserves. I tabled parliamentary questions, which were answered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 27 May in column 1814W of Hansard. According to those answers,
24WH
oil exports from Iraq increased between June 2003 and April 2004 to 1.8 million barrels a day. That is important. Some experts have estimated that, at peak flow, we could expect about 3.5 million barrels a day from Iraq. The US has estimated that, on a good day—and with much investment in infrastructure, trained staff and so on—we could probably expect about 6 million barrels of oil a day. There is tremendous potential for export from Iraq. Since the fall of Saddam, it has been worth €40 billion to the Iraqi economy.
As hon. Members know, United Nations and other arrangements dictate that 95 per cent. of that income must be spent in Iraq, on food production, and electricity and oil infrastructure, for example. However, following the bombing of a southern Iraq pipeline, exports fell by 1 million barrels a day, which is very worrying in terms of oil supply. That has been one factor in the increase in world oil prices. Apparently, that is just a supply issue, but there are also issues of nervousness and psychology, which I will touch on later.
Neil McMahon is an analyst at Sanford Bernstein. He said:
"The reduction of 1 million barrels a day in Iraq exports effectively nearly wipes out any OPEC increase we could get."
For completeness, I should add that although Iraq is a member of OPEC, since 1998 its exports have not counted towards the OPEC quota system.
There are also some technical issues to do with a time lag. It tends to take three or four weeks before changes in production hit the American and UK markets. That is partly to do with practical issues about the length of time that the effects take to reach the US, but there are also technical issue. Some of the oil that we have lost because of the bombing is called Basra Light. That is not something that might be found in the Strangers Bar but light crude, which is very important for American consumers. Some of the extra OPEC production from Saudi Arabia is a much heavier crude that is not as useful to western economies.
What about non-OPEC issues? Barclays Capital recently reported that it does not expect there to be any net growth from non-OPEC countries, except Russia. It is the second year in a row that it has made that prediction.
What about supply issues for the UK, which interests all Members present? It is perhaps now a cliché to say this, but oil and, in particular, gas production are at a mature stage of devlopment. Output for oil and gas fell by 10 per cent. for March this year compared with the previous year. Worryingly, it is the 16th consecutive month that it has fallen.
However, it is not all doom and gloom. Paul Blakely, the vice-president of the Canadian company Talisman Energy, estimated that 10 billion barrels of North sea oil is untapped. In 2003, the industry produced 1.3 billion barrels from the UK continental shelf.
The good news, and the crucial strategic news for us, is that in overall terms the UK is still a net exporter of oil. We expect that to last until about 2010, but that is difficult to predict. The UK continental shelf produces a light crude, the bulk of which is exported and, because we need a mixture of grades, we import OPEC crude,

25WH
which is a bit heavier. That is good news; there is a balance of payments surplus for the oil and gas production industry.
Miss Anne Begg: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an irony in this? Large rural constituencies such as his depend a lot on the price of petrol; therefore, the economy is negatively affected when oil prices go up. However, the economy of the north-east of Scotland is made much more buoyant if world oil prices are high. That gives us some hope for the future, provided that we get the balance right between the cost of the oil and the prod action, which will continue if oil prices are high, and ensuring that the knock-on effects of higher petrel prices do not undermine the economy.
Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I know that she has a great interest in oil and gas production. She was right to put her finger on that dilemma. North sea oil and gas are extremely good for the north-east—and, indeed, for the highlands. The other side of the coin is that we must ensure that we get the balance right because high petrol prices at the filling stations are bad news for motorists and cause difficulties for hauliers. I will touch on that later.
I want to turn briefly to the United States. Petrol production there reached an all-time high in April of this year. The American Petroleum Institute said that the refineries were operating at 92 per cent. of capacity; that almost full capacity has resulted in 9 million barrels a day of production. I must say that there are some conflicts between the Republicans and the Democrats on the issue. One may say that that is no surprise. For example, the Republicans are pushing for oil production in the Arctic national wildlife reserve in Alaska, which has been defended by many Democrats and environmentalists. The Democrats have argued strongly that the strategic petroleum reserve should be released to try to lower price, as President Clinton did during his Administration.
What demand factors influence price? The US is the world's largest importer of fuel and believes that cheap subsidised oil is a "constitutional right". A bit like the original frontier men and women, it believes that driving and roaming cheaply is important for its economy. China is another major player in the demand issue. It has 1 billion consumers, a massive increase in car ownership and insufficient reserves of both oil and gas. That has caused it to import substantial quantities of fuel. China is becoming even more significant in the world market and is responsible for 40 per cent. of the increase in demand. It buys 7 per cent. of the world's oil supply. I will give hon. Members one comparison. China currently imports 5.5 million barrels of oil a day, which compares with 2 million Just 15 years ago. Therefore, China is clearly an important player. In India there are similar statistical trends. Perhaps the difference is that India has added substantially to its strategic petroleum reserve. Again, that has put a big strain on the world market.
What then is the big picture? Historically, over the past 30 years, there have arguable been three global recessions, which were all pre-dated by an increase in oil prices. The UK, through the good stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has
26WH
a strong economy. As we all know, there is low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates and high employment. That is combined with a flexible labour market and strong social justice policies, such as nursery education. Obviously, there are worries about the continued effect of rising oil prices for consumers, particularly in rural areas such as the highlands and islands. There are also worries about margin squeeze—in other words, that higher oil prices will fuel higher raw material costs—and about higher inflation. I note that the Bank of England, when it explained its higher interest rate charge, cited higher oil price pressures as one of the factors. That is something that we must be careful about.
Speculation is another concern, particularly in relation to global hedge funds. Findlay MacDonald of Britannic Asset Management was quoted in The Herald on 3 June. He said:
"This is not a supply issue, but mainly trader speculation that's driving the prices up. What OPEC is trying to do is prick the speculative bubble, but there are limits—many speculators are gambling that prices will continue to grow, because they reckon demand will remain strong, even if OPEC opens up its taps to full capacity."
On that factor, there are clearly worries about the future stability of Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
In conclusion, a stable and relatively cheap and available supply of oil are key foundations to the success of industrialised economies. However, in recent months there have been gathering storm clouds and a triple whammy has led to oil price crunch. There has been a surge in global demand, low inventories of oil and terrorist attacks in both Saudi Arabia and Iraq, which have vast oil production capacity. That combination of events has unnerved traders and that in turn has fuelled speculation. That has not helped the spot price of oil, which is hovering at about $40. None of that will be any comfort to the hard-pressed motorists and hauliers in high petrol price hot spots—black spots—particularly those in the highlands and islands and elsewhere in the UK. However, the situation is not all doom and gloom.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: The remoter parts of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, no doubt, share a problem with mine: whatever the price of oil in the world or the domestic markets, we routinely pay something in the region of lop a litre extra for fuel at the petrol pump. Does he agree that it is time that the Government did something to tackle that problem within the highlands and islands?
Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman said, our constituencies share many common denominators. However, his is much more remote, with island issues. It is important that the Scottish Executive should consider this matter; that is why I supported the rural transport fund, which helps support rural petrol stations to set up transport companies that could do something about this issue.
There is widespread concern about the effects of high oil prices. Today, I am trying—hopefully this is coming over to the hon. Gentleman—to put forward some of the macro issues that are affecting the spot price of oil, and the suggestions that I shall make in my conclusion may be of some help and comfort to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

27WH
It is not all doom and gloom; an extra 2.5 million barrels have been released by OPEC through the recent summit. However, there is a larger, philosophical point. It is not in OPEC's long-term interest, in my view, for the oil price to go above $50 a barrel because of the economic dislocation that that would cause its customers, who are basically the western countries—America and Europe.
There is another positive aspect. New and undeveloped North sea oilfields can and should be developed by smaller oil companies; they would be viable at the current price range of oil. However, I accept that the large players make longer-term decisions on oil not just in a few months but over a longer period. Iraqi oil production has increased month by month since June and the fall of Saddam. That could be tripled from available reserves once investment, capital equipment, staff and security issues have been resolved. That will be one of the major objectives of the new Iraqi Administration, who take office at the end of the month.
I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. This subject will have resonance for motorists, hauliers and all of us who seek, as consumers, a stable, well managed economy. There are wider arguments, which I will touch on but which I have no time to develop today.
In the longer term, we have to consider alternatives to oil. We must reduce our heavy dependency on OPEC, and that would be consistent with our commitments to reduce global warming. For example, we should develop the use of hydrogen, biocells, hybrid vehicles and fuel cells for buses. In my view, the Government should review their policies for strategic gas and oil reserves. We do not have sufficient storage capability for gas. We currently have 12 days' capacity, compared with 55 days' capacity in Germany and France.
On oil, perhaps the Minister could comment on the policy for reviewing the strategic petroleum reserve, apart from the particular arrangements for the Ministry of Defence, which I suspect are beyond the Minister's remit.
I understand that there is an EU proposal to increase our reserves from 90 days to 120 days, but they would be specifically held by oil companies. My own view is that there should be a Government strategic petroleum reserve held by Government alone and not by oil companies. Strategically, for defence against terrorist attacks, that will be very important for the future.
These important issues will impact greatly on the future performance of the economy. As a Government we cannot control external pressures on our economy, but we can develop internal strategies to react to those pressures. Perhaps the key debate should be about how to use less oil in future, not more.
11.19 am
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing the debate and on the way in which he made his points. This is a short debate, but he dealt with the issues at stake in a long and wide way and, as he said at the start, he has a long-term interest in the offshore oil and gas industries. He also has a long track record of championing the interests of rural areas.
28WH
I am also glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael); they, too, have a strong interest in such matters and a good track record.
I start where my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber ended: his principal concluding points, his suggestions for the future. He is right in saying that we need to exploit fully the oil and gas reserves within the UK. Many of the changes to the fiscal regime that we have developed in consultation with the industry have been designed to do just that. The challenges are particularly great given that our reserves are in a mature field on the UK continental shelf.
Secondly, he mentioned the prospect of increases in Iraqi production. I know that he speaks from experience, having visited Iraq as part of the parliamentary armed forces scheme. He is right that we hope that increases in oil production, and more secure production, will came with the greater stability that should result from the handing of control to an Iraqi-led regime this summer. On the question of strategic reserves, he will know that the International Energy Agency, of which the UK is a member, has principal responsibility for holding national emergency oil reserves. Those reserves constitute a supply of 112 days of net imports. He will also be aware that under the obligations of the IEA, net importing countries have a legal obligation to hold oil reserves equivalent to at least 90 days of their oil imports. However, exporting countries, of which the UK is one, have no such legal obligation under EU consumption-based regulations.
I turn to the concerns that have given rise to the debate—the current high oil prices and the nature of the political debate that has been conducted over recent weeks as a result. My right honourable Friend the Chancellor made it clear last week that the Government welcome the OPEC decision to raise production targets in July and August, and the Saudi and United Arab Emirates announcements that they will bring forward increases in production. As my hon. Friend said, Saudi Arabia is the most Important card in the OPEC pack. He mentioned the scale of the Saudi plans to increase oil production, but oil stocks are already building at current levels.
Those announcements are both welcome and essential for the much-needed stability in the oil market that we have sought. So far, their impact on oil prices has been positive, taking prices down to about their lowest for a month Last night, the spot price in New York was $38.43 a barrel, and this morning at 10 am the price of Brent crude was $35.67 a barrel. In recent weeks, the Chancellor has been at the forefront of discussions with OPEC. He and other international Finance Ministers will continue to press OPEC both on meeting the increased production targets and on the case for raising the levels further. Because the world oil price has been rising, it is in the British national interest that the focus should he on oil supplies, OPEC and its responsibilities.
As my hon. Friend indicated, high demand on the Asian and US markets, plus short-term instability in the middle east and the accompanying speculation that that has triggered, have meant that no country can buck the global price. For Britain, it is in nobody's interests to

29WH
have higher than expected petrol prices. I understand the concern of motorists, hauliers and business. I regularly meet the haulage associations and representatives of business and, like many others, I drive a car.
However, this is a problem of world fuel prices, not UK fuel duty. It is worth remembering that over half the oil that we use in the UK bears little or no fuel duty—that used for industrial production and home heating and by airlines and trains, and the fuel used off-road for farming and construction.
Mr. Carmichael: I fear that little, that the Minister is saying will give any comfort to motorists in my constituency or in that of the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart). The Minister told me recently that the Treasury was not capable of implementing a variable rate of duty such as that given to peripheral communities in Greece and Portugal. If that is the case, does he have any alternatives or does he expect us simply to live with a continuing premium on the cost of fuel in the highlands and islands?
John Healey: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the full picture, he will see that we support rural areas—for example, the maintenance costs on rural roads are higher than elsewhere, given the relatively low usage—and that we support farming and other rural communities. The problems with differential road duties make them an inappropriate and impractical solution to the problem that the hon. Gentleman describes.
A large number of people and businesses in the UK pay little or no fuel duty on the oil that they use, but they are still affected when oil prices are high. That is why it will continue to be important, in the run-up to the next OPEC meeting on 21 July, to concentrate on the source of the rise in world oil prices, and in particular on world production targets.
We have already postponed the inflation-only increase in domestic UK fuel duties until 1 September, at a cost to the Exchequer and a saving to the motorist and haulier of £300 million. We have also confirmed our plan to give a special incentive for the introduction and use of sulphur-free fuel, to reduce the environmental damage and local air pollution caused even by current ultra low-sulphur fuel. We have been working closely with the oil industry, which has made significant investments in advance of September. We therefore expect a universal switch to sulphur-free diesel within days and to sulphur-free petrol within months.
30WH
All the Chancellor's tax decisions take into account a balance of economic, social and environmental factors. We propose the usual annual inflation rise in order to maintain the resources available for investment in schools, hospitals and public transport and to meet our commitments to the environment, while taking into account the impact of the world price of oil on economic stability and the impact of fuel prices on different sectors of society and the economy in Britain. It is important for the British economy that we have the strength to get the balance right between a fair deal for the motorist and the haulier, the needs of the public services, the stability of public finances, and our environmental responsibilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber drew comparisons with the past and he was right. In contrast with previous periods of high world oil prices under the last Government, the UK economy now has a foundation of stability and strength. In late 1980, when oil prices also reached $40 a barrel, inflation was more than 15 per cent., interest rates were 14 per cent. and GDP had contracted by 4 per cent. over the year. In 1990, when oil prices also reached $40 a barrel, UK inflation was almost 11 per cent., interest rates stood at 14 per cent. and the economy had again entered recession.
Today, of course, as a result of Labour's macroeconomic management, the UK economy now enjoys the longest continuous expansion on record, the lowest sustained inflation for 40 years and the lowest levels of unemployment in a generation. Today, the UK is therefore better placed to deal with the challenges of the global economy, including those posed by higher oil prices. Having fought so hard over the past seven years to achieve the stability of the economy and of the public finances, the Chancellor has vowed not to do anything that will put that at risk. Some may make and change their policy positions on the basis of day-to-day events and opportunism, but we will not take short-term decisions. That is why both the Chancellor and Prime Minister have said that in August we will look at what progress has been made in dealing with this period of high and unsustainable oil prices. We will then be able to reach a judgment on our own fuel duty change, based on an assessment of all the factors, including the level and trend of oil prices at that point. Until that time, the focus of all responsible Governments should be on OPEC and other oil producers, and on their responsibilities to meet their own targets for sustainable oil prices.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Crown Prosecution Service (London)
2 pm
Richard Ottaway: It is fair to say that crime affects everyone. Last year, there were more than 1 million cases of reported crime in the Metropolitan area; a staggering amount. That figure has to be put in the context of bringing criminals to justice.
The last year for which I can obtain relevant data is 2002. In the financial year 2002–03, the number of crimes reported in the Metropolitan area was 1,080,000, and in the calendar year 2002 there were 54,249 convictions. That is not a direct comparison, but it indicates the scale of things: less than 6 per cent. of the crimes committed led to convictions. I do not suggest for a second that that weak figure can be laid at the door of the Crown Prosecution Service. However, with that in mind, the debate is set against the background of two CPS inspectorate reports on the London CPS in 2001 and 2003.
I am sure that the Solicitor-General will be the first to acknowledge that the situation in 2001 was dire; the system was closer to collapse than many may have imagined. There were serious failures in the fundamentals of bringing criminals to justice. The police were bringing in the suspects, but the courts were not trying them. Cases were frequently not ready for trial and a high number of cases was discharged because the CPS was not ready to proceed. About 46 per cent. of briefs were not delivered to counsel on time. In 38 per cent. of cases, the CPS was in breach of its statutory duties on disclosure.
Having read my critical remarks, the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote to me, saying that the situation was regularly the fault of witnesses, the police or the courts and not of the Crown Prosecution Service. I was even more surprised when the Solicitor-General wrote to me in similar vein. That prompts the central question: who has overall responsibility for case management? Which Minister accepts responsibility? Does any single Minister accept responsibility? The Solicitor-General's letter, which implies that the worst is behind us, prompted me to secure this debate. I suspect from the tone of the letter that she believes that things are better than they appear on the ground.
Mercifully, the 2003 report paints a more optimistic picture than its 2001 predecessor. However, in the executive summary, there are phrases such as
"there is further work to do…there is still work to be done …there is still some way to go…has not yet fully implemented the national guidance…Issues relating to timeliness of primary disclosure, and the effectiveness of secondary disclosure, still need to be addressed…remains at an unacceptable level".
Those phrases are littered throughout the report and suggest that despite the improvement—and improvements have been made—there is a long way to go. There is more money, and more staff; 100 new lawyers have been recruited. There have been structural changes that should result in more decisions being made at operational levels for the delivery of effective prosecutions. There is a reported improvement in morale.
32WH
However, I continue to have grave concerns about the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service in London. The re-inspection in October 2003 showed that many of the recommendations in the original report were only partially implemented. Considering that we were starting, and I quote from the report,
"in many cases, at a very low level",
that is doubly alarming. The underachievement seems to stem from problems with case ownership and management, staff quality, and effective and timely intervention by managers to identify and remedy inadequate case preparation. In short, there may have been improvements, but the benefits have yet to be seen in court. The Solicitor-General is responsible for all those issues.
Bringing prosecutions to court remains inefficient and costly. Offenders are not brought to justice, witnesses are demotivated and victims lose confidence in the criminal justice system. The reforms in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which unifies the administration of the courts, will do little to solve such practical problems.
I welcome the modest increase in staff recruitment and the reduction in the number of casual staff in the administrative grades Those steps, and the provision of better training and career paths, should help to improve the professionalism of the service. However, they are only small steps, and the report states that the high number of casual staff in administrative grades continues to cause operational difficulties.
In a letter to me on 5 March, the Solicitor-General acknowledges that a collaborative approach to "joining up justice" through multi-agency communication is critical, and I agree. She says that things are getting better as a result, bat I regularly hear reports that files are still not being updated on a timely basis. That results in ineffective days it court because, too often, witnesses are not told the date, so they do not turn up. The CPS does not provide advance information and primary disclosure. It falls to the court to decide whether the interests of justice are served by proceeding in such circumstances. Has it occurred to the Solicitor-General how the victims feel when an adjournment is not granted and the case collapses because the CPS offers no evidence? The public's impression of the judicial system suffers, and justice is not seen to be done.
The report finds that between October 2002 and March 2003, 69.5 per cent.—more than two thirds—of trials in magistrates courts were listed as ineffective. Clearly, collaboration between the police, the criminal justice units, the CPS and the courts is not yet working as well as it should. Yet again, that raises the question not so much of who is responsible but of where overall responsibility for the management of a case lies.
The consequences of inadequate preparation cut both ways. Defendants obviously have the right to a fair trial. If, as the report finds, there are failures in primary and secondary disclosure, it is difficult for a court to refuse to grant an adjournment. That means more cost, more delay and a risk that witnesses will not return to court on a later date. The result is often that there is no prosecution, and police and court time is wasted.
Article 6 of the European convention on human rights deals with the right to a fair trial. Quite properly, it is considered to be against the interests of justice to hear a case when the defence has not been served with

33WH
the information on which the prosecution has relied or has not used because it might under mine its case. That is included in primary disclosure. If that single aspect of case management were improved, a considerable number of case adjournments could be avoided.
The inspectorate's update reported:
"Handling of secondary disclosure generally, and timeliness of primary disclosure in the magistrates' courts, are priorities",
and I am sure that the Solicitor-General will agree. Those words are, however, code for the fact that these remain problem areas, and I would be interested to hear what developments there have been since the report was published.
Defendants seem to have spotted that these problems create a potential loophole. The original report concluded that a higher than average number of defendants in London elected to be tried in the Crown court in either-way cases or to plead not guilty. They do so in anticipation that the CPS will not be ready to proceed at the next hearing. In short, if they spin it out, the case will never come to anything. That is a massive indictment of the system. The 2003 report does not review whether things have changed in that respect, so could the Solicitor-General report on the problem?
In raising concerns about the standard of CPS work, I acknowledge that some of the delays arise as a result of the defence not being ready for court. But the courts have a remedy if a defendant or defence witness declines to come to court when the case is ready to be heard: they can hear the case in the absence of the defendants or defence witnesses, provided that they are satisfied that the defendants or defence witnesses have been given every opportunity to attend. The defence is far less likely to cause a delay than the prosecution.
I am told that COMPASS—the case management IT system—is operational throughout London. In theory, that means that Crown prosecutors and caseworkers can track the progress of cases on screen and take timely action to ensure that the file is ready for court. That is great in theory, but does it actually happen? The Solicitor-General told me that the system is having a significant impact on case ownership and management. It may have been installed on time and on budget—a remarkable feat by this Government's standards—but is it making a difference? By all reports, that difference is not evident on the ground.
Technology is not solving the use of agents, whose deployment in 50 per cent. of cases continues to create its own problems. The report concludes that there is still widespread concern about the quality or preparedness of some agents. Agents do not receive files early enough to prepare for court and, all too of ten, files are missing entirely. Agents claim to be unable to make decisions in court on the ground that they are "just agents". That is a basic problem, and must be addressed.
Regrettably, the advocacy skills of the CPS and its agents are largely unsung by magistrates and Crown court judges whose evaluation is completely swamped by their concerns about the inefficiency and lack of preparedness that result in too many cases being adjourned. The inspectorate's report notes that
"there remain concerns about the quality of some counsel in serious cases and the caseworker cover provided".
34WH
Why? What is going wrong? The Solicitor-General brought to my notice the report's favourable comments on the training given by CPS London to prosecution agents, yet the report also states that
"trial advocacy training has not been provided for CPS prosecutors, a need identified during the course of the last inspection".
Why not? Again, that is basic.
I do not need to tell the Solicitor-General, a fellow London Member of Parliament, that many Londoners are the victims of crime. My constituents in Croydon are no exception. There has been a welcome shift in the criminal justice process to consider the impact of crime on victims, who now have the right to be informed of progress on the prosecution and to make a statement, which can be read out in court, on the impact that the crime has had on them.
The police have received their fair share of brickbats in debates on narrowing the justice gap. However, I commend the Met's introduction of victim and witness focus desks to provide a single point of contact to deal with the needs of victims and witnesses. The work of the court-based witness service to help them to understand how court proceedings work and to encourage them to have the confidence to give evidence is to be applauded, especially as the service is manned by volunteers.
Improvements have been made recently, and I recognise the huge effort that individuals and organisations have made to narrow the justice gap. None the less, crime and the fear of crime are still high on the agenda of London residents. I hope that the CPS in London can build on the progress made to date. The least that we should expect is that prosecutions that are brought to court are heard without delay, and that justice is done and seen to be done.
I did not secure the debate for political advantage. The Solicitor-General knows that I have corresponded with her for several years, and I hoped that there would be a substantial improvement in the period between the two reports. In an area where justice and the application of justice are highly relevant, it is critical that justice is applied as effectively and efficiently as possible. Those of us who have close contacts with magistrates and with people who work in the courts realise how effective they can be. I give the Solicitor-General every support in achieving the objectives, as, I am sure, will my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), but the sad fact is that an awful lot remains to be done.
2.15 pm
Mr. John Burnett: I begin my short contribution by raising a case that is currently being heard. Referring to its merits would be sub judice, so I shall refer only to its existence and the fact that it is taking an inordinate amount of time. As a result of the incompetence of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, the defence, the prosecutors and perhaps even the judge herself, the fraud case involving the Jubilee line extension is taking an inordinate amount of time and vast sums of money are being disbursed in its prosecution. I ask the Solicitor-General to look into the matter urgently.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) rightly talked about Her Majesty's inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service, which is

35WH
an important body of individuals on whose work we must rely. The inspectorate has expressed views about the CPS and its difficulties. I am not sure whether the inspectorate has been able to make a formal inspection and report in relation to Customs and Excise prosecutors. Not too long ago, owing not least to the unhappy events well documented by Mr. Justice Butterfield in his "Review of Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions Conducted by HM Customs and Excise", those prosecutors were brought under the aegis of the Law Officers' Department. I welcome that, but wonder whether there has been an opportunity for the inspectorate to look into that prosecuting service, which is housed in London. If so, has the inspectorate reported and what was the thrust of the report? Perhaps I have missed it. If so, I apologise, although I should like the Solicitor-General to let me have a copy of it.
Before I leave the subject of the inspectorate, I am anxious for the Solicitor-General to say who inspects the small prosecution departments that do not come under her aegis. I believe there is a light-touch relationship between the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, and the prosecutors for the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Inland Revenue and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I am anxious to know who monitors and inspects those bodies to ensure that they do not go on a frolic of their own and that high standards are maintained. There was something seriously wrong with the CPS. I regret to say that things do not seem to have improved substantially, although in fairness there have been some improvements. Attention has been drawn to Lord Justice Glidewell's important report on the CPS, published in 1998. It went to the core of the problems that then afflicted the CPS, both nationally and in London.
In a critical article in The Times on 11 June 2002—I accept that that was two years ago—Mr. Robert McFarland made some compelling points: had there been a fundamental change; were the reforms properly acted on, and had recommendations been properly and completely implemented; and had there been a fundamental shift of emphasis towards the efficiency and standards that we expect from our national prosecution service? As the hon. Member for Croydon, South said, many stories, both in London and nationally, still emanate from the CPS about its inadequacy and lack of proper case preparation, about files being moved from one individual or department to another, and about prosecution failures. Cases such as that of Damilola Taylor, which hon. Members will recall, highlight the relevance of a succession of damning external reports.
Sylvia Denman's report of July 2001 is also relevant. Ironically, it arose as a result of events that took place at the Croydon branch of the CPS, and it is the hon. Member for Croydon, South whom I should congratulate on securing this debate. Sylvia Denman made a number of recommendations on race discrimination in the CPS. I would welcome the Solicitor-General telling us whether those recommendations have been listened to and properly acted on, and that the dreadful events described in
36WH
Sylvia Denman's report will not occur again. There should be a proper ethos in the CPS when it comes to dealing with ethnic minorities.
In December 2001, the inspectorate's report on the CPS in London concluded:
"many of the serious weaknesses we identify can only be addressed through a substantial development and strengthening of both senior and middle management".
In April 2002, a report produced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary on the handling of cases involving allegations of rape concluded that there was a
"need for a more professional approach at the outset if the criminal justice system is to secure more convictions and greater support for current and future victims."
On the CPS's role, the inspectorate said that the
"approach too often tended to be one of only considering any weaknesses, rather than also playing a more proactive role in seeking more information and trying to build or develop the case."
The common themes have been inadequacy and failure. There are too many lawyers who are either overstretched, incompetent, or both. There has been poor management, inadequate IT systems and an inability for the three pillars of the criminal justice process—the police. the CPS and the courts—to work together effectively.
There has been much criticism, but I want to end on a more positive note, because it is essential to realise, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South said, that the CPS is not a party political football that we are kicking about. It is important that the public have every confidence in the justice system, every confidence that prosecutions are being brought competently and conscientiously, and every confidence that a system is in place to secure the conviction of the guilty and ensure the acquittal of the innocent. I am anxious to hear the Solicitor-General say that the thrust of Lord Justice Glidewell's three main recommendations will be met and for her to tell us when that will happen so that greater priority is given to more serious cases, so that we have a new organisation, structure and style of management, and so that we establish firmly the proper role of the CPS in the criminal justice process.
2.25 pm
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on securing the debate. He spoke about the thorough nature of the review and has followed the performance of the CPS in London over a significant period by asking questions and corresponding with Ministers and others.
Serious matters have been raised and both policy and operational issues have been mentioned. Although we are debating the CPS in London, the question arises as to what extent its problems are reflected around the country. For instance, the London inspectorate report of October 2003 refers to high proportions of casual staff, even though London CPS staff are paid more than non-London staff. Is the high cost of living in the capital having a detrimental effect on recruitment, or is London CPS losing trained and senior staff to other public bodies like the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Serous Fraud Office?

37WH
Historically, it was generally accepted that when the CPS was founded in 1986 the quality of its staff was lacking, not least because of the initial need to recruit a lot of people quickly. However, mangy now think that the quality of staff, particularly outside London, has been steadily improving. There is no shortage of quality recruits coming to the CPS in Cambridgeshire. Is there some particular problem in London to which the Solictor-General can point?
Another thing that has been nagging me is the extent to which the Government know what is happening on the ground. It is not just a case of whether they know what is going on, but which Department takes responsibility for the CPS on the ground. My hon. Friend reiterated the point made in the inspectorate's report of October 2003: London has an unacceptable problem with discharge committals and with cracked and ineffective trials in the Crown curt.
In a written answer on how many cases brought before the CPS had been dropped and for what reasons, the Solicitor-General admitted:
"The Crown Prosecution Service holds no historical records showing why cases did not proceed".—[Official Report, 15 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 7W.]
Will she confirm that that information could be provided for new cases? More specifically, is that situation related to the practicalities of only recently introducing computerised case-management systems? Does she have any information to share with us on how computerisation is likely to improve the quantity and quality of case management? To what extent is there still a problem with CPS staff not having the necessary computer skills to use the equipment? What is being done to remedy that? Why are the offices of our criminal prosecutors only now being computerised?
There is no doubt that London has specific problems. From March 2001 to March 2003, the annual cases handled per CPS lawyer fell from 674 to 458 and the number of committals for trial per CPS lawyer fell from 60 to 50. That was despite the number of lawyers rising from 240 to 350 and running costs increasing from £35 million to £47.5 million. Those statistics follow an emerging pattern for all public services over recent years. With more staff comes more expense but lower productivity.
How do the Government propose to reverse the state of affairs within the CPS? They have made some proposals. One of the more bizarre proposals is to change the name of the Crown Prosecution Service to the public prosecution service. Where do we stand on that name change? If it does go ahead, how much will the rebranding cost? Will the Crown remain as the prosecuting party, and if it does, what is the point of the name change? Another interesting proposal made by the Attorney-General recently is that the career paths of the CPS staff should be reviewed to encourage talented people to join up—for instance, by enabling CPS staff to become judges. Will the Solicitor-General elaborate on those proposals? Has she considered the human rights implications of CPS lawyers who are employed by the state acting as part-time judges?
Another problem is that in some types of crime, such as organised crime or animal rights terrorism, specialist teams of defence solicitors and counsel have been going around the country and outgunning local non-
38WH
experienced CPS lawyers. Will the Solicitor-General elaborate on the proposed moves to set up specialist groups of prosecutors to take on specialist cases? Will those teams be based in London, and if they are, will they be a separate body or pulled from regional teams case by case? Does the Solicitor-General foresee that the future effectiveness and productivity of the CPS could be improved through specialisation?
One London CPS problem that comes through strongly in the October 2003 inspectorate report is that work remains to be done on leadership and governance. The inspectorate acknowledged that a new Government framework was being developed, with the intention of devolving accountability and responsibility to geographically based sectors. It would help if the Solicitor-General could provide an update on how that process is developing and if she would comment on the inspectorate's finding that there is still work to be done on people and performance management skills.
My understanding is that the CPS is to be permitted to take the decision to charge, rather than receive the papers only after the police have made such a decision. That seems eminently sensible, as it has the potential to reduce tension between the police and the CPS and reduce duplication of effort. However, the proposed roll-out of the plan seems to be somewhat haphazard, with only two London areas operating the new scheme. Can the Solicitor-General confirm whether the costing of the scheme in London, and around the country, has been properly worked out? For example, how many more CPS lawyers and CPS caseworkers will be required to be based in police stations?
We should deal with more than just operational and management issues. Above all, there are policy and confidence issues to consider. If members of the public do not think that the CPS is prosecuting fast enough or well enough, that creates a confidence problem in our criminal justice system. I recently received a letter from a lady who had been mugged in broad daylight as she left a shop. The woman stole her handbag, which contained her cheque book. By the time the police identified the assailant, which they did by tracking down the six stolen and forged cheques, the mugger was already in prison having had 120 other offences taken into consideration. The CPS, following national guidelines, refused to prosecute her for the six new offences, saying that it went against its overriding duty of fairness. If the offences that had been taken into consideration had been 126 rather than 120, would the sentence have been worse? The CPS said no. The victim, however, was staggered that the criminal could not be prosecuted for the crimes committed against her. After all the hassle and upset of helping the police in their investigation, she was left thinking, "Why did I bother telling the police? What good did it do me? I have come off worse."
The system seems to be wrong. Yet again, we see the law working in favour of the criminal rather than the victim, while the CPS takes the blame for a failure in national policy. I am interested to hear what plans, if any, the Solicitor-General has for strengthening the case in favour of victims and for the CPS to prosecute on that basis.
It seems that there are other proposals to improve contact between the CPS and witnesses—for instance, to inform them of the progress of a case. That is necessary

39WH
not only for compassionate reasons but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, because it would help to ensure that people turn up and court time would not be wasted. It is a good idea, but no one seems to know what it would involve. We may be wiser were the Solicitor-General to elaborate on that. Has the she considered making a statement on the future of the CPS and the reorganisation proposals? A full debate on the subject would be worth while.
2.36 pm
The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on opening the debate, and on bringing the matter to our attention. He had some sharp things to say about the Crown Prosecution Service in London, but I welcome the opportunity to respond, because we all agree that these are important matters for Londoners. It is important that those who might be victims of crime should feel that justice will be done; and it is important that the public in London should have confidence that justice will be done. That is also a major deterrent; if people think that they are going to be caught and brought to justice, they are less likely to commit crime. I am sure that we all agree on the seriousness to Londoners of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.
I am the Minister accountable for the CPS in London. Hon. Members will be aware that the CPS is independent. It bases its prosecution decisions on the evidence in each case, but it also takes account of whether a prosecution is in the public interest. However, although its decisions are made independently, the CPS is a public service and is accountable to the House through me. I exercise close and careful superintendence over the CPS in London. I have to remember at all times that although Members of Parliament and the public want the CPS in London to be accountable, they also want it to be independent. They do not want me or any other Minister taking such decisions. I walk a fine line of proactive supervision without trespassing on the prosecutor's independence.
Richard Ottaway: The approach set out by the Solicitor-General is right, but it is not the answer to my question: who is the responsible Minister? I was looking at the wider issue, mainly framed around the letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. The letter said that the CPS is not responsible for the delays, but that they are caused by witnesses, the police and other factors beyond its control. My question was aimed at finding out which Minister is responsible for the overall picture.
The Solicitor-General: I hope to answer as many of the hon. Gentleman's questions as possible, including the one of which he has just reminded me. I hope also to answer the questions put by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett); and I welcome to his position as shadow Solicitor-General the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). If I have not answered all their questions by the end of the debate, I undertake to do so in writing. However, I listened carefully to the points raised, and 1 shall set about answering them.
40WH
Having described the overall framework, I should explain that in London the police are accountable to the House through Home Office Ministers and the Home Secretary. The courts in London are responsible through the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie). However, when all is said and done, nobody in London wants to hear it sail that something has not happened because "It is not our responsibility, it is somebody else's". Nobody will think that we have a fantastic police force if there is a problem with the CPS or the courts, as a result of which ofenders are not brought to justice. The point was strongly made in the Glidewell report that although the CPS and the courts need to maintain their independence, they have to work together in close partnership. Nobody wants to hear either organisation claim that it played its part and so if something has gone wrong it is the fault of somebody else. That is no good to anybody; it serves only to undermine public confidence.
I acknowledge that there have been problems. They were detailed in the December 2001 inspectorate report that the hon. Member for Croydon, South mentioned. I stand by what I have said to him in person and in letters: the situation is improving. Let me explain how and why. So that cases do no fall through the gaps between the police and the CPS or between the CPS and the courts, various parts of the criminal justice system in London are working together in much closer partnership. Each borough now has a criminal justice group, comprising the police, the CPS and the courts. They are working together at borough level to ensure that more offenders are brought to justice, that there is a better deal for victims and that there is greater public confidence.
That is not an airy theoretical position. The agencies are working together in every borough. That is replicated London-wide: the chief Crown prosecutor, Dru Sharpling, the Metropolitan police, the courts and the probation service work together across London's criminal justice system. Inter-agency co-operation and partnership is cemented at borough and national level. That is new; it used not to happen. I remember that, when I first became Solicitor-General, a complaint about a case would go to the police in the first instance. The police would claim that it was the responsibility of the CPS, which had messed it up, and the complaint would be passed along the line. The focus is now much more on working together to get things right, rather than working separately to apportion responsibility.
Such co-operation occurs not only at borough level and London-wide but also among Ministers. Baroness Scotland at the Home Office, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, and I meet monthly, as do the heads of the agencies, to monitor the progress of the criminal justice system in London. That, too, is new; individual Ministers used not to keep such a close watch on individual London agencies. Now we not only do that, but we work toy ether to try to ensure that progress can be made. I thank all who work at borough and at London level, in particular the chair of the London criminal justice board, Dru Sharpling, for the new work that has been done to develop that partnership. It is producing results and will continue to do so.
In response to the proposals in the Glidewell report, there are now trial units for separate, specific consideration of more serious cases, backed up London-

41 WH
wide by a casework directorate in London dealing with the most specialist and serious cases. There has been a big change in management in the London CPS. The Attorney-General and I have full confidence in those who are leading the CPS in London. I hope that the results that are coming through will inspire more confidence than has been shown by hon. Members.
Mr. Burnett: I thank the Solicitor General for giving way. With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to welcome the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) to his new role and congratulate him on his appointment.
Obviously, it is important to have strong leadership and example. It is also vital to have continuity. If staff are coming and going, that is disastrous. If files are partly prepared by one person and then handed on to another, it is difficult to mount a successful case. What is important is good leadership, quality of staff and continuity, and a real endeavour at work. I hope that that is what is going on.
The Solicitor-General: I agree with all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. Djanogly: Further to the previous intervention, the Solicitor-General said that she holds meetings on a monthly basis to discuss the CPS in London. The management issues that the inspectorate said were a problem were occurring until October 2003, so will she explain how they have improved sir ce the full report?
The Solicitor-General: I will.
I agree with the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon that what is needed is strong leadership, a confident team of lawyers who are ably supported, and continuity on cases. I will address all those points in due course.
One of the problems in the CPS in London was simply that there were not enough lawyers. With the best will in the world, if there are too many cases per lawyer, there will not be a good quality of case preparation, so if there are more lawyers, that leads not to lower productivity but to better case preparation. The Government are committed to have more lawyers in the CPS, and we have made progress on that nationally, and particularly in London. Since 2001, when I became Solicitor-General, there has been a 49 per cent. increase in the number of lawyers in London. Lawyers should have time to prepare their cases properly.
When new people arrive it takes them time to bed in; obviously, they are not as experienced as those who have been around for 20 years. However, there has been a big increase in lawyers, and, interestingly, there has also been such a close correlation between that increase and an increase in guilty pleas that one would think that the lines that mark those rises were the same. The hon. Member for Huntingdon made a fair point when he said that some people may plead not guilty hoping that their case will fall by the wayside. When there were more lawyers in the CPS in London there were more guilty pleas because solicitors were clearly advising their clients to enter a guilty plea early it order to get the full discount for that, because the case might not fall apart and that would result in them being convicted.
42WH
I am sure that there being more lawyers has led to higher quality case preparation, to the ability to focus more on the interests and concerns of victims and witnesses, and to a greater likelihood of solicitors advising their clients that they will probably face justice if they are guilty, so if they are guilty the best thing to do is to plead guilty.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South said that CPS advocacy is unsung by magistrates and Crown court judges. We need to unpick that a bit. In my view, and in the view of CPS London, the DPP and the Attorney-General, it is not a good idea to have a high number of solicitor agents in the magistrates court. It is much better if our own prosecutors can be in court, prosecuting their own cases, which they know and understand, and on which they can make a decision. Magistrates say that they like the person who appears before them to be someone who knows what is going on in a case, rather than someone who tells them they must pop out and make a phone call, and then returns with the news that the prosecutor is not there, so they cannot get a decision.
Because we have more lawyers, we have needed to use fewer independent solicitor agents. The number of designated caseworkers has also increased. Those are people who are not qualified solicitors but who can be in court, representing cases at certain stages of the process. As well as more CPS advocacy, which is welcomed, and more designated caseworkers, there are more higher court advocates. Those are prosecutors in the Crown Prosecution Service, rather than the independent Bar, who can take a case through various stages, including, sometimes, up to trial in the Crown court. Instead of the Crown Prosecution Service instructing independent counsel, the prosecutor, properly trained as a higher court advocate, will conduct the case.
Mr. Burnett: I am encouraged by what the Solicitor-General says. I believe that it is wrong to take a merely accounting view of such matters. Nevertheless, we are here to ensure that there is value for money. One pointer to that will be the savings gained by using the Crown Prosecution Service to carry out its own advocacy, instead of hiving the work out to independent counsel. It would be interesting if the Solicitor-General could, in a few months' time, produce some statistics to show the savings made.
In addition, the Solicitor-General mentioned a 49 per cent. increase in the number of lawyers. I should like to know the figures for cases handled per lawyer, immediately before she was appointed and now. I should also like to know the number of successful prosecutions per lawyer, then and now.
The Solicitor-General: I do not have those figures with me, but I undertake to give them to the hon. Gentleman. However, I said that the number of guilty pleas, which he may count as successful prosecutions, had increased, and I believe that there is a correlation between that result and the increase in the number of lawyers.
I said something about CPS lawyers routinely doing their own advocacy in the magistrates court and increasingly working in the Crown court, and I want to mention the quality of CPS lawyers. I want to put this as delicately as I can, but sometimes the legal profession

43WH
outside the CPS has not been as fair as it should have been to lawyers within it. The law is a chronically hierarchical profession and those at the independent Bar sometimes feel that they are the crème de la crème and that anyone who is not at the independent Bar, and heading towards the judiciary, is second rate.
I challenge that view. Many people in the Crown Prosecution Service have chosen it, and do an excellent job. They are not people who could not make it at the independent Bar. They believe in what they are doing, which is very important, and they do it to an excellent standard. Many CPS lawyers are women who have chosen to work for the service rather than the independent Bar, not least because the latter requires people to go zooming around the country at the drop of a hat. People in the CPS believe in the work that they do, and some find that the lack of family friendliness, and various other aspects of the independent Bar, make working for the CPS much more desirable.
Sixty-five per cent. of lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service are women. I am not prepared to hear that those lawyers are less good than lawyers outside the CPS. They might not look or sound like a High Court judge, but are their legal brains any less good? I would say not. We must recognise that there has been a lot of snobbery about the CPS in the legal profession.
The CPS should be held to account, and individual cases and statistics from across cases should be carefully considered. We should account to Parliament for what the CPS does, and it is right that Members such as the hon. Member for Croydon, South should not only take up individual cases but look across the piece. However, we must also guard against the sense that the CPS is the poor relation in the law. I have looked at CPS branches, trial units and prosecutors in court, and I have talked to people, and I would be very depressed if they were as they have been described. In reality, however, I am always struck by the contrast with how they are seen from outside.
Mr. Djanogly rose
The Solicitor-General: I am going to deal with the inspectorate's report. In fact, I feel that I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question before he even asks it.
Mr. Djanogly: I thank the Solicitor-General for giving way and for her mind-reading, but I wanted to ask about a different issue. She is not wrong about the way in which the legal profession views the CPS, and I agree with most of what she says, but I return to the issue of specialisation. In an age of specialisation, in which big money goes into defence teams, is there not a need for specialisation in what, generally speaking, is a proficient organisation?
The Solicitor-General: I have made a note of the hon. Gentleman's point and I will deal with it.
We could build confidence in the criminal justice system if people thought that it understood them, and that judges and prosecuting counsels understood a great variety of different walks of life. Public confidence in the
44WH
justice system has been held back because of the narrow cadre of people from which the judiciary is chosen. That is why I very much support the progress that the Attorney-General is making in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs in opening up to CPS lawyers the possibility of taking up judicial appointments. That will give us a much more diverse judiciary—more women, more people from ethnic minorities and, heaven forbid, more people who did not go to public school. Those involved in court cases will see that the people on the bench are more like themselves. They will see that the criminal justice system, and the justice system generally, is fair, rather than narrow and elitist. Such steps will also widen the pool of people who can be put into the judiciary.
Of course, the human rights issues have been considered. Prosecutors employed by the CPS will not judge in CPS cases, but there are many other tribunals—immigration tribunals, tribunals dealing with Customs cases and courts martial—in which a prosecutor can build up part-time judicial experience before taking a full-time appointment. We are making progress on the issue, and the result will be good. That will also tackle the problem of people thinking that they will have to leave the CPS and go to the independent Bar if they want to join the judiciary. We do not want to lose some of the most advanced advocates because they feel that they will not be able to go into the judiciary if they stay at the CPS.
The CPS is taking forward its law scholarship scheme, which enables people who may have no post-school qualifications to train as lawyers. Again, that is diversifying the legal profession, which, although it has been diversifying, still comprises a relatively narrow group of people. We want everybody with the necessary commitment and intellect to have the opportunity to become a lawyer.
All hon. Members who spoke mentioned victims and witnesses. There are two reasons why we should take special care with them. First, it is a matter of principle. It is horrible to be tho victim of a crime, and victims need proper support. They do not want to be in a system that makes them feel worse. Secondly, even witnessing a crime can be a horrible experience, and going to court can be daunting. We need to be supportive, nice, helpful and kind to victims and witnesses not only as a matter of principle but because trials will collapse if they do not give evidence. If we want to bring offenders to justice, it is practical to provide better support for victims and witnesses.
The police and the CPS are working in partnership to staff focus desks that keep victims and witnesses in touch with the progress of their cases. We do not want to return to the situation in which people read the results of their cases in newspapers because no one had told them what had happened.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South asked whether it had occurred to me how victims feel when they go to court and their cases collapse. I agree that that is a problem. The Government are strongly focused on it and are giving greater attention and support to victims and witnesses. A great many things are being done to ensure that witnesses are warned in advance, kept in touch with developments in their cases and given better support. I pay tribute to the witness service, which is improving what it can offer in terms of pre-trial visits to

45WH
the court, so that witnesses and victims see courtrooms and have everything explained in advance. That is particularly important in Crown court cases.
Mr. Djanogly: On dealing with victims and witnesses more humanely and efficiently, the problem is that when they are not dealt with in a way that they feel is appropriate, they have a sense of helplessness and do not know to whom they should speak. That has come through to me in correspondence from constituents. The lines of communication between MPs and the local CPS can be a tenuous way of getting answers. Has the Solicitor-General set her mind to that issue, whose importance is widely reflected across the country?
The Solicitor-General: Yes, I have. The joint work between the police and the CPS on additional victim support provides victims with a single point of contact and regularly updates them on case progress. That is important not only so that people clan be kept informed as a matter of courtesy, but so that my difficulties with transport or any other problems hat might prevent them from getting to court are dealt with in advance, which avoids unnecessary adjournments. Those issues are being carefully considered and progress is being made.
COMPASS and the computer system were mentioned, and I was asked whether I know what is going on in CPS London. As a result of the introduction of COMPASS, there is a much greater ability to manage cases effectively and with greater accountability. When we first came into government, there was no computerisation at all: no one had a screen on their desk. That was six years ago, and we have made progress since then. Now that COMPASS has been rolled out and everyone has been trained to use it, there is less paperwork and it is easier to track trials. We are also better able to look at the figures and discuss the rate of discharge committals, discontinuances, ineffective trials and witnesses not turning up. We could not have had that discussion before because everybody would be speaking on the basis of anecdote. Now we have much greater accountability and the police, the courts and the CPS are all working from the same figures. Therefore, we can work out what the problems are and see whether or not the situation is improving Discontinuance is when the CPS discontinues a case. The discontinuance rate in London is down. Discharge committals are also down and conviction rates are up. That is the direction of travel. We can monitor those rates and will continue to do so.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South asked about hearing trials in absence. The most important thing is to make it clear to defendants that they must turn up because if they do not they might be penalised for an offence under the Bail Act 1976 or have their trial heard in their absence. The Attorney-General has been liaising with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on that and the London Criminal Justice Board has considered how widespread the warnings are to defendants that if they do not turn up, they can be tried in their absence.
Hon. Members talked about the inspectorate reports—the original one in December 2001 and the reinspection in 2003. Of course, there is more progress
46WH
to be made, but it is clear from examining those reports that huge progress has been made. We can have confidence that progress will continue to be made because we have strong leadership in CPS London. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Croydon, South shakes his head, but if he examines the direction of travel, and compares the 2001 report with the November 2003 report, he will see the improvement, and things have continued to improve since then.
The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about discontinuances, but, as I said, they are down, and he should acknowledge that that is good. If he is concerned about discharge committals being down, I can say that that situation is improving, which is good. If he wants the conviction rate to increase and the numbers of offenders who are brought to justice to increase, I can say that that is happening. The direction of travel should be looked at and we should ask ourselves whether things are improving and there is a sustained improvement. All of us would always like things to go faster, but the building blocks are in place and things are undoubtedly improving steadily.
Richard Ottaway: I acknowledge that the direction in which things are going is the right one. However, there is a grave danger that the Solicitor-General is going to believe her own rhetoric, which is not satisfactory. If she has time, perhaps in her car on the way back to her Ministry, she should read the overview to the 2003 report. It is only four pages long and will take her five minutes to read. Every paragraph, summarising every aspect, criticises, in a most serious and emphatic way, what is going on.
The Solicitor-General: Of course I have read the overview. I talked to the inspectors and know exactly what is going on. I did not say that everything is perfect, but that the building blocks are in place. There are more lawyers, computerisation, better partnership, and more focus on victims and witnesses. The hon. Gentleman must agree that those are building blocks, and they are in place and showing results. The further proposals in the reinspection report produced by the London inspectorate are being acted on. Nobody is resting on their laurels. People are working their socks off to create the improvements to which the public are entitled and which we all want to see.
Mr. Djanogly: Although I do not deny that people are working their socks off, it might aid my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South if the Solicitor-General could examine the four pages of the conclusion to the report and write to us. I do not think that there is enough time now to run through the conclusions and address the issues that they raise, to see how we have moved on from October last year.
The Solicitor-General: I shall certainly send anybody any letters that they might like to receive. However, I hope that I can do better than that. Since the inspection on which the report was based, lawyers have been introduced into police stations and have been advising them on charges so that the case can be got right from the outset. As a result, the discontinuance rate has fallen by 16 per cent.
I am not being complacent, believing my own rhetoric or being over-optimistic. I am looking at the figures from 2001, from the 2003 report and since that report. I am not saying that we are virtually there; we still have a long way to go. However, the building blocks are in place. No one is going to sit back and assume that things will get better continuously, of their own volition. It all has to be worked at, but we need not have an apocalyptic view of what is going on. The hon. Member for Croydon, South talked about the situation being close to collapse, and I would not want people to take that view because that is not the case.
Sylvia Denman's report was very much under discussion when I first took office in 2001. There has been intensive work to improve relations between staff and to improve the recruitment and promotion of ethnic minority staff within CPS London, and to produce better relations between CPS London and the community that it serves.
I was also asked about specialist prosecutors, which have been established in the past few years. As a result of one of the inspectorate reports, every rape case—I think that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon mentioned rape cases—is dealt with by a specialist prosecutor. The intention is that they should be handled from beginning to end, and that is what happens in nearly all cases. The same specialist deals with a case from beginning to end in order to have continuity.
We also have training for all prosecutors in dealing with domestic violence, it being so prevalent, and each branch has a domestic violence specialist who can liaise on domestic violence with outside organisations and collate information, while acting as a point of reference for their colleagues in the CPS. There is specialism on street crime, as part of the street crime initiative. A team of specialist animal rights prosecutors have been dealing with animal rights extremists. A ministerial committee brings together the DTI and all the Departments concerned. The Attorney-General sits on that committee and has pulled together a team of specialist prosecutors to deal with this very tricky manifestation of an unpleasant set of offences.
Specialists are considering how we can deal with crimes that present particular challenges. I pay tribute in particular to those who have been working so hard to tackle the problem of bringing to justice those who are guilty of domestic violence and rape. They are never going to be easy crimes to prosecute, but a great deal of work is going into it. We have to continue that work if we are to see an improvement.
One of the things that I also hope will build confidence in the CPS and in the criminal justice system in general is better engagement with the community. Since I have been Member of Parliament for Camberwell and Peckham, the relationship between the local community and the police has been transformed, particularly after the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. That has paid dividends because people have been more prepared to give evidence to the police and to report crimes.
It is important, too, that the CPS engages with the community, while keeping its independence. It should be prepared to go to schools, to invite people to visit it
48WH
and to talk about the work that it does. That does not mean discussing individual cases and whether we should or should not prose cute, but it should at least talk about the work that it does. For many people, the CPS has been a bit of a mystery, heard about only when it is blamed for a problem that arises at the end of a case. That has been a problem.
The CPS has been getting out and about, trying to engage with the community in London. However, part of that community engagement is a two-way process. As Members of Parliament, we are all used to going to see our commander of police; that is the first thing we do. If there is an issue with a big hospital, we go to see the chair of the trust board and the chief executive, and we go to see the head teachers of our local schools. We would certainly do that before complaining about them in the newspapers.
The problem is that there has not been an understanding relationship between Members of Parliament and the Crown Prosecution Service. Members on both sides of the House need to recognise that the CPS can talk to MPs and that MPs can talk to the CPS, without trespassing on its independence. The hon. Member for Croydon, South would then at least have the chance of hearing the CPS's view on the problems that he might want to raise. Everybody has a right to raise anything in the House and in the newspapers, but I contrast how people deal with the police, hospitals and schools with how they deal with the CPS. That contrast exists partly because the CPS is seen by many as faceless and people do not know who their local chief Crown prosecutor is.
Richard Ottaway: The Solicitor-General will be aware that I have studiously avoided going to the press and have kept our correspondence private during the past three years. Will she deal with the specific problem of primary and secondary disclosure? That is the real weak spot and she has not yet addressed it.
The Solicitor-General: I was not taking a sideswipe at the hon. Gentleman; I was merely saying that people need to get to know each other. Just as the police and the prosecutors need to get to know each other to work in partnership, we, as accountable Members of Parliament, need to get to know the prosecutors to understand the work that they are doing. I was not in any way, shape or form criticising him.
There is a new protocol on disclosure. Hardly a day goes by without the Attorney-General thinking about disclosure, and I have plenty of notes on the subject. It is an issue. We need to be sure that disclosure is properly dealt with before a case comes to trial in a magistrates court or the Crow n court. That is why the case preparation project, which involves certifying a case as ready for trial, is so important. It ensures that a person does not get to court and find that the case has to be adjourned because certain issues are raised. Disclosure is very important. It is not an easy issue; it is very difficult. However, the police and prosecutors are working closer on it and trip wires are in place to ensure that disclosure takes place before a case is certified as ready for trial.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon asked about other prosecuting departments. He is right that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is subject to

49WH
the Law Officers, although it belongs to the Department for Transport. Similarly, the Health and Safety Executive looks to the Law Officers, as do the Environment Agency and courts martial. That is different from the CPS.
Mr. Burnett: I know under whose aegis which prosecutor lies. The CPS is inspected by Her Majesty's inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service. I am anxious to know who monitors and inspects the small prosecution departments.
The Solicitor-General: I know that the hon. Gentleman is asking about inspections, but before I deal with that, I want to add the Serious Fraud Office to my list of agencies that report to the Law Officers.
The cases of the smaller prosecution departments are subject to audit; they do not have an inspectorate in the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service does. Reviews of individual cases or systems will be conducted from time to time, but there is no separate inspectorate to consider prosecutions by either the Maritime and Coastguard Agency or the Health and Safety Executive, because the number of cases is small. However, the Attorney-General and I superintend such agencies and meet routinely to consider all the issues arising. Indeed, I have a meeting with Environment Agency prosecutors this afternoon after the debate.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked whether there should be a prosecution when a victim has suffered a crime, but the defendant has in the meantime been imprisoned for something else. Such cases will have fallen foul not of the evidential test, but of the public interest test. We must consider whether prosecuting such cases would he in the public interest. I agree that it is unsatisfactory to tell victims that bringing to justice someone who is already in prison will not make any difference, but there is a record of the offence even if they are not prosecuted for committing it.
The National Criminal Justice Board has discussed the issue. The manner in which the public interest aspect of the code for Crown prosecutors is put into effect is
50WH
being reconsidered. We cannot say that we should focus on victims, but still be able to tell them, "Well, you might have suffered that crime, but we're not going to prosecute because he's already guilty of so many other offences". That is a justified grievance, but it is at least on the way to being dealt with.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked about the name change, which is being discussed. The Crown Prosecution Service has been transformed. It is making moves earlier in the process by giving advice on the charge and then deciding on it. The service is broadening its role in the middle of the process, with extra support and involvement of victims and witnesses, and with CPS advocates going into court. The CPS is involved further on in the process, advising the judge or magistrate about the appropriate sentence and challenging factually erroneous mitigation. All that, in addition to computerisation, more lawyers, designated case workers and the judicial appointment commission, has involved enormous changes in the service in the past few years.
Such change can be encapsulated by redescribing the Crown Prosecution Service, which, as I have said, is a bit of a mystery for most people. We can explain the system by saying, "This is the public prosecution service". That would also help people to understand what the service does. The fact that I, for instance, appear on behalf of the Crown is well known to hon. Members, but it is baffling to people outside the House. People should understand that the CPS prosecutes in the public interest and has gone through many changes, and a future change might involve the name change.
I am confident that there is sustained progress. Is there more work to be done? Of course there is. However, I conclude by thanking those dedicated, hard-working lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service in London, many of whom do successful and important work, but who are rarely thanked and almost never in public. I want them to go from strength to strength.
3.24 pm
Sitting suspended

Further Education (North Oxfordshire)
3.30 pm
Tony Baldry: Usually, in debates about funding, hon. Members present the Minister with a long shopping list of items that require additional funding. I have a shopping list, but there are only two things on it. The first is that the forthcoming comprehensive spending review should close what Ministers themselves acknowledge to be an unfair funding gap between schools and colleges. The second could well save Ministers money in the long term, if a unique bid for a college in Banbury is accepted.
To ensure clarity about what I am asking for, for north Oxfordshire, I have let the Minister have an advance copy of my comments. I know from previous experience that the Minister is courteous and conscientious, and I hope that that has given him and his officials an opportunity to look into the matters that I want to raise.
Colleges are imperative to improving the education and skills of young people and adults alike. There are only two ways of teaching vocational and educational skills—either through 14 to 16-year-old schools or at colleges. For 14 to 16-year olds, schools remain the institution most likely to give such opportunities. However, for 16 to 19-year-olds, colleges are vital. More than a third of 16 to 18-year-olds explicitly chose to study at a local college rather than a local school last year.
Colleges are also crucial to the training of adults. The Government have made a lot of noise about improving adult learning and skills, which I very much welcome. In some areas of my constituency, such as Grimsbury and Neithrop, more than half of adults have not always had the opportunity to acquire qualifications and skills. That skills shortage problem is the reason why a new further education college to be based in Banbury is so important. Given that, last year, colleges helped nearly 400,000 adults improve their basic numeracy and literacy skills, it is really only a college that can help adults in north Oxfordshire, in the fullest possible sense.
None of what I am asking for can happen without basic Government funding. Colleges are clearly achieving much, but those achievements are gained in the face of comparatively little support from Government budgets. It is confusing that colleges such as Oxford and Cherwell college, which covers north Oxfordshire, derive a third of their funding from sources other than the Learning and Skills Council, the Government's chosen mechanism for distributing moneys for further education. I might quote some figures on this, to the effect that
"if we compare like with like—if we compare the funding rate for an A-level in a school with that in an FE or sixth form college—we see that for 2002–03, there was about a 10 per cent. gap—£734 for schools, and £663 for FE colleges."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 18 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 223WH.]
Those are not my words but those of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills. It is astonishing that the Minister can tell us that the Banbury campus and the Oxford and Cherwell college in my constituency receive almost £100 less to teach the same A-level course to similar students, simply on account of being a college, not a school. That means that
52WH
one third of colleges, including Oxford and Cherwell college, are running with a continuing and growing deficit. It means, further, that even if Oxford and Cherwell was able to raise its share of the money to build a new and improved college at Banbury, getting funding from the Government would become doubly difficult.
Doubtless, when the Minister responds, he will allude to the increases in funding that colleges have received in the past year. Of course, I welcome such increases, as does the chief executive of the Oxford and Cherwell college. However, as she explained to me when we recently met, colleges continue to be relatively underfunded. Any I funding increases are lower than the increases that are being given to schools. She relied on figures that are supported by the Association of Colleges, showing that whereas colleges in Oxfordshire are expected to receive a 19 per cent. increase in funding, schools in Oxfordshire have benefited from a 60 per cent. rise in funding. That is more than double. Yet colleges have to meet many of the same Government targets as schools and the disadvantages run far deeper for colleges than that evident funding gap.
Let us consider the cash flow at Oxford and Cherwell college. I apologise to the House for listing it in detail, as it is not particularly gripping stuff; however, it illustrates clearly how even a relatively low increase in funding to colleges, compared to schools, is soon eaten up by additional costs that schools do not face.
Last year, Oxfordshire FE colleges paid more than £1 million in VAT. Schools are not even charged VAT. Given that they are often offering the same A-levels, it is monstrously unfair that colleges should be subject to VAT. Oxford and Cherwell also had to pay more than £250,000 in consultancy fees, covering costs such as accountancy and IT equipment. Yet colleges are unfairly excluded on any major Government procurement programmes for things like IT equipment. Instead, colleges have to go it alone at extra cost.
The Association of Colleges estimates that going it alone will create another deficit of £40 million between the funding that colleges receive from the Government, and the costs that they actually incur. Consultancy is also costly for colleges because of the increasing amount of regulation and auditing to which they are exposed. Much of that auditing is also astonishingly unfair, not least in relation to the registration of students.
The bureaucracy of just registering a student is mind blowing: Oxford and Cherwell college has fallen foul of the registering scheme, which meant that, last year, it taught up to 100 students without being able to prove that it had done so under the new registering system that has only recently been introduced. It therefore lost more than £250,000 in funding for those students. It can ill afford to lose £250.000 simply because of an almost annual change in the way in which colleges have been regulated. It also pat s, as part of its cash flow, £500,000 on building maintenance. That is not to improve the buildings, but to ensure that they do not fall down.
Schools will receive more than £5 billion to help to improve their buildings in the next year, but colleges throughout England will, incomprehensibly, receive less than £400 million. Oxford and Cherwell college has also had to face a I per cent. rise in national insurance costs. Unlike schools, however, it has not had the necessary funding to fill that gap. Colleges have also faced a 5.5 per

53WH
cent. increase in pensions contributions. Again, the Government have not helped them to cover those new costs in the same way in which they have helped schools.
It is crystal clear that there is a far from level playing field between schools and colleges. Evidently, there is very little of anything left in the pot for colleges after their basic costs and new burdens of bureaucracy have been deducted. As a result, there is considerable uncertainty for colleges. Uncertainly means instability, which leads to an inability to plan for the future. Not being able to plan for the future leaves colleges behind, while schools can continue to expand. This is starkly illustrated in north Oxfordshire.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), and I recently attended the opening of a new technology centre at the excellent Warriner school in Bloxham. That is great news. Likewise, one of the best performing schools in my patch, Blessed George Napier school, unveiled plans this year for an impressive new sports centre. That is brilliant news for the school and the community alike. However, it could not contrast more starkly with the future of FE facilities in Banbury. Half the adult population in some areas of my constituency clearly need the opportunity to develop their education and skills at colleges, so we need further commitment to this important area of education. What makes matters worse still for colleges in Oxfordshire is that whenever they have provided the detailed plans that the Government have requested, those plans have been abandoned by the LSC.
One of the welcome reforms that were introduced as part of Government's "Success fog All" White Paper was the introduction of three-year planning and budgeting, which promised some stability in the system. However, the imposition of cuts to the provisional allocations, even where colleges have delivered successfully against targets, will create considerable instability and call into question the viability of the new system. Moreover, several colleges have told me that they will have to reconsider their ability to make pay rises in 2004–05 if they have to face budget cuts introduced by the LSC.
Colleges that are planning or executing capital programmes to modernise their facilities will now have to deal with a new area of uncertainty, which could create a problem in securing or retaining borrowing. Oxfordshire colleges drew up their three-year plan with the help of the LSC, and agreed with the LSC that their budgets would grow by 6 per cent. They agreed specifically that the number of adults in FE in north Oxfordshire would increase by almost 2,000 to 11,500 by 2007, and submitted that plan to the LSC.
What happened next? The LSC told them that it had not received the necessary funding from the Government, and the three-year plan was abandoned after less than a year. Teachers at Oxfordshire colleges now face the prospect of redundancy unless the necessary funding comes through after the comprehensive spending review. It is now vital that that funding is delivered. Without it, and with redundancies, colleges in Oxfordshire will simply be unable to meet the Government's targets, and will only fall further behind.
54WH
There are further disparities between counties in the funding that colleges receive from the LSC, even when they do meet the Government's targets. I understand from the chief executive of Oxford and Cherwell college that the LSC told Oxfordshire colleges that they had successfully met the community's needs and should receive £15 million for adult learning. However, when Milton Keynes colleges, which are exactly the same size and cover a similar sort of area, were also told that they met the same targets, they received £22 million for doing exactly the same thing.
The disparities in funding simply keep adding up. Not only is there a funding gap of 10 per cent., which Ministers acknowledge, but an inexplicable disparity between the funding that colleges in one county receive from the LSC compared with colleges in another. This needs to be sorted out during the comprehensive spending review.
In recent years, I have had numerous meetings with staff and teachers' unions, and, like other hon. Members, have made numerous representations to Ministers. I suspect that part of the problem is that we have all been led in recent years to believe that matters were always about to improve. In 2001, the Prime Minister said:
"What we need to do … is to lift up the funding that is given specifically to sixth-form and further education colleges."— [Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 966.]
In June 2002, the Minister for Children said:
"The Government are committed to raising the level of funding for colleges towards that of school sixth forms. By 2003—04 funding for further education will have risen by 26 per cent. in real terms since 1997. Further progress can only be made as resources allow and we cannot commit ourselves beyond the resources we secure. We are looking to the current Spending Review to provide the resources needed to deliver the Government's ambitious agenda for further education."—[Official Report, 13 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 1409W.]
In November 2002, at the Association of Colleges' annual conference, the Secretary of State for Education announced a new funding package for further education that indicated that there would be three-year funding plans for colleges and that for 2005—06 spending on FE would rise by 26 per cent. in cash terms and 19 per cent. in real terms. When hon. Members, like myself, were writing to Ministers or raising the issue in the House, we were being given answers that indicated those proposed new funding arrangements.
It took some time to realise that in reality the increase for most colleges was going to be nowhere near 26 per cent. or 19 per cent. For most colleges this year, the increase is only in line with inflation. Over the whole period, the increase in real resources per student is no more than 5 per cent. When that discrepancy became apparent, Ministers said that it would get sorted out in the comprehensive spending review. As recently as May this year, a junior Minister in the Department for Education and Skills said that hon. Members
"will be disappointed but not surprised that I cannot say…what the overall settlement will be for FE. The Department is still working through the detail but we hope to be able to make further announcements before the summer recess in July".
It was also observed that
"the overall financial position is much tighter in this spending review than it was in the previous one".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 18 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 222WH.]

55WH
As an hon. Member who has listened to ministerial language for more than 20 years, such statements do not give me much cause for optimism. It is absurd that the average college gets its funding from more than 30 different sources. It is also deeply unfair that under the Government system the LSC will pay 100 per cent. of school sixth form costs, but only 35 per cent. of college building costs. College borrowing must cover the rest. I see no sense in using that discriminating funding formula for capital build programmes. Such a funding system hits the prospects of a modernised FE college in Banbury especially hard.
At present, Banbury is an area of low unemployment, but it has a serious skills shortage. The central requirement of colleges is to provide additional skills and training for adults. Level 2 is a basic qualification, and most employers look for far more than just level 2, but in some areas of Banbury that is all that many adults have been able to acquire. The LSC for Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire, which also covers Oxfordshire, makes regular representations to Members of Parliament for Oxfordshire to outline the skills gap in the county. The LSC's latest strategy paper clearly states the need to:
"develop an entitlement for all 14–19 year olds in the area"
and that
"high employment means that the majority of our potential learners are to be found in the workplace. Our focus here will be on the achievement of Level 2, Level 3 in our key skills priority areas, management and Basic Skills."
Colleges are clearly one of the best ways to enhance the education of adults. Not only have more than 300,000 adults improved their basic numeracy and literacy at colleges during the past year, but between 1997 and 2001, more than 2 million vocational qualifications were gained, whereas only 233,000 were gained through employers during the same period.
FE colleges are clearly a must, and Banbury needs an enhanced FE facility now. Sadly, as we have seen, the Government's funding formula leaves Oxford and Cherwell with a mountain to climb. Huge discrepancies in funding have left the colleges with a massive deficit, so they are starting on the back foot. The uphill struggle becomes even harder because at best they will receive only 35 per cent. of the building costs under the capital build programme because they are colleges and not schools.
Somehow colleges are expected to conjure up the rest of the budget themselves. That is not an easy task, but Oxford and Cherwell college is trying to meet it. It has, for example, sold the Rycote college site for £9 million. However, the costs involved in the sale came to a staggering £3 million, leaving only £6 million for a new campus to be built at Bicester. That £6 million is being ring-fenced for investment in a much-needed new FE facility in Bicester, which is excellent news, but sadly means that there will be little money for a new Banbury campus. To put that £6 million into perspective, a new FE facility at Banbury would cost at least £27 million, which does not account for any land purchase. Improvements that are desperately needed for buildings at Bicester are estimated to total about £12 million. Improvements are also needed on the Oxford campus
56WH
and could cost anything up to £25 million. Therefore, £6 million for a college that will cost at least £27 million offers little optimism for Oxford and Cherwell college to go it alone in Banbury.
Oxford and Cherwell college has come up with an alternative for a campus at Banbury, which I very much hope the Minister's Department will consider seriously. Drayton school in Banbury is also looking for new facilities. Drayton school and Oxford and Cherwell college have sensibly teamed up together to consider an alternative approach. They have put in a bid to the academies unit in the Minister's Department. The college for Banbury, which Drayton and the college are proposing, is unique in England and Wales. No other consortium has put together a bid of this sort before. The proposed college for Banbury would be for 14 to 19-year-olds and take up to 400 students. The college would offer courses for adults, which Banbury needs. The consortium is looking to build such a campus at Banbury relatively soon and, if its bid were successful, the college would be running by 2007. The bid for a college of that sort was submitted to the academies unit in April this year. I understand that for the bid to be successful and to go on to the next stage it will need to be supported by a sponsor, and that such a sponsor will be a private company. I am aware of which sponsor is being approached for the Banbury campus, and that company will need to provide £2 million for the Drayton school and Oxfordshire colleges' bid. It will then be left to the Government to decide whether to fund up to £20 million to build the college at Banbury.
Until that sponsor is secured, the Government will not even consider a formal written proposal from Oxfordshire county council, which is co-ordinating the bid. That raises two concerns. First, most bids for any new college building tend to be successful only in inner-city areas. The Minister's Department has approved recent proposals in Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham, but very few bids have been approved anywhere other than in inner cities. It would be a huge mistake if Ministers were to overlook the Drayton school and Oxford and Cherwell college bid on the misunderstanding that north Oxfordshire and Banbury are all leafy lanes and comfortable middle England. The demographics that I have described in some parts of my constituency show that that is not the case. There is a real need for an enhanced FE college in Banbury.
My second concern is that because the type of college being proposed for Banbury by Drayton school together with Oxford and Cherwell college has never been suggested before, Ministers may need to consider any written proposal earlier than they might otherwise do. They would surely be better able to judge the bid if they were to consider a written proposal from Oxfordshire county council. It may be more difficult to secure the sponsorship of a private investor when the proposal is unfamiliar, and that problem can be avoided only if those involved are given the opportunity to provide a further explanation to the academies unit.
From even a cursory glance, the Banbury campus bid is worth taking forward. A college at Banbury operated by Drayton school and Oxford and Cherwell college would cut costs. When one considers the cash flow of Oxford and Cherwell college, which I outlined earlier, a joint venture would be an excellent opportunity for Ministers to help bridge the funding gap that it is experiencing.

57WH
Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider two points. First, funding for colleges across the UK, and particularly in Oxfordshire, will be enhanced by reforming the monstrously unfair funding system that disadvantages colleges. Secondly, I ask the Minister to consider seriously the Drayton school bid together with Oxford and Cherwell college for a new college campus at Banbury.
Oxford and Cherwell college has little chance of being able to build a college at Banbury on its own. Under the capital build programme, funding is granted only on the basis that the college is able to prove its ability to pay for the development and its ability tomorrow. Oxford and Cherwell college is unable to do either. Funding over recent years has put paid to that. Moreover, even if it were successful on the capital build programme, it would only receive 35 per cent. of the cost of building a college at Banbury.
With this continuing deficit, even with £6 million available from the sale of Rycote college—which, as I explained, is earmarked for a new campus at Bicester—the best opportunity for a new campus is the joint bid by Drayton school and Oxford and Cherwell college. A college run by both a school and a college would in essence halve the costs and double the resources. That must be good news. It would meet the particular needs of Banbury and the surrounding area by addressing adult learning needs. The college would meet many of the Government's own objectives.
These aims can be achieved only if Ministers seriously consider any written proposal from Oxfordshire county council. If they do so, Banbury may be able to have its much-needed college by 2007. I hope that the Minister and his officials will give some help to the county council in working its way through these regulations so that we can secure the necessary sponsorship from the private sector to move this project forward.
3.49 pm
The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on securing the debate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognise the achievements of the further education sector. It is difficult to overstate the importance of FE. It is a sector that provides a diverse range of opportunities to more than 6 million learners, 4 million of them in general FE colleges, and 2 million in the workplace. Thousands of businesses are involved, as is every community in the country.
I would like to take a few minutes to set out the important role of FE and of the Government's reform agenda for the sector before moving on to some of the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I welcome this opportunity to listen to views on pressures and priorities but it is important to put such comments into context. He said that people always say that things are always about to improve. The 2002 spending review was unprecedented for FE, with increases of more than £1 billion for the sector in the three years up to 2005–06. I was bemused by the quotes in his speech. Last year, every college in the country received an increase in funding of at least 6 per cent. in real terms, and every spending request made of the Learning and Skills Council was met; it was an extraordinary year. The year that we are entering is the most generous of this most generous ever three-year spending review settlement.
58WH
I fully accept the points made about the past. I will make a few crude political points to the hon. Member for Banbury. I accept that he is the worst person to make them to, as he has always had an independence of mind that makes him invulnerable to suggestions that he should consider the proposals of his Front Bench colleagues. However, I need to make the comments anyway to put the issue into context. This is an extraordinarily generous spending review settlement for FE, and it opens up a host of opportunities. The investment was essential to help us build the capability and capacity necessary for a sector able to respond to the needs of the 21st century.
People in FE are continually telling me that the sector was the Cinderella of the educational world. That is true, but there is a limit to how many times they can simply repeat that. My response to the FE sector, in view of the spending review of 2002, is that Cinderella is now going to the ball. The sector is crucial; it is key to our inextricably linked twin aims of social inclusion and economic success, and it needed the amount of investment that it received. I am not suggesting for a moment that the investment closed the historical funding gap of the early 1990s—that was when a previous Government incorporated FE colleges and, to a certain extent, locked in the funding disparity. I am saying that the spending review gives us the opportunity to do more in FE than we have ever been able to do before.
We want everyone to be able to acquire the dignity of self-improvement. We want all employers to have access to skills that they need to compete globally. To do that, we must have a properly funded FE sector. The extra investment of the spending review of 2002 helped to launch our successful strategy 18 months ago. Part of that strategy was to direct additional resources into delivering learning. For the academic year 2003–04, core funding rates per qualification increased. Our expenditure plans for the period to 2005–06 should allow that trend to continue. We are pleased with the response of the sector to "Success for All"; it is a genuine commitment and a partnership between Government, the LSC and FE providers based on trust.
The skills agenda and the 14-to-19 strategy being worked out by the Tomlinson working group present real challenges for the sector to ensure choice and opportunity for all. The issue is not just money; we need to change ways of working and make the best use of existing resources.
Oxford and Cherwell college has already taken determined action to ensure that it can meet the needs of learners and employers in the local community. I am aware that the college is not in a strong financial position; that is hardly surprising, given that it is the result of a merger of three colleges that were all in poor financial health. However, the financial forecast—prepared as part of a reorganisation proposal submitted to the Department—demonstrates that the new college expects to fall into financial health category A, the strongest level of financial status, by the end of four

59WH
academic years. In order to attain that, the new college needs to meet the key assumptions set out in its reorganisation proposal. Those include considerable economies of scale—for example, there will be one senior management team instead of three—and comprehensive reviews and rationalisation of the college's curriculum and its property portfolio.
The hon. Gentleman talked about capital funding. He said that the capital pot for schools was £5 billion, and that further education's was £400 million. Those figures are accurate, but I ask him to reflect on the fact that there are 21,000 schools and approximately 400 FE colleges. Furthermore, while we are talking about property portfolios, incorporation gave colleges independence, including control over their own assets, such as land and buildings and the ability to use those flexibly. That flexibility does not apply to local authorities to which schools are responsible. That must be borne in mind.
I am advised that the LSC has committed considerable financial resources up to £3 million to help the college meet the costs of the reorganisation. The college has a new, dynamic senior management team that is co-ordinating the reviews and developing a longer-term strategic plan that will deliver the financial improvements envisaged in the reorganisation proposal. The LSC has every confidence that the new management team is of a sufficient calibre to develop Oxford and Cherwell into a flourishing, flagship college for central and north Oxfordshire.
On funding for capital investment, the Government have set out plans for huge increases in the capital funding that is allocated to the Learning and Skills Council for investment in the post-16 learning and skills sector. Capital funds allocated to the LSC will increase to more than £400 million in 2005—06, which is an increase of more than 60 per cent. in real terms compared with 2002–03. The key priorities for that investment are updating and improving vocational training facilities, including centres of vocational excellence, supporting structural change arising from area reviews, examination of provision for 14 to 19-year-olds, meeting the requirement of the Disability and Discrimination Act 1995 and transforming facilities for information and communications technology-supported learning. That level of support means that for the first time there is a long-term approach to building and redeveloping the FE infrastructure.
60WH
I understand that the Oxford and Cherwell college Rycotewood site has recently been sold, as the hon. Gentleman said, and that the proceeds, which came to some £9.25 million, will be received when the college has vacated the premises at the end of the current academic year. That site has been expensive to maintain and it is clearly not in the college's financial interest to remain there. In response, the local LSC has been working closely with the college to develop a proposal, which is currently going through the LSC approval process, for relocating the Rycotewood provision to sites in Oxford and Bicester. If that were successful, it would be supported with LSC capital grant support. While I am dealing with that subject, the 25 per cent. cap has gone and the LSC now judges all capital expenditure requests on their merits.
It is difficult to comment on the college's 2004–05 allocations because those have yet to be agreed. I accept that there are some problems, but they are the problems of success, in the sense that previously the LSC always had some funds available because of underperforming colleges. "Success for All" has meant a huge improvement across the range, which has led to some problems. All colleges received an indicative settlement six months ago and now, because of their success, they are finding that there are problems. We are considering that closely. We recognise that there is a problem and we hope to find a solution in the near future.
I should also like to mention the Drayton school proposal, which was a major part of the hon. Gentleman's speech He should not be surprised that we are waiting until a sponsor is on board. The proposal was submitted to the academies unit, which considers proposals for academies, and academies carry the need for a private sector sponsor. We want sponsors to have ownership and the opportunity to input into an extremely exciting proposal.
We accept that we need to encourage and facilitate joint proposals between schools and colleges. That is eminently sensible where it is the best solution to meet local needs, but we need to consider ways in which systems operate to help that happen. I will take away some of the procedural points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I hope that he accepts that a sponsor needs to have a say in hove the final proposals work out.
The aim of all our proposals is to achieve excellence in education standards and skills to give everyone the opportunity to develop and learn. We can only do that with a sector that is properly recognised for the excellent service that it has always provided, and if it is properly provided with the finance to do its job properly.

Minority and Regional Languages
4 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: I am glad to have secured the debate. I wish that it were longer, because I am sure that hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would have liked to join in. However, it is good to have recognition of the report and the opportunity to seek a response from Government. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is responding. The significance of the debate lies in the fact that it is being dealt with by my hon. Friend on be half of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That is the proper context within which to discuss a report by the Council of Europe on how the United Kingdom is performing under the charter on minority and regional languages. This is not a devolved or territorial issue; the charter was signed by the Foreign Secretary of the day, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), on behalf of the UK Government, in full knowledge of the obligations that would have to be net, particularly in relation to Scottish Gaelic, Irish and Welsh. I know that that followed extensive discussions with relevant Whitehall Departments and with the devolved Administrations. A great deal of care was taken before the Government took on those commitments.
The report was prepared by a Committee of Experts, which visited the UK last autumn to assess our implementation of the charter, to which we became a signatory in 2000. It was subsequently adopted by the Council of Europe. The committee noted that the UK had, of its own volition, signed up for the most demanding levels of provision in respect of Welsh, Irish and Scottish Gaelic. It set out to examine "the real situation" and, where appropriate, encouraged the signatory gradually to reach a higher level of commitment. It is important to stress that Britain did not sign up lightly; it signed after due consideration and at the highest level of commitment.
On the whole, according to the experts' report, the UK is doing well, so this is not an unremitting tale of doom and gloom. It is unfortunate hat we do not have longer to discuss these matters because I am sure that others—I am pleased to see one Welsh representative present, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr.Thomas)—would like to comment. The Committee of Experts made significant criticisms in relation to Scottish Gaelic and advised on how we could do better. I want the House to recognise that we require a cross-Government mechanism for responding to such criticisms and, thereby, meeting now voluntary but now binding charter commitments.
The strength of the report is that it takes responsibility back to where it belongs, which is with the signatory Government. I hope that it will supersede interdepartmental and inter-Administration disputes about who has responsibility for what. As with any international obligation, the buck has to stop somewhere. In this case, it rests firmly with the UK Government, as the member state, and the Foreign Office as signatory on behalf of the Government. I do not necessarily expect my good friend the Minister for Europe to respond on all or any of the concerns in the report about failure to meet reason table expectations of progress. However, I do want him to acknowledge that
62WH
the existence of those obligations under the charter, to which we are signatory, means that we cannot simply leave such matters to the internal wranglings of our domestic agencies of Government, whether in Whitehall, Edinburgh, Belfast or Cardiff.
The crucial point is that, whatever our domestic commitment to minority languages, we now have an international obligation to fulfil. That was the significance of signing the charter. It was well understood at the time, but our political predecessors declined to do it because of the responsibilities that it entailed. We signed, which was excellent; we now have to deliver.
The implication is that someone in Government will now have to monitor progress and ensure that the obligations are being fulfilled on all counts. The assurance that I seek is that some such mechanism will be created in response to the report. I know that my good and hon. Friend the Minister is sensitive and sympathetic to issues of language and identity. I could not have asked for a better Minister to respond to the debate—as a good European, so he should be. In the global village of the 21st century, no minority language in any part of our continent or the world could be expected to survive in the face of institutional hostility.
Mr. Simon Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman rightly thanked the Government for signing the charter, but he pointed out that some things need to be improved. Does he take heart from what is happening in Spain, where Catalonia and the Basque country have asked whether their minority languages can be acknowledged by the European Union? They do not want them to be treated as official languages; rather, they believe that when ordinary members of the public are dealing with the EU, they should receive replies in their own languages—in Basque, Catalonian, or even in Gaelic or Welsh. Surely that is another way of ensuring that the European institutions are not seen to be foreign, but are part of our future. I suggest that that would be a suitable way for the Government to take forward such ideas.
Mr. Wilson: The more fragile the language, the more cautious we should be about saying that scarce resources should be spent on translating official documents that could otherwise be used on training teachers or expanding the speaker base. However, I do not essentially disagree. In fact, I strongly agree that the European Union and the Commission, as well as the Council of Europe, should take a stronger position on minority languages. Making additional funding available for minority languages in the EU would be a sensible step forward. Without disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman, I return to my theme.
No matter how resilient a minority language may be, it needs access to such essentials as the state education system and modern electronic media if it is to have a decent prospect of survival, especially in an era when the forces of mass media and culture are so overwhelming. I would be the first to recognise that institutional support delivered through those vehicles will not guarantee the healthy survival of a language. However, I am certain that exclusion from such support will condemn minority languages to decline. That is exactly the rationale for a charter on European regional and minority languages.

63WH
The responsibilities that flow from that understanding are implicit in the decision of states, including our own, to sign up to it.
I am realistic enough to know that it was almost certainly an Irish imperative rather than a Scottish or Welsh one that led the Government to sign the charter. That was where the pressure came from, but I gladly acknowledge that language and culture have a big part to play in the Irish peace process, and that recognition of linguistic rights is a small price to pay. I fully endorse that approach. Whatever the reasoning, however, the fact is that the same responsibilities exist in respect of all three languages—Irish, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic. It was the decision of our Government, and specifically of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to sign up for those three languages on the same terms.
I shall speak specifically about Gaelic broadcasting, about which the Council of Europe report is probably most critical. The report could not be more clear-cut in its view that in order to meet its responsibility under the charter the UK Government must
"facilitate the establishment of a television channel or an equivalent television service in Scottish Gaelic."
The report acknowledges that a Gaelic media service has been given a statutory existence under the recent Communications Act 2003. However, in relation to the undertaking in the charter, it then states:
"Compliance with the undertaking chosen by the UK requires more than simply creating a legal framework within which a channel can exist. It involves positive action, including, where necessary, funding."
Therefore, it is the clear-cut view of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Experts that by so far failing to deliver a Gaelic television channel for Scotland the UK is failing in its obligations under the charter to which it is a signatory. That is the nub of the issue. The Council of Europe places responsibility where it belongs, which is with the charter signatory—the UK Government.
I will not go into details about the long saga of the failure to deliver to date on the issue. It will suffice to say that there have been four wasted years of wrangling, and that is a long time in the life of a fragile minority language. During that time, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has refused to accept any funding responsibility for a channel. It says that it is a devolved responsibility.
Both the Scottish Executive and I believe that that is untrue. Indeed, I have a recent letter from Jack McConnell, the First Minister in Scotland, in which he states:
"I agree entirely with your contention that prime responsibility in the matter lies with the UK government."
He adds:
"The UK government has entered into a series of international obligations under the Council of Europe Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. Fulfilment of these obligations is also a matter for the UK government".
As I said, I do not expect the Minister to comment on the merits of that dispute. However, I expect his assistance in cutting through it, in order to ensure that the international obligations that we have freely entered into as a Government are met. There are other issues in
64WH
the report to which the same principle applies: educational provision through Gaelic is patchy; and teacher supply requires urgent strengthening. That is identified as a common problem involving minority languages throughout Europe. There is no guidance to public bodies on the use of the language.
Again, it is self-evidently not the job of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to remedy those deficiencies by its own hand. I would argue that it is its responsibility to monitor and, if necessary, to prod those who are directly involved, whether they are in Whitehall or in Edinburgh. In other words, the commitments that were undertaken through becoming a signatory to the charter cannot simply be left to Departments or devolved Administrations in the hope that they might or might not do something about them. There is a cross-Government responsibility and I want to have a mechanism established to meet it.
On the issue of public usage of the language, in Scotland we are light years behind Wales and Ireland. Perhaps I can signal an issue that will soon arise: the Scottish Executive is about to legislate on the status of Gaelic, and that will place responsibilities on public bodies that are devolved. Clearly, the legislation cannot force public bodies and Departments that are reserved to do anything. However, I hope that the UK Government and all their agencies that are active in Scotland will act in the spirit of the legislation and give some recognition to the existence of Gaelic. Most of them currently do not do that and it is not much to ask.
Finally, I shall refer briefly to Ireland. It is very much in the spirit of the charter that language and culture should be used to build bridges rather than to create barriers. The Irish language, particularly in the north, was in danger of becoming over-identified with one political faction and with one side of the religious divide. Building stronger links with its close cousin, Scottish Gaelic, which is politically and religiously neutral, is one way of countering hat danger. That was part of the thinking behind Iomairt Cholm Cille, the Columba initiative, which has given terrific value for small amounts of money in creating links between the Gaelic-speaking communities and peoples of Scotland, and all parts of Ireland. I hope that as part of its general work of promoting minority languages and cultures, the Foreign Office and the British- Irish Council will use Iomairt Cholm Cille and thereby benefit both the languages and the people it brings together.
This is a fairly esoteric subject, but it is of deep importance to many people, as you are well qualified to appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about people's language of daily usage and the cultural values and way of life that go with it. The Government's decision to sign the European charter was a terrific step forward and a recognition of the responsibilities that arise under it. All I, ask is that that decision should not be seen as a gesture or something that should not be followed through on. We need a mechanism to ensure that major deficiences are addressed—in Scotland, the glaring hole is the absence of a Gaelic television channel—and that our charter obligations are met. Delivering television channels is not the job of the Foreign Office, but delivering treaty and charter obligations is. In that spirit, I look forward to the Minister's reply.
4.16 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Dent; MacShane): It is a great pleasure to participate in this d abate with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as perhaps the House's most fluent speaker of Latin and Greek—ancient and some modern.
The issue is important in today's Europe. One of the most positive aspects of the European Union that we are shaping is precisely its diversity. When I attend Council of Ministers meetings for Foreign Ministers I hear Maltese, Slovakian and Slovenian spoken. Such languages, which, like the Baltic tongues, were to some extent lost under the dominance of one or two giant European languages, are now flourishing. Britain, which is perhaps the most cosmopolitan country and open to foreigners of all the European nation states, is where so many foreign languages jostle for attention.
Not for one second would I say that Gaelic in Scotland or Welsh were foreign languages. They belong to our country and deserve the support and respect that their speakers give them. The Foreign Office is involved in signing treaties, international conventions and international declarations, and it falls to the Department to ensure every aspect of their implementation. However, my colleagues in the Scottish Executive would take it amiss if I announced that the Foreign Office was determining how Scotland should spend its money. That is not the Government's doctrine, and the same is true for other Departments. Much of the argument is, alas, about getting and spending.
My right hon. Friend made a powerful case for the importance of language. For some years I lived in Switzerland, where every carton of milk had text in French, German and Italian on it. Romansch, which is a small minority language, was made Switzerland's fourth official language when I was there.
We have spoken about terrestrial broadcasting. The new technology allows much swifter communication in so many different languages, whether one is sending a text message or e-mail, or using computers or other direct video technology. Although my right hon. Friend did not refer to digital channels, they are just around the corner and will allow much more broadcasting. Frankly, I have never fully understood why Britain has to have so much broadcasting on the basis of Government funding. In many other countries, including Commonwealth countries, such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, it is possible under law and federal or state regulation to set up community television and radio stations at town level.
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I should clarify that the Gaelic television channel that I spoke of is a digital satellite channel, not a terrestrial one. We have no ambitions to match the £92 million currently paid by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to S4C to provide a terrestrial Welsh language service.
Mr. MacShane: My right hon. Friend's important and useful contribution, which had a slight barb in its tail, came just as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) left the Chamber. No doubt he will read it in Hansard and may have a conversation with my right hon. Friend about whether Welsh broadcasting gets more support than Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland.
66WH
My right hon. Friend is well known to the House, and to me, from his distinguished record as the founder and editor of the West Highland Free Press, which brought journalism to that region and made Scottish journalism and reporting much more lively. I fully share his ambition to do as much as we can to support the Gaelic language. He is right to say that there is a problem between the different Departments that are responsible for this matter. I do not wish to pass the buck—on my desk I have a sign that says, "Many bucks stop here"—but I am not sure whether the buck for Gaelic broadcasting should stop on the Minister for Europe's desk.
We signed the Council of Europe's charter for regional or minority languages—I do not like the term "minority languages" as the charter concerns the languages of our common European home—and my right hon. Friend paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for that, as he was the Foreign Secretary who signed it, but the Council of Europe is not the European Union. It does vital work, and I am a strong supporter of it, but it merely declares aspirations: it does not proclaim directives or laws that tell us what we must do.
Finding the correct funding is a problem. I wonder whether there are not some sources of funding in the diaspora of Scotland—I am thinking of the great Sean Connery, who pines regularly on Scottish issues—that might be used to return to Scotland some of the culture that has helped to spread Scottishness throughout the world.
Primary responsibility for broadcasting lies with the UK Government and is generally exercised through the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. That is clearly stated in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Scottish and relevant UK Ministers agree that responsibility for the funding of the Gaelic Media Service has been devolved to the Scottish Executive. There is no ambiguity in the 1999 statutory order that confirmed the transfer of Executive responsibility to Scottish Ministers, and the Communications Act 2003 does not affect the continuing responsibility of Scottish Ministers through the Gaelic Media Service.
The fact that broadcasting is a reserved matter means that there will be exchanges with DCMS at ministerial and official level on a range of issues. I am not sure what implementation mechanism could be set up that could involve the Foreign Office, because part of our responsibility has to stop at the water's edge, and it is not right to assume that we then become the oversight body for the transposition into UK law of aspirational charters or formal treaty obligations that we enter into.
Mr. Wilson: I shall pass over the Minister's remark about Sean Connery and give thanks that the press Benches are empty, as I think that the idea that he should pay for a Gaelic television channel would be regarded as fairly bizarre.
All my hon. Friend is doing is demonstrating the problem, which is that he has just read out the brief from DCMS stating that the matter has nothing to do with that Department, and I have just read out a letter from Jack McConnell saying that the lead responsibility rests with the UK Government. That is the impasse. I can hardly believe that in any other context the

67WH
Government's view would be that there should be no mechanism for resolving the impasse. Simply to say that it exists, and that nothing can be done to deliver treaty obligations, seems a deeply unsatisfactory position. I am sure that my hon. Friend has the intellectual calibre to recognise that.
Mr. MacShane: My right hon. Friend may find that unsatisfactory, but I cannot give him the satisfaction that he genuinely and sincerely seeks. Forgive me if I have not mentioned any great Scottish name, but I would have thought that there would be funds to be found from great Scottish companies, or from great Scottish individuals or from among the Scottish diaspora; from those who believe in maintaining Gaelic as a vibrant language.
We will have to disagree; I will examine Mr. McConnell's letter, but I should say as a Foreign Office Minister—and my right hon. Friend has served in the Foreign Office—that it cannot be right that we should be responsible for the transposition into UK law and administration of whatever obligations are put on us.
Mr. Wilson: Who is responsible?
Mr. MacShane: My right hon. Friend asks who is responsible. The Department of Trade and Industry is generally responsible for World Trade Organisation obligations; the relevant Departments are responsible for other obligations under European constitutional treaties; and the Ministry of Defence is responsible for NATO and defence obligations.
In the short while remaining, I should say that the visit of the Committee of Experts of the Council of Europe to consider the Government's performance under the charter on Gaelic broadcasting took place in January 2003, before the operation of Bord na Gaidhlig. I have looked into some of the figures. Since 1999, the amount of Government spending on helping and
68WH
promoting Gaelic has increased from £11.7 million to about £14.5 million. Some £8.5 million of that goes directly to Gaelic broadcasting. It is not for me to say how that £8.5 million should be carved up.
Going further back, one finds that during the first part of the Labour Administration there were even some cuts in support for Gaelic broadcasting. I cannot accept the view that we have In any way breached our obligation under the European charter. During the passage of the Communications Act 2003, we made it clear that powers invested in the Gaelic Media Service were not for immediate implementation.
Finding the money for any wish in the public sector is one of the most difficult challenges for any Government. I can only wish my right hon. Friend well. As the Minister for Europe, I am happy to make every possible statement about our need to bring to life all UK languages other thin English. I also believe that we should give much more support to the speaking of the languages of the different British ethnic communities.
Anybody who can speak more than one language has a window into different ways of thinking, different cultures and outlooks that deeply enriches our entire UK economy. I understand that Scottish Ministers have introduced a range of new policy measures that are designed to take for ward a strategy on Gaelic language and culture. I am informed that there will be a Gaelic language Bill before the Scottish Parliament designed to give the Gaelic language a place in the routine conduct of business where that seems appropriate.
Other European countries are moving in that direction, but the cost is not borne centrally by the European Union. I wish my right hon. Friend well in seeking from the Scottish Executive, other Government Departments and, ultimately, from the Treasury the financing that he wants for Gaelic broadcasting, which is dear to his heart. I hope to see the issue taken forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what papers he has submitted to date to Lord Butler's inquiry into intelligence on Iraq; and whether officials from his office have given oral evidence to the inquiry. [177071]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Rammell) gave to him on 8 June 2004,Official Report, column 303W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Aston Down Airfield
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria are used in the planning system to decide when an environmental impact assessment is considered necessary; and what assessment he has made of whether such an assessment is required in respect of the proposed development at Aston Down Airfield, near Stroud in Gloucestershire. [177598]

  Keith Hill
  In response to the first part of this question, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 27 April 2004,Official Report, column 885W. On 24 March 2003, a screening direction under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No. 293) was issued to the effect that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the proposed development at Aston Down Airfield, near Stroud, would not be likely to have a significant effect on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location.

  Ellipse Project
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many letters he has received about the decision made by Westminster council to approve The Ellipse project for the Royal College of Art; how many requests he has received to meet those opposed to the decision of the council's planning committee; what plans he has to call in the council's planning decision; and if he will make a statement. [176698]

  Keith Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has received over 10,000 representations, the majority of which objected to the proposal by the Royal College of Art for an extension building, known as the "Ellipse". A number of requests were also received to meet those opposed to the proposal but it is not standard practice to do so when a planning application is formally before my right hon. Friend the Deputy 276W
  Prime Minister for consideration on whether it should be called in. The hon. Member will be interested to know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister called in these proposals on 19 May 2004. A copy of the decision will be made available in the Library of the House.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what action he has taken to bring the sides together to discuss the difficulties encountered with the agreement to end the firefighters' dispute; [177029]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the employers' organisations regarding fulfilling the obligations undertaken to end the firefighters' dispute. [177030]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has had no such discussions and taken no such action. The June 2003 agreement, which ended the firefighters' dispute, set out a clear path for pay improvement linked to modernisation of the Fire and Rescue Service subject to some further negotiations. I understand that discussions between the employee representatives and their employers are continuing. Negotiation is clearly the way forward.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received regarding difficulties with the agreement which ended the firefighters' dispute. [177031]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received a handful of representations on these issues both directly and through ministerial colleagues and constituency MPs. Letters originated from members of the public, serving members of the Fire and Rescue Service and the Fire Brigades Union. In addition, Andy Gilchrist, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union wrote to all Members of Parliament on 17 May 2004 setting out the Union's views on the detailed negotiations with employers following the June 2003 pay and conditions agreement.

  High Hedges
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he has taken to inform members of the public about how they can participate in the consultation on high hedges. [176912]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued a press release launching the public consultation on the high hedges legislation on 29 March. The announcement was covered in three national and a number of local newspapers, by national radio stations and some regional TV. The consultation package has been sent to a number of organisations with a special interest, for example, Hedgeline, the Consumer's Association, the National Consumer Council, the National Federation of Consumer Groups, the Royal Horticultural Society and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. It is also available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website and on UK Online.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average number of homeless households living in temporary accommodation was in each year since 1997, broken down by accommodation type. [173736]

  Yvette Cooper
  The most recent quarterly Statistical

  Table 7: Households in accommodation arranged by local authorities under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts, by type of accommodation1

  Bed and breakfast hotels percentage

  Hostels/women's refuges percentage

  1985 and 1996 Housing Acts

  Total number of households accommodated at end of quarter

  Number

  of total

  change on previous quarter

  Number

  of total

  change on previous quarter

  1997

  quarter 1

  41,250

  4,100

  9.9

  -1.4

  9,680

  23.5

  0.4

  quarter 2

  43,720

  4,500

  10.3

  9.8

  9,430

  21.6

  -2.6

  quarter 3

  45,290

  4,630

  10.2

  2.9

  9,450

  20.9

  0.2

  quarter 4

  44,870

  4,520

  10.1

  -2.4

  8,730

  19.5

  -7.6

  1998

  quarter1

  47,520

  4,820

  10.1

  6.6

  9,730

  20.5

  11.5

  quarter2

  49,390

  5,380

  10.9

  11.6

  9,490

  19.2

  -2.5

  quarter 3

  52,510

  5,890

  11.2

  9.5

  9,820

  18.7

  3.5

  quarter 4

  53,790

  7,240

  13.5

  22.9

  9,760

  18.1

  -0.6

  1999

  quarter 1

  56,580

  6,570

  11.6

  -9.3

  9,840

  17.4

  0.8

  quarter 2

  58,430

  7,700

  13.2

  17.2

  10,210

  17.5

  3.8

  quarter 3

  61,450

  8,240

  13.4

  7.0

  9,960

  16.2

  -2.4

  quarter 4

  62,180

  8,000

  12.9

  -2.9

  9,660

  15.5

  -3.0

  2000

  quarter 1

  65,170

  8,680

  13.3

  8.5

  10,300

  15.8

  6.6

  quarter 2

  67,520

  8,910

  13.2

  2.6

  10,320

  15.3

  0.2

  quarter 3

  71,860

  9,420

  13.1

  5.7

  10,460

  14.6

  1.4

  quarter 4

  73,080

  9,870

  13.5

  4.8

  10,790

  14.8

  3.2

  2001

  quarter 1

  75,200

  10,860

  14.4

  10.0

  10,610

  14.1

  -1.7

  quarter 22

  75,920

  11,390

  15.0

  4.9

  10,320

  13.6

  -2.7

  quarter 32

  78,370

  12,240

  15.6

  7.5

  10,400

  13.3

  0.8

  quarter 42

  78,030

  11,890

  15.2

  -2.9

  9,850

  12.6

  -5.3

  2002

  quarter 12,3

  80,440

  11,840

  14.7

  -0.4

  9,610

  11.9

  -2.4

  quarter 22,3

  82,110

  12,380

  15.1

  4.6

  9,760

  11.9

  1.6

  quarter 32,3

  85,260

  13,250

  15.5

  7.0

  9,740

  11.4

  -0.2

  quarter 42,3

  83,860

  12,540

  15.0

  -5.4

  9,640

  11.5

  -1.0

  2003

  quarter 12,3

  89,260

  12,100

  13.6

  -3.5

  10,070

  11.3

  4.5

  quarter 22,3

  91,330

  1 1,340

  12.4

  -6.3

  10,420

  11.4

  3.5

  quarter 32,3

  93,930

  10,310

  11.0

  -9.1

  10,770

  11.5

  3.4

  quarter 42,3

  95,060

  8,360

  8.8

  -18.9

  10,230

  10.8

  -5.0

  Private sector accommodation (eg on lease or licence, or direct with landlord)

  Other types including local authorities' and RSL's own stock

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Number

  of total

  change on previous quarter

  Number

  of total

  change on previous quarter

  1997

  quarter 1

  14,040

  34.0

  27.9

  13,430

  32.6

  -22.9

  quarter 2

  14,300

  32.7

  1.9

  15,490

  35.4

  75.3

  quarter 3

  14,310

  31.6

  0.1

  16,900

  37.3

  9.7

  quarter 4

  14,040

  31.3

  -1.9

  17,580

  39.2

  4.0

  1998

  quarter 1

  14,820

  31.2

  5.6

  18,150

  38.2

  3.2

  quarter 2

  15,470

  31.3

  4.4

  19,050

  38.6

  5.0

  quarter 3

  18,280

  34.8

  18.2

  18,520

  35.3

  -2.8

  278W
  Release on homelessness was published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 15 March, which contains information up to and including the fourth quarter of 2003. Table 7 (as follows) presents estimates of the number of homeless households in England in various types of temporary accommodation as at the end of each quarter since 1997.
  279W

  Private sector accommodation (eg on lease or licence, or direct with landlord)

  Other types including local authorities' and RSL's own stock

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Number

  of total

  change on previous quarter

  Number

  of total

  change on previous quarter

  quarter 4

  17,400

  32.3

  -4.8

  19,390

  36.0

  4.7

  1999

  quarter 1

  19,270

  34.1

  10.7

  20,900

  36.9

  7.8

  quarter 2

  17,670

  30.2

  -8.3

  22,850

  39.7

  9.3

  quarter 3

  18,460

  30.0

  4.5

  24,790

  40.3

  8.5

  quarter 4

  19,820

  31.9

  7.4

  24,700

  39.7

  -0.4

  2000

  quarter 1

  20,060

  30.8

  1.2

  26,130

  40.1

  5.8

  quarter 2

  23,920

  35.4

  19.2

  24,370

  36.1

  -6.7

  quarter 3

  22,330

  31.1

  -6.6

  29,650

  41.3

  217

  quarter 4

  25,260

  34.6

  13.1

  27,160

  37.2

  -8.4

  2001

  quarter 1

  25,610

  34.1

  1.4

  28,120

  37.4

  3.5

  quarter 22

  25,890

  34.1

  1.1

  28,320

  37.3

  0.7

  quarter 32

  25,630

  32.7

  -1.0

  30,100

  38.4

  6.3

  quarter 42

  25,740

  33.0

  0.4

  30,550

  39.2

  1.5

  2002

  quarter 12,3

  28,370

  35.3

  10.2

  30,620

  38.1

  0.2

  quarter 22,3

  29,860

  36.4

  5.3

  30,130

  36.7

  -1.6

  quarter 32,3

  31,880

  37.4

  6.8

  30,390

  35.6

  0.9

  quarter 42,3

  34,100

  40.7

  7.0

  27,590

  32.9

  -9.2

  2003

  quarter 12,3

  37,180

  41.7

  9.0

  29,920

  33.5

  8.4

  quarter 22,3

  40,550

  44.4

  9.1

  29,000

  31.8

  -3.1

  quarter 32,3

  43,880

  46.7

  8.2

  28,980

  30.9

  -0.1

  quarter 42,3

  47,290

  49.7

  7.8

  29,190

  30.7

  0.7

  1Households in accommodation arranged by local authorities pending inquiries or after being accepted as homeless under the 1996 Act (includes residual cases awaiting re-housing under the 1985 Act).

  2Provisional

  3Some self-contained accommodation in Annex-style units previously recorded under B&B now more appropriately attributed to private sector accommodation.

  Note:

  The totals may not equal the sum of components because of rounding

  Regional Government
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he has told people in(a) the North West, (b) Lancashire and (c) Chorley about the referendum on regional government; and how much has been spent on informing people of the referendum on regional government in (i) the North West, (ii) Lancashire and (iii) Chorley. [177149]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's "Your Say" information campaign has been running in the three northern regions since November 2003.

  In the North West this has included issue of the "Your Say—A New Opportunity for the North West" leaflet in November 2003, available at no charge from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Free Literature, from the Government Office for the North West and at regional events, such as the recent hearings on elected regional assemblies. 552,000 copies were distributed as inserts in 19 free sheet newspapers across Lancashire and Cumbria. There were three hearings in the North West, at Blackburn, Liverpool and Kendal. Ministers have also visited the North West as part of cross-regional tours in inform voters of our policy and on other occasions.
  280W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also intends to send a leaflet to every household in the North West prior to the proposed referendum so that voters are fully informed of our policy on elected assemblies and the associated local government restructuring.

  The cost of the 'Your Say' information campaign is not broken down by region, county or town. It has a budget of £5 million across all three regions.

  Secondments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the secondees from outside organisations working in his Department, stating in each case(a) the name of the person, (b) the name of the organisation, (c) the post held and (d) the start and finish dates of the secondment; and which are involved in drafting parliamentary answers. [158049]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is in the table. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not routinely publish the names and personal details of individual employees, in order to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act. While on secondment,
  281W
  secondees are subject to Civil Service terms and conditions, and are expected to undertake the full range

  Start

  End

  Organisation

  Posting

  Year

  Month

  Year

  Month

  Accord Plc.

  Local Government Quality

  2001

  3 September

  2006

  30 September

  Alien Associates Ltd.

  Strategic Partnering Taskforce

  2002

  1 November

  2004

  31 March

  Audit Commission (NDPB)

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2003

  28 April

  2004

  31 March

  Australian Government

  New Growth Area

  2003

  14 July

  2004

  13 July

  Avon Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  11 August

  2005

  11 August

  Babtie Group Ltd.

  Strategic Service Delivery Partnership Taskforce (LGQ

  2001

  3 September

  2004

  31 March

  Basildon District Council

  Thames Gateway Strategic Executive

  2001

  23 July

  2005

  23 July

  Beds and Luton Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2001

  17 April

  2004

  31 July

  Birmingham City Council

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2004

  2 February

  2004

  30 July

  Bracknell Forest Council

  Local Government Capacity and Modernisation Division

  2003

  3 March

  2005

  3 November

  Bradford MDC

  Housing Directorate

  2002

  4 February

  2006

  31 March

  Bradford MDC

  Local Government Practice Division

  2003

  30 June

  2006

  29 June

  British Urban Regeneration Association

  Planning, Housing and Growth Division

  2003

  17 February

  2005

  16 February

  Building Research Establishment

  Building Regulation Division

  2003

  1 July

  2005

  30 June

  Busha Global Ltd.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2003

  28 April

  2005

  31 March

  Calderdale MBC

  Community Housing Task Force

  2001

  14 May

  2005

  13 May

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  Local Government Capacity and Modernisation Division

  2003

  6 May

  2005

  5 May

  Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2002

  30 September

  2004

  29 September

  Capacity

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2002

  16 October

  2004

  31 October

  Cheshire Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Services Inspectorate Fire Service Improvement Team

  2003

  18 August

  2004

  30 April

  Cheshire Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2002

  1 November

  2004

  14 April

  City of York Council

  Local Government Practice Division

  2003

  30 June

  2006

  29 June

  Cleveland Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2002

  21 October

  2004

  20 July

  Cleveland Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  11 August

  2005

  12 August

  CPEA Ltd.

  Local Government

  2002

  13 May

  2004

  31 March

  Croydon Council

  Regional Economic Performance Division

  2003

  6 May

  2004

  31 July

  Denison Associates Limited

  Local Government Capacity and Modernisation Division

  2003

  2 April

  2004

  1 April

  ED AW Plc.

  Liveability and Sustainable Communities Division

  2004

  5 January

  2004

  2 July

  Elmbridge Borough Council

  Bed and Breakfast Unit

  2003

  17 February

  2004

  31 March

  ENCAMS

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2003

  1 May

  2004

  31 March

  Essex County Council

  Thames Gateway Strategic Executive

  2001

  14 May

  2005

  1 April

  Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  1 November

  2004

  31 March

  Greater Manchester County Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2002

  14 October

  2004

  13 April

  Greater Manchester County Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  19 October

  2004

  31 March

  Greater Manchester County Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2002

  2 January

  2004

  30 September

  Hampshire Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  1 December

  2004

  30 November

  Hampshire Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  14 March

  2004

  13 March

  HAS

  Social Exclusion Unit

  2003

  18 August

  2004

  18 June

  Help the Aged

  Social Exclusion Unit

  2003

  1 April

  2004

  1 April

  Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2001

  5 November

  2004

  4 November

  Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue

  Operational Practices, HMFSI

  2004

  1 February

  2006

  31 January

  Idea

  Housing Care and Support

  2003

  12 May

  2005

  10 May

  IPPR

  Social Exclusion Unit

  2003

  16 June

  2004

  18 June

  Kent County Council

  Housing Management Division

  2003

  15 September

  2004

  31 July

  Kent County Council

  Thames Gateway Strategic Executive

  2001

  19 March

  2004

  31 March

  Kent Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2002

  1 August

  2004

  1 August

  Kent Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2001

  1 December

  2004

  30-November

  Knowsley Borough Council

  Local Government Modernisation

  2001

  1 July

  2005

  31 December

  Lambeth County Council

  Community Housing Task Force

  2001

  9 July

  2005

  31 May

  Lancashire Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2002

  3 January

  2005

  02 January

  London Thames Gateway Forum

  Planning Legislation Implementation

  2002

  20 August

  2004

  20 August

  Leicestershire Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  1 June

  2004

  31 May

  Liberata Plc.

  Local Government Capacity

  2003

  1 August

  2004

  31 March

  Local Government Association

  Local Government Strategy Unit

  2003

  29 December

  2004

  31 December

  Local Government Ombudsman

  Planning Control Casework

  2002

  4 November

  2004

  28 May

  London Borough of Camden

  Social Exclusion Unit

  2003

  3 November

  2004

  7 May

  London Borough of Enfield

  Urban Policy Unit 2

  2003

  30 June

  2004

  31 March

  London Borough of Southwark

  Local Government Strategy Unit

  2004

  1 March

  2005

  28 February

  London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2004

  12 January

  2004

  31 March

  London Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  16 June

  2004

  15 June

  London Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2002

  7 January

  2004

  6 January

  London Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  1 February

  2004

  31 March

  London Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2002

  16 September

  2004

  15 September

  London Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2001

  4 June

  2004

  3 June

  London Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2001

  1 June

  2004

  31 May

  London Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  1 April

  2004

  31 July

  London Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2002

  18 February

  2005

  17 February

  London Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2001

  7 January

  2005

  6 January

  282W
  of duties attached to the post, including the provision of drafts for Parliamentary Questions if required.
  283W

  Start

  End

  Organisation

  Posting

  Year

  Month

  Year

  Month

  London Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2001

  3 September

  2004

  2 September

  London Fire and Rescue

  BM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2001

  1 February

  2005

  31 January

  London Voluntary Service Council

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2001

  1 October

  2005

  30 July

  Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2002

  21 October

  2004

  20 July

  Manchester Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  13 May

  2004

  12 May

  Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service

  HM Fire Services Inspectorate

  2003

  13 October

  2004

  31 May

  Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  16 June

  2004

  15 June

  National Housing Federation

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2002

  1 October

  2004

  30 September

  NCYVS

  Equality and Diversity Unit

  2003

  20 October

  2004

  23 April

  New Economics Foundation

  Local Government Capacity and Modernisation Division

  2003

  2 April

  2004

  30 April

  New Islington and Hackney Housing Association

  Equality and Diversity Unit

  2003

  15 September

  2004

  19 March

  Newham Council

  Local Government Quality

  2002

  21 January

  2004

  23 July

  North East Assembly

  Fire, Health & Safety Division

  2003

  30 June

  2004

  31 March

  Nottingham County Council

  Fire Service Improvement Team

  2004

  16 March

  2004

  30 September

  Ofsted

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2003

  1 September

  2004

  1 September

  One North East

  social Exclusion Unit

  2003

  10 November

  2004

  7 May

  PEP Ltd. (Priority Estate Project)

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2001

  18 June

  2005

  30 June

  Pricewaterhousecoopers

  Local Government Quality

  2001

  3 September

  2004

  31 March

  Railtrack

  HM Fire Services

  2001

  16 July

  2004

  3 September

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Homelessness Directorate

  2003

  17 October

  2004

  30 April

  Safer Merthyr Tydfil

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2000

  1 May

  2005

  3 April

  South Wales Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  13 October

  2004

  12 October

  South Wales Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  1 June

  2004

  3 May

  South Wales Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  6 January

  2004

  20 July

  South Wales Fire Service HQ

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2001

  6 July

  2004

  6 July

  South West Development Agency

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2003

  13 January

  2004

  30 June

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

  Social Exclusion Unit

  2003

  26 August

  2004

  25 September

  South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  14 April

  2004

  16 April

  South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2001

  6 July

  2006

  6 July

  SPLASH

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2003

  3 February

  2005

  2 February

  Sport England

  Community Participation-Implementation

  2002

  11 November

  2004

  10 November

  Staffordshire Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  16 June

  2004

  9 June

  Stonham Housing Association

  Social Exclusion Unit

  2003

  28 April

  2004

  25 June

  Strategic Rail Authority

  Fire Service Structure Team

  2003

  27 August

  2005

  26 August

  Strathclyde Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2002

  21 October

  2004

  20 July

  Suffolk Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2001

  6 July

  2004

  6 July

  Surrey Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  24 March

  2004

  31 March

  Sussex Police

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2003

  21 July

  2005

  22 July

  Tower Hamlets

  Thames Gateway Strategic Executive

  2001

  2 April

  2004

  30 September

  Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2002

  21 October

  2004

  20 July

  Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  1 June

  2004

  31 May

  University of East London

  Thames Gateway Strategic Executive

  2002

  20 May

  2004

  19 May

  University of Westminster

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2003

  15 November

  2004

  14 May

  Urban Projects

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

  2003

  8 July

  2004

  7 July

  Warwickshire Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  1 May

  2005

  30 April

  West Midland Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  7 March

  2004

  31 March

  West Midlands Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  1 March

  2005

  31 March

  West Midlands Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  1 December

  2004

  2 April

  West Midlands Fire and Rescue Service

  Fire Service Effectiveness Directorate

  2003

  6 October

  2004

  30 September

  West Sussex Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  9 February

  2005

  31 March

  West Sussex Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2001

  15 January

  2006

  14 January

  West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  2003

  16 June

  2004

  15 June

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Seats
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to implement the recommendation of the ICE Ergonomics Ltd. Report of July 2001 commissioned by the Joint Aviation Authorities concerning the seat pitch on British passenger aircraft. [177147]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 28 September 2003 the European Safety Agency (EASA) assumed responsibility for the design standards of most aircraft manufactured and operated in the European Union. This includes standards for airline seat spacing. At the suggestion of 284W
  the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), an investigation of all seat pitch issues has been added to the EASA rulemaking programme for 2005 onwards. It is expected that the EASA investigation will take full account of the ICE Ergonomics Ltd. report of Jury 2001.

  Crime (Public Transport)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many crimes were committed on London Underground in each year since 1997; and how many were(a) assaults, (b) of a sexual nature and (c) robberies. [175461]

  Mr. McNulty
  [pursuant to the reply, 7 June 2004, Official Report, c. 69–70W]: The British Transport Police (BTP) have provided corrected information on

  285W
  crimes recorded on London Underground in each year since 1998; information is not readily available for earlier than 1998.

  Assaults

  Sexual offences

  Robberies

  Passenger trips (million)

  1998–99

  1,302

  425

  597

  866

  1999–2000

  1,424

  362

  643

  927

  2000–01

  1,234

  393

  591

  970

  2001–02

  1,168

  336

  783

  953

  2002–03

  1,543

  340

  535

  942

  2003–04

  1,834

  357

  502

  947

  Departmental Administration Budget
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards the five per cent. reduction in real terms in his Department's administration budget by 2008 announced by the Chancellor in the House on 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 331. [176509]

  Mr. McNulty
  The real terms reduction of 5 per cent. or more will be a central feature of the public spending settlements for 2006–08 to be announced in detail later this year.

  Race Equality Scheme
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report progress on each of the bullet points on page 20 of the Department's Race Equality Scheme 2003–05. [176820]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: In complying with the specific duties of Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 relating to employment, the Department has some monitoring systems in place, and where they are not, we are setting them up for any areas where monitoring has lapsed. We are monitoring by ethnic group applicants seeking employment by:
  the number of applications for employment;
  the numbers dropping out at different stages of the recruitment process;
  the numbers selected;
  the numbers successful and unsuccessful at different stages of selection; and
  the numbers accepting job offers.

  We also ask applicants to let us know where they found out about our vacancies.

  As regards staff working within the Department, we monitor by ethnic group, and gender:
  the numbers of staff in post;
  applicants for training;
  numbers receiving training;
  applicants for promotion, numbers selected, and numbers successful and unsuccessful at different stages of the process;
  appraisal mark distributions;
  distribution of performance-related pay or bonuses;
  harassment and discrimination complaints;
  those involved in grievances and disciplinary procedures; and ceased employment.
  286W
  Where analysis of this monitoring reveals any disparities, we will take appropriate action to address concerns. The results of monitoring, and impact of action taken to address issues identified will be reported to the Departmental Management Board.

  The Department reviewed its recruitment processes between November 2003 to January 2004. The findings are yet to be analysed, however, once analysis has taken place we will carry out implementation as appropriate.

  We have delivered training events on race awareness for staff involved interviewing and chairing for recruitment and promotions. In addition to this, we have held race equality impact assessment training for key staff, and race equality is featured in our Valuing Diversity programme of events being run throughout 2004.

  In 2003, we delivered diversity awareness workshops for untrained staff. The workshops were designed to challenge some of the stereotypes and misconceptions some managers might have about the ability of minority ethnic staff. We set up a Steering Group, with representation from the trade unions and our minority ethnic staff support network, to develop a career development programme for minority ethnic staff. It is hoped that the programme, to be launched early in 2005, might have some impact in helping to address their under-representation in more senior grades.

  The Department conducted a staff survey in November 2003. Among the outcomes were that 64 per cent. of black staff felt that they were treated with dignity and respect, compared to 76 per cent. of white employees although these differences are not statistically significant. Compared to benchmarking data on race, the Department for Transport performs well against other public sector organisations in those who claimed to have been unfairly treated on account of their race. The departmental figure is 3 per cent. below the benchmark.

  The survey also showed that black and Asian staff seem to be more likely to agree that they like working in the Department, but would prefer an alternative job within it (40 per cent. black staff and 47 per cent. Asian staff compared to 23 per cent. of white staff).

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Computer File Formats
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's policy is in respect of the computer file formats used for the(a) distribution and (b) archiving of publicly available documents. [173359]

  Alun Michael
  Defra's main method for placing documents in the public domain is our online Publication Scheme, which can be found on the Defra website at http://defraweb/corporate/opengov/pubscheme/index.htm. A range of standard web file formats are used for these
  287W
  documents; primarily Portable Document Format (.pdf), Hypertext Markup Language (.html) and Active Server Pages (.asp).

  Documents that are created electronically but are distributed to the public via other methods are stored in their native file format. Typically this will be one of the Microsoft Office formats such as Word (.doc) Excel (.xls) or PowerPoint (.ppt).

  These documents are placed on a registered file, in hard copy, to form part of our official public record, as mandated by The National Archive. Currently Defra does not have an accredited electronic archive, although plans are in development for a future implementation.

  Departmental Administration Budget
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) staffing and (b) staff costs for the Environment Agency are for 2004–05 in respect of its activities on (i) central administration, (ii) flood defence, (iii) water resources, (iv) environmental protection, licensing activities, (v) environmental protection, non-licensing activities, (vi) fisheries, (vii) recreation and conservations (viii) navigation and (ix) other activities. [176407]

  Alun Michael
  The Environment Agency's current staff numbers and costs for each function are set out in the following table.

  Environment Agency

  Full time equivalent staff

  Annual staff costs (£0OO)

  Central Administration

  279

  8,841

  Flood Defence

  4,071

  126,450

  Water Resources

  1,233

  39,078

  Environmental Protection

  3,752

  118,176

  Fisheries

  499

  15,823

  Recreation and Conservation

  189

  4,174

  Navigation

  109

  4,685

  Other Activities

  928

  41,654

  Total

  11,060

  358,881

  The Agency is not able to distinguish between environmental protection staff working on licensing activities and those working on non-licensing activities. Most staff in Environmental Protection functions undertake both duties depending on need.

  "Central Administration" is defined as Head Office Finance, Human Resources, Facilities, Operational Co-ordination, Payroll and other exchequer services and Audit.

  "Other Activities" comprise mainly Corporate Information Systems, National Laboratory Service, Legal, Estates and Procurement.

  Staff costs include travel and subsistence.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the pay gap between men and women employed by her Department and its agencies in(a) Southampton, (b) Eastleigh, (c) Winchester and (d) Romsey. [171633]

  Alun Michael
  In response to the Equal Opportunities Task Force report "Just Pay", the Government committed all departments and agencies to undertake an equal pay review by April 2003 and to prepare action plans to close any equal pay gaps. Consequently, an equal pay audit of the Core Defra, Pesticides Safety Directorate and Veterinary Medicines Directorate pay system was carried out, the results of which revealed that there were no significant inequalities in pay for staff in these locations. There are 17 Core-Defra staff employed in offices in Southampton and Winchester.

  Of my Department's other agencies, only the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) and the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) have staff in these locations. The VLA has 33 staff and CSL has three staff based in or near Winchester. Both agencies have carried out equal pay audits of their pay systems. The CSL audit did not identify any pay inequalities. The Chief Executive of the VLA will reply to the hon. Member separately.

  Honours
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much time her Department spent dealing with honours in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by Civil Service grade. [173038]

  Alun Michael
  For the period April 2003 to January 2004 the Departmental Honours team consisted of a full-time Honours Secretary graded at a Higher Executive Officer (HEO) supported by two full-time Administrative Officers (AO's).

  From February 2004 the Departmental Honours team has been re-organised and is now a full-time Honours Secretary who is an Executive Officer (EO) supported by one full-time Administrative Officer (AO).

  The Honours Secretary is involved with the twice-yearly Departmental Honours sift with the Permanent Secretary and other senior officials.

  The majority of the work on honours is undertaken by the Departmental Honours team. Information is not available on time spent on honours related work, by departmental staff who are not members of the Departmental Honours team.

  Public Bodies
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) total budget and (b) budget for administration were for the

  289W
  (i) Agricultural Wage Committee, (ii) Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee, (iii) Consumers' Committee for Great Britain, (iv) Committee of Agricultural Valuation, (v) Committee of Investigation for Great Britain, (vi) Commons Commissioners and

  Total costs budget

  Administrative costs budget

  Comments

  Agricultural Wage Committee

  35,000

  No separate budget

  —

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee

  44,000

  No separate budget

  —

  Consumers' Committee for Great Britain

  0

  0

  This NDPB is dormant

  Committee of Agricultural Valuation

  0

  0

  This NDPB is dormant

  Committee of Investigation for Great Britain

  0

  0

  This NDPB is Dormant

  Commons Commissioners

  30,000

  30,000

  —

  Hill Farming Advisory Committee

  0

  0

  Dormant

  Note:

  Advisory and Tribunal NDPBs—Administrative Costs

  Administration costs for advisory and tribunal NDPBs Include the costs of board members (fees and expenses)and any associated direct costs of running the NDPB. It does not include the costs of the secretariats within Defra.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) total budget and (b) budget for administration were for the (i) Dairy produce Quota Tribunal, (ii) Horticultutal Development Council, (iii) Home Grown Cereals Authority, (iv) Meat and Livestock Commission, (v) Forum on Non-Food Uses of Crops,

  Total costs budget

  Administrative costs budget

  Comments

  Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal

  0

  0

  Activities on hold

  Horticultural Development Council

  3,900,000

  293,300

  —

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  10,167,000

  582,000

  —

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  36,946,000

  2,064,000

  —

  Forum on Non-Food Uses of Crops

  150,000

  No separate budget

  —

  Advisory Committee on Organic Standards

  167,000

  167,000

  —

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

  40,000

  40,000

  —

  Notes:

  Executive NDPBs—Administrative Costs

  Both management accounting practices and the definition of administration costs differ from organisation to organisation. Therefore comparisons between NDPBs may not be appropriate.

  Advisory and Tribunal NDPBs—Administrative Costs

  Administration costs for advisory and tribunal NDPBs include the costs of board members (fees and expenses) and any associated direct costs of running the NDPB. It does not include the costs of the secretariats within Defra.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) total budget and (b) budget for administration was for the (i) Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, (ii) Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, (iii) Veterinary Products Committee, (iv) Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal, (v) Integrated Administration and

  Total costs budget

  Administrative costs budget

  Comments

  Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB

  124,000

  124,000

  —

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee

  290,029

  No separate budget available

  —

  Veterinary Products Committee

  149,000

  149,000

  —

  Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal

  0

  0

  This NDPB has not met since 1984 and therefore has not incurred costs

  Integrated Administration and Control Systems Panel

  Costs met from overall Rural Payments Agency budget

  Costs met from overall Rural Payments Agency budget

  This NDPB is demand led. The levels of expenditure are determined by the throughput

  Agricultural Land Tribunals

  30,000

  30,000

  —

  Veterinary Residues Committee

  18,000

  18,000

  —

  Note:

  Advisory and Tribunal NDPBs—Administration Costs

  Administration costs for advisory and tribunal NDPBs include the costs of board members (fees and expenses) and any associated direct costs of running the NDPB. It does not include the costs of the secretariats within Defra.

  290W
  (vii) Hill Farming Advisory Committee in financial year 2003–04. [176273]

  Alun Michael
  Details of the total budget and budget for administration for 2003–04 for the NDPBs requested is as follows.

  (vi) Advisory Committee on Organic Standards and (vii) Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment in the financial year 2003–04. [176286]

  Alun Michael
  Details of the total budget and budget for administration for 2003–04 for the NDPBs requested is as follows:

  Control Systems Panel, (vi) Agricultural Land Tribunals and (vii) Veterinary Residues Committee in financial year 2003–04. [176298]

  Alun Michael
  Details of the total budget and budget for administration for 2003–04 for the NDPBs requested is as follows:

  Thames Barrier
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has held with the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser on the reasons for increased use of the Thames Barrier. [176484]

  Mr. Morley
  There have been no direct discussions between Defra and the Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) on the specific issue of the usage of the Thames Barrier. However, Defra has provided assistance in sourcing material for the CSA to use in papers on a variety of subjects including the Thames barrier usage.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Adult Education
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment the Government has made of the benefits of non-academic adult education; and if he will make a statement. [177277]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department has completed a number of studies that look at the benefits of non-academic or leisure based adult education courses. These include work by the DfES-funded Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning, published on their website at www.learningbenefits.net and the results from the first sweep of a DfES commissioned tracking survey of 1,900 learners who have participated in Adult and Community Learning to be published by the DfES on 24 June.

  The results from both areas of work confirm the positive impact of adult learning e.g. on health and civic participation and on the individual's confidence and motivation to undertake further learning. That is why we remain committed to safeguarding a varied range of learning opportunities for personal fulfilment, community development and active citizenship.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been allocated to each local council in 2004–05 for the purposes of adult education. [177278]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department allocates funds for education and training in the post-16 learning and skills sector to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The LSC decides the funding allocated to local education authorities and other providers. Information about these allocations is not collected by the Department. This is an operational matter and the responsibility of the LSC. Mark Haysom, the LSC's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many investigators are employed by the Adult Learning Inspectorate; [176339]

  (2) how many deaths have been investigated by the Adult Learning Inspectorate since its creation; [176341]

  (3) how many bullying incidents have been investigated by the Adult Learning Inspectorate since its creation; [176342]
  292W
  (4) what training in military procedures and weapons handling is planned in order to prepare the Adult Learning Inspectorate for its role in inspecting military bases. [176343]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  These are matters for the Adult Learning Inspectorate. David Sherlock, the Chief Inspector, will write to my hon. Friend with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the budget is of the Adult Learning Inspectorate in 2004–05; and what funds have been set aside to inspect military establishments. [176340]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The annual budget of the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) was set out in the Secretary of State's Grant Letter issued on 16 December 2003. This Grant Letter provides the Inspectorate with up to £24.2 million from the Department for Education and Skills, and a further £5.75 million from the Department for Work and Pensions/Jobcentre Plus, for 2004–05. There is no funding specifically set aside for the inspection agreement between the ALI and Ministry of Defence (MoD) because this is commissioned work, which will be funded on a full cost recovery basis by the MoD.

  Drug and Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils were excluded from secondary school because of(a) drug-related and (b) alcohol-related behaviour in each year since 1997. [176623]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department started to collect data on the reasons for exclusions, including drug and alcohol related incidents, from summer term 2003. There are concerns about the reliability of the first term's data but initial findings are expected to be released within the next few weeks. The first set of annual figures, relating to 2003/04, will not be available until 2005.

DEFENCE

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in the investigation by the Ministry of Defence police into allegations that a member of the Saudi armed forces project of the Ministry of Defence was provided with free holidays and gifts by BAE Systems between 2000 and 2002; and if he will make a statement. [176052]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence Police investigation is continuing and I am therefore unable to comment on progress.

  Iraq
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the status of detainees held by UK
  293W
  forces under Article 78 of the IV Geneva Convention (1949) will be after the transfer of Iraqi sovereignty on 30 June; and if he will make a statement. [173909]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: We will not be detaining anyone under Article 78 of the IV Geneva Convention after 30 June. The United Kingdom will cease to be the occupying power on 30 June and Article 78 of the IV Geneva Convention will no longer be relevant. The case of each of the 125 security internees currently being held is reviewed regularly and those no longer posing an imperative threat to security are released. Post 30 June detention policy will need to be discussed with the Iraqi Interim Government.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to provide the British public with information on the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. [173227]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence provides as much information as it is able to through the media and Parliament. Where allegations are subject to investigations and potentially judicial proceedings, it is necessary to limit what is said in order not to prejudice that process.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions Ministers had with(a) Coalition partners and (b) the armed forces, and when, about the handling of prisoners in Iraq. [173521]

  Mr. Hoon
  The handling of prisoners captured by UK forces in Iraq is determined by our obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

  In March 2003, a Memorandum of Understanding was concluded by the US, UK and Australia dealing with the procedures for the transfer of custody of prisoners of war (PWs) between them. This covered not only PWs but all internees and detainees as well. It emphasises the importance of compliance with the relevant Geneva Conventions and customary international law. A copy was placed in the Library of the House on 15 November 2003.

  Ministers have regular discussions with Coalition partners on a wide variety of issues concerning Iraq and I am withholding details of the discussions under Exemption 1 b of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I am withholding details of the advice to Ministers from the Armed Forces under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Medical Downgrading
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel in all three services have been medically downgraded as a result of service in the Gulf since January 2003, broken down by reason for downgrading; and if he will make a statement. [176803]

  Mr. Caplin
  As of 20 December 2003, centrally held records show that 1,669 military personnel had been medically downgraded subsequent to their arrival in the Gulf region on deployment on Operation Telic. The main reasons for downgrading are as follows:
  294W

  Causes of medical downgrading

  Number of military personnel medically downgraded1

  Musculoskeletal disorders

  587

  Injuries

  468

  Mental and behavioural disorders

  140

  Respiratory system disorders

  87

  Pregnancies

  83

  Other causes

  294

  Cause not recorded

  10

  Total

  1,669

  1Numbers of Service personnel deployed on Op Telic and subsequent medical down gradings during 2003 excludes Special Forces personnel.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Cultural Services Excellence Network
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which councils have been included in the Cultural Services Excellence Network; and what the criteria for inclusion were. [176461]

  Estelle Morris
  The Cultural Services Excellence Network is an informal grouping hosted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The network is open to Cultural Beacon Councils, local authorities that have an "excellent" overall score in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment or perform well in the cultural and leisure services part of the assessment, and authorities that receive an excellent Best Value Inspection score in cultural services. The following councils currently meet the criteria, although not all choose to attend meetings:

  Barnet London Borough Council

  Birmingham City Council

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  Bromley London Borough Council

  Camden London Borough Council

  Cheshire County Council

  Chichester District Council

  City of London

  Colchester Borough Council

  Cornwall County Council

  Derbyshire County Council

  Dorset County Council

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  Greenwich London Borough Council

  Hambleton District Council

  Hampshire County Council

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  Hertfordshire County Council

  Kensington and Chelsea Royal Borough Council

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council

  Kingston upon Thames, Royal Borough of

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Leeds City Council

  Liverpool City Council

  New Forest District Council

  Nottingham City Council

  295W

  South Hams District Council

  Stockton on Tees Borough Council

  Suffolk Coastal District Council

  Suffolk County Council

  Sunderland City Council

  Sutton London Borough Council

  Telford and Wrekin Borough Council

  Wandsworth London Borough Council

  West Sussex County Council

  Westminster London Borough Council

  Worcestershire County Council.

  Departmental Administration Budget
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made towards the five per cent. reduction in real terms in her Department's administration budget by 2008 announced by the Chancellor in the House on 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 331. [176501]

  Tessa Jowell
  The real terms reduction of 5 per cent. or more will be a central feature of the public spending settlements for 2006–08 to be announced in detail later this year.

  Honours
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much time her Department spent dealing with Honours in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by civil service grade. [173035]

  Tessa Jowell
  We have a centralised team dealing with Honours work, the complement of which for the year to 31 March 2004 was 10 per cent. of a Grade A post (Grade 7), two Grade Cs (EO) and three Grade Ds (AO). The team undertakes virtually all of the work on honours within the Department and information is not available on time spent by other staff who are not members of this team.

  The input from senior civil service officials in the Department is estimated at 16 per cent. of one post.

  Ministerial Travel
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the travel costs incurred(a) by her Department and its predecessors and (b) by each Minister within her Department, for each of the last 10 years. [175641]

  Mr. Caborn
  All official travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules contained in the Department's staff handbook and all ministerial travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the "Ministerial Code" and "Travel by Ministers", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  In respect of overseas travel by Ministers, since 1999 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
  296W
  information reaching back to 1995–96. Information for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and in some cases will no longer be held. Information for 2003–04 will be published in due course.

  The following table shows domestic ministerial and overall Departmental expenditure on travel and subsistence combined. An analysis on travel only is not recorded on the Department's accounting system and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  £

  Financial year

  Departmental

  Of which ministerial

  2003–041

  839,928.68

  15,044.44

  2002–03

  876,636.96

  24,719.22

  2001–02

  750,593.38

  17,386.39

  2000–01

  807,806.27

  31,931.38

  1999–2000

  755,429.32

  24,539.59

  1998–99

  643,283.50

  22,913.88

  1997–98

  582,564.51

  11,697.81

  1996–97

  242,031.00

  2—

  1995–96

  280,104.00

  2—

  1994–95

  266,092.00

  2—

  1Financial year 2003–04 costs are provisional pending finalisation of Department's annual accounts.

  2Information for these years is not recorded separately.

  Figures from Financial year 1994–95 to 1996–97 are only available on cash basis (rounded).

  New Opportunities Fund (Stoke)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the New Opportunities Fund was allocated to Stoke-on-Trent, North since 1997. [177633]

  Estelle Morris
  The New Opportunities Fund began making grants in 1999. The awards to Stoke-on-Trent, North are shown in the table.

  Financial year

  Amount (£)

  1999–2000

  49,050

  2000–01

  52,346

  2001–02

  12,381

  2002–03

  123,601

  2003–04

  0

  2004–05

  1,350

  The information is freely available from the Department's searchable Lottery award database at www.lottery.culture.gsi.gov.uk, which uses information supplied by the Lottery distributors.

  Royal Household/Royal Parks
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much public funding has been received by(a) the Royal Household and (b) the Royal Parks in each year since 1979; how much the Government plan to spend for each year until 2005–06; and if she will make a statement. [175272]

  Estelle Morris
  The following is the information from 1991–92 when the Grant in Aid arrangements were established for Property Services for the Occupied Royal Palaces, and from the same date for the royal parks.
  297W

  Amount of public funding given by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  £million

  Royal parks

  The royal household

  1991–92

  25.4

  23.94

  1992–93

  22.8

  23.16

  1993–94

  23.2

  19.80

  1994–95

  23.8

  20.54

  1995–96

  24.7

  20.44

  1996–97

  23.4

  19.61

  1997–98

  21.7

  16.41

  1998–99

  23.72

  15.81

  1999–2000

  30.06

  15.64

  2000–01

  26.97

  15.52

  2001–02

  41.97

  16.03

  2002–03

  27.04

  15.92

  2003–04

  30.68

  16.57

  2004–051

  28.03

  14.97

  2005–20061

  27.09

  15.62

  1Planned funding

  In 1999 the royal household took over the maintenance of Marlborough House on behalf of the Department, and also took on responsibility for royal communications and information previously funded by the Central Office of Information.

  Marlborough House is occupied by the Commonwealth Secretariat and this expenditure is not a cost of the monarchy. Therefore, the table above shows the amount of grant in aid to the royal household excluding Marlborough House from 1999–2006. The royal household received an additional grant in aid for Marlborough House in 1999–2000 of 0.47 million, 2000–2001 of 0.57 million and from 2001–2002 until 2005–06 of 0.59 million.

  To allow earlier delivery of some major capital projects, grant-in-aid to the royal household for 2003–04 was increased by £0.75 million and a corresponding reduction has been made in the 2004–05 allocation. Without this rescheduling, funding would have been £16.41 million in 2003–04 and £16.31 million in 2004–05

  The royal parks are administered by the Royal Parks Agency. The figures quoted are taken from the DCMS Annual Report 2004, Vol. 1, (CM 6220). Expenditure is reported on a full resource consumption basis from 1998–99, whereas earlier figures are on a cash basis. Expenditure in 2001–02 includes £18.6 million for impairment of the Agency's fixed assets following a change of valuation policy.

  Television Licence
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received about the TV licensing direct debit scheme; and if she will make a statement.[177488]

  Estelle Morris
  There is no single direct debit scheme for payment of the television licence fee; direct debit arrangements are available for the monthly and quarterly instalment schemes as well as for a single, annual payment. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport receives regular representations from hon.298W
  Members and members of the public about licence fee issues but does not keep a separate record of representations about direct debit arrangements.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Draft Bills
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Leader of the House how many Bills have been introduced as draft Bills. [175293]

  Mr. Woolas
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 May 2004, Official Report, c. 1479W]: The number of draft Bills published in 2001–02 was seven, not six as indicated in error in my answer of 25 May.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had with the Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief about the impact of the security situation on the distribution of aid. [176600]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID does not have regular meetings with the Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief (ACBAR) on security but we receive regular briefings from the ACBAR NGO Security Office. These are available on www.acbar.org. ACBAR plays a valuable role in Afghanistan, both by coordinating NGO activity and by challenging the Afghan Government and donors through its advocacy work.

  Africa
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government are taking toward offering micro-generation technologies to poor African countries. [176844]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID does not promote particular technologies but supports initiatives that seek to increase reliable, affordable energy services that meet the needs of the poor. A number of micro technologies at the development stage in the UK have limited prospects in Africa because of problems with accessing secure primary energy supplies, particularly by the poor.

  DFID has funded £3.6 million of research since 1992 for the development and promotion of more renewable energy supplies, especially for rural communities. This has covered a wide range of technologies, including wind, small hydropower, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal and biomass. DFID has also seconded experts and provided over £9 million of funding over and above UK contributions to the multilateral system to three relevant international initiatives. These are, the Global Village Energy Partnership, the European Union Energy Initiative for Poverty Eradication and Sustainable Development, and the World Bank Energy Trust Funds. These initiatives cover a range of suitable energy technologies and policy options that include micro technologies where appropriate.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Honours
  Brian White
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much time his Department spent dealing with honours in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by civil service grade. [173034]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have a dedicated honours team consisting of a part time span 7 (senior executive officer), a span 4 (executive officer) and a part-time administrative support officer. Additionally, a number of departmental officials are involved in our internal sifting meetings. No formal records are kept of the time spent by officials on this work, but for the year ending 31 March 2004 we estimate the time spent by them at those meetings to have been as follows:

  Grade

  Number of hours

  Senior civil service

  66

  Span 9 (grade 6)

  2

  Span 4

  2

  The majority of work on honours is undertaken by the departmental honours team. Information is not available on the time spent on honours-related work by departmental staff who are not members of the Department's honours team.

  Legal Aid
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many solicitors' firms had legal aid departments in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [177571]

  Mr. Lammy
  From 1997–98 to 1999–2000 the number of solicitors' firms paid for civil and criminal legal aid work was:

  Number

  1997–98

  10,601

  1998–99

  10,751

  1999–2000

  10,518

  From 2000–01 onwards the number of solicitors' offices holding civil and criminal contracts was:

  Civil

  Criminal

  2000–01

  4,952

  n/a

  2001–02

  4,932

  2,910

  2002–03

  4,641

  2,900

  2003–04

  4,301

  2,669

  The number of offices with contracts does not equal the total number of firms because some offices practised both civil and criminal legal aid before 2000–01, or now hold a contract in both civil and criminal law.

  Before the introduction of contracting, (January 2000 for civil work and April 2001 for criminal work) any solicitors' firm could undertake legal aid work.
  300W
  The reduction in the number of solicitors' firms undertaking legal aid work had little effect on capacity, since those solicitors' firms which withdrew tended to do little publicly funded work.

  Magistrates
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the average age is of(a) male and (b) female magistrates in (i) Surrey, (ii) the South East and (iii) England. [177373]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not accurately available in the format requested. We are able to provide numbers of magistrates within age bands, but not divided by gender, in (i) Surrey:

  Up to age 30: 0 magistrates

  30–39: 10 magistrates

  40–49: 68 magistrates

  50–54: 67 magistrates

  55–59: 90 magistrates

  60–65: 87 magistrates

  66 + : 44 magistrates.

  (ii) the South East. (The South East region is comprised of Kent, Surrey, West Sussex, East Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire):

  Up to age 30: 0 magistrates

  30–39: 126 magistrates

  40–49: 546 magistrates

  50–54: 581 magistrates

  55–59: 1,004 magistrates

  60–65: 846 magistrates

  66 + : 354 magistrates

  (iii) England (including the Duchy of Lancaster):

  Up to age 30: 22 magistrates

  30–39: 968 magistrates

  40–49: 4,377 magistrates

  50–54: 4,401 magistrates

  55–59: 7,343 magistrates

  60–65: 7,004 magistrates

  66 + : 2,663 magistrates.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assistance is provided by his Department for the training of(a) members of the judiciary and (b) the police force in Afghanistan; [177111]

  (2) what support is provided by his Department to train (a) law enforcement officials, (b) members of the judiciary and (c) Government officials in Afghanistan on the protection of the rights of women. [177117]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK funded two senior Afghan police officers to attend the International Commanders Course at the International Faculty at Bramshill in 2003. Two UK police trainers form part of the International Police Assistance Mission that has been
  301W
  providing basic and conversion police training in Kabul since June 2003. In July 2003 a five-strong team of UK police advisers deployed to Kabul to establish Crime Scene Investigation Units for the Afghan police. A further five UK police mentors are currently being deployed to join the US-led Regional Police Training College in Mazar-e Sharif. All police training in Afghanistan supported by the UK includes an awareness of both human rights and gender issues.

  Italy and UNDP lead work on judicial reform in Afghanistan, in conjunction with the Afghan Ministry of Justice. The UK contributed £1 million in 2002–03 to the UNDP Judicial Reform programme. In 2004–05 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is providing £240,000 over two years to the Bar Human Rights Committee to train Afghan legal practitioners in human rights and women's rights advocacy.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the case for expanding protection by the International Security Assistance Force throughout Afghanistan. [177114]

  Mr. Rammell
  The international community, including the UK, is responding to the need for security throughout Afghanistan with increased commitments of troops and resources, including extension of the network of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Deploying additional PRTs is the key to expansion of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The UK is at the forefront of this, having agreed to lead a second PRT and provide a Forward Support Base for all PRTs in the North. But ISAF expansion can only proceed once NATO's statement of requirements is fully met and we are pressing other nations to contribute the resources needed to meet existing shortfalls.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Afghanistan about the need to criminalise(a) rape, (b) the giving of girls in marriage as a means of dispute resolution and (c) the forcing of women and girls to marry against their consent in Afghanistan. [177116]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK and other EU member states have regularly raised human rights issues, including the rights of women and girls with the Afghan Transitional Administration.

  Women's rights in Afghanistan are protected by the new Constitution, ratified in January 2004. The Constitution contains specific articles on women's equality and rights to political participation. The Constitution also requires the Government to uphold its obligations under international law. Rape and forced marriage are both prohibited by Afghanistan's obligations under the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, both of which Afghanistan has ratified. It is important that these rights now be implemented in practice.

  Practical improvements in women's rights require further progress on security and judicial reform. The UK provided £10 million in 2003–04 for training of the new Afghan National Army and US$4 million in 2003–04 for Disarmament, Demobilisation and
  302W
  Reintegration of former combatants. In 2004–05 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is providing £240,000 over two years to the Bar Council to train Afghan legal practitioners in human rights and women's rights advocacy.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts he has made to achieve a change in the mandate of the provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan to focus exclusively on security. [177120]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have not sought to change the mandate of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). They are not resourced to focus purely on security, nor is that their purpose. PRTs aim to extend the authority of the central Government by facilitating reconstruction and security sector reform. Although small in size, we believe that PRTs are succeeding in achieving this through the beneficial effect they have on the security environment in the areas in which they operate. This has certainly been borne out by our experience with the UK-led PRT in Mazar-e Sharif.

  Australia
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Australia about its withdrawal in March 2002 from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. [177424]

  Mr. Rammell
  In March 2002, Australia opted out of the compulsory dispute settlement procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 of UNCLOS relating to sea boundary delimitations or those involving historic bays or titles. This exception is provided for in Article 298(l) (a) of UNCLOS. Australia has not therefore withdrawn from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and there have been no discussions between the Foreign Secretary and the Government of Australia regarding any such withdrawal.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Australia about the economic implications of the International Unitisation Agreement for East Timor. [177425]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK Government has not sought, and would not seek to become involved with this bilateral agreement between Timor-Leste and Australia.

  Burma
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the participation of(a) Aung San Suu kyi, (b) the National League for Democracy and (c) ethnic minorities are conditions of Burma's membership of the Asia Europe Meeting. [176899]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) Foreign Ministers met on 17–18 April and discussed enlargement of ASEM, among other issues. While Ministers noted moves by the regime in Burma, including the release of some members of opposition parties, they agreed that they wanted to see further and
  303W
  concrete progress in Burma. EU Foreign Ministers raised in particular the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest, and an open and inclusive National Convention with the participation of the National League for Democracy. Ministers therefore agreed to postpone a decision on Burma's membership of ASEM, to allow ASEM members to monitor progress in Burma and review the situation in June.

  Butler Inquiry
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what papers his Department has submitted to Lord Butler's inquiry into intelligence on Iraq. [177072]

  Mr. Rammell
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear when he announced the establishment of the Review to the House on 3 February 2004,Official Report, columns 625–28, the Committee has access to all intelligence reports and assessments, and other relevant Government papers, and is able to call witnesses to give oral evidence in private.

  Central Intelligence Agency
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which communications that the Government has received from the United States' Central Intelligence Agency since 1 May 1997 have been published; and whether the CIA has sought permission from the Government to make public communications received from the Government over that period. [176790]

  Mr. Straw
  The Central Intelligence Agency has published a large quantity and wide range of material since 1 May 1997. Some of this material has been passed to the British Government but records are not kept centrally. The CIA has on occasion sought permission to make public British Government information.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates his officials have visited British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay; on what dates he received reports on the welfare of detainees; what representations he has made on behalf of the prisoners; and what action he took to make his concerns known to relatives or legal representatives of those detained. [177590]

  Mr. Mullin
  British officials have visited the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay on the following dates: 17–20 January 2002, 26 February-1 March 2002, 27–31 May 2002, 11–15 November 2002, 21–28 April 2003, 8–10 September 2003, 8–9 March 2004. The main points arising from these visits have been reported to Parliament.

  Ministers are kept informed about the visits, as are the families of the detainees. Welfare issues are raised regularly with the US authorities

  Iran
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the report submitted by Iran to the Board of 304W
  Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency on 21 May on Iran's Nuclear Programmes and Activities. [177073]

  Mr. MacShane
  Iran's report is confidential to the Board of Governors and it is for them to assess its contents, assisted by the Agency's experts, and compare the information contained in it with their own findings from their inspection activities in Iran.

  Iraq
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether(a) the Geneva Conventions and (b) all other international humanitarian and human rights law instruments will continue to govern the actions of coalition forces in Iraq after June 30; and if he will make a statement. [176808]

  Mr. Straw
  The forces contributing to the Multi-National Force operating in Iraq after 30 June will act consistently with their obligations under applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the dates when Government(a) Ministers and (b) officials met Ahmed Chalabi; what was discussed on each occasion; and if he will make a statement; [176810]

  (2) if he will make a statement on UK Government contact with Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress (a) prior to military action in Iraq and (b) subsequent to military action. [176811]

  Mr. Straw
  Since Ahmed Chalabi was appointed to the Iraqi Governing Council, there have been numerous meetings with him by UK officials, notably the UK Special Representative for Iraq, his staff, the Prime Minister's Special Envoy for Human Rights in Iraq and the UK Mission in New York. These meetings have covered a wide range of issues. The only formal ministerial meeting was with my noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, who met him during her visit to Baghdad in March 2004. They discussed the transition process and the Oil For Food programme. I was introduced to Ahmed Chalabi and had a brief conversation with him at a US Government reception in New York during UNGA week in September 2003.

  Prior to Ahmed Chalabi's appointment to the Iraqi Governing Council, the only recorded meeting took place in New York, during October 2000, where he met officials from the UK Mission to discuss sanctions and human rights.

  Prior to military action, the Iraqi National Congress was in effect a loose umbrella organisation for most of the Iraqi opposition in exile. There were numerous meetings between UK officials and members of the Iraqi National Congress, both prior to and subsequent to military action.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the inclusion of material in the September 2002 dossier on Iraq originating from the Iraqi National Congress. [176812]
  305W
  Mr. Straw
  No part of the dossier on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction published on 24 September 2002 relied upon information known to have originated from the Iraqi National Congress.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has sought from the Coalition Provisional Authority of the(a) capacity and (b) population of prisons in (i) Iraq and (ii) Baghdad. [177208]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are currently 18 Iraqi prisons in operation in Iraq with a capacity of 5,500. They are under the jurisdiction of the Iraqi Correction Service (ICS), under the Ministry of Justice. Of these, 14 are in the Baghdad region. A further 16 facilities with a capacity of 23,000 are planned. The CPA Ministry of Justice team estimate the prison population nationwide to be approximately 4,000. This does not include prisoners of war, security internees or criminal detainees (held for the Iraqis) held in UK or US custody. These number around 9,000.

  Israel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what punitive measures against the Israeli Government are available to him for non-compliance with the human rights clauses of the EU-Israeli Association Agreement. [177219]

  Mr. Rammell
  The penalties available to the EU if a breach of the Agreement occurs, which would not result in denunciation of the Agreement, are outlined in Article 86 of the Agreement. This article establishes a dispute resolution mechanism. The first stage would be for the concerned party to report the issue to the Association Council. If the Association fails to resolve the issue, the concerned party could then invoke an arbitration process. The arbitrators would decide a judgment and each party would be bound by that judgment. Article 90 further allows for either party to take appropriate measures if it is felt that the other party had failed to fulfil an obligation under the Agreement.

  Article 2 of the EU/Israel Association Agreement states that:
  "Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement."

  Minister

  Date

  Locations

  Total journey time

  1996–97

  Secretary of State

  7 May 1996

  Northolt, Birmingham, Battersea

  1 hour 40 minutes

  Secretary of State

  1 August 1996

  Northolt, Battersea

  15 minutes

  Minister of State, (Eastern Europe)

  18 February 1997

  Northolt, Battersea

  10 minutes

  1997–98

  Secretary of State

  21 July 1997

  Northolt, Highgrove, Battersea

  1 hour 20 minutes

  2002–03

  Secretary of State

  6 September 2002

  Northolt, Birmingham, Northolt

  1 hour 35 minutes

  No RAF helicopter journeys were made in the Financial Years 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2003–04.

  Ivory Coast
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the situation in Cote d'Ivoire. [177097]

  Mr. Mullin
  The situation in Cote d'lvoire is worrying. The Linas-Marcoussis Peace Agreement (LMA) is in jeopardy following the sacking of three opposition Ministers by President Gbagbo, and the opposition's continued boycott of the Government.

  The UK fully supports the LMA and has called on all parties in Cote d'lvoire to ensure its implementation. The UK is working with the Security Council, UN, EU and Economic Community of West African States to keep the LMA alive and to bring renewed stability to Cote d'lvoire.

  Kuwait
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the Kuwait authorities have made to representations to curtail Iraqi reparation payments to their country; what his response to the Kuwaiti position is; and if he will make a statement. [177439]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are conscious of the importance to Kuwait of its entitlement to compensation approved by the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) for the huge losses occasioned by the Iraqi occupation. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, Iraqi payments to the UNCC Compensation Fund can be changed only by a decision of a sovereign Iraqi government and of the UNCC Governing Council.

  Ministerial Travel
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [175745]

  Mr. Straw
  There is no central record of non-RAF helicopter journeys made by Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Ministers. However, since the Financial Year 1996–97, FCO Ministers have made the following RAF helicopter journeys in the UK. This list excludes those made overseas.

  Monaco
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his
  307W
  Department has made of the practice in Monaco of holding prisoners on remand for extensive periods without charge in the context of the Monegasque Government's desire to join the Council of Europe. [177081]

  Mr. MacShane
  Monaco is committed to introduce new laws as part of the process of joining the Council of Europe. As well as undertaking to sign the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) upon accession, and to ratify this Convention and Protocols 1, 4, 6, 7 and 13 within a year of accession, the Government of Monaco has also undertaken to submit the necessary Bills aimed at defining arrangements for: police custody; pre-trial detention; the provision of grounds for negative administrative decisions; and the expulsion of foreigners and suppression of forced exile. These measures will help ensure the compatibility of Monaco legislation with the ECHR and its Protocols.

  Once Monaco joins the Council of Europe we will work within the Council of Europe to monitor Monaco's honouring of their accession commitments and obligations, including this requirement to introduce domestic legislation to ensure conformity with the standards of the Council of Europe.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the fairness of the judicial process in Monaco in the context of the Monegasque Government's desire to join the Council of Europe. [177082]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government welcomes Monaco's application for membership of the Council of Europe, providing Monaco honours the commitments set out by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. These include Monaco signing upon accession to the Council of Europe the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

  North Korea
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information has been received(a) by his Department and (b) by the United Kingdom mission to the United Nations in respect of the nuclear programmes in North Korea, following the visit of the UN Special Envoy, Maurice Strong, to Pyongyang on 22 May. [177069]

  Mr. MacShane
  Mr. Strong gave a briefing to diplomats based in Pyongyang before his return to New York. The briefing was general in nature, and did not go into detail about the discussions that he had with his North Korean interlocutors. Our Embassy in Pyongyang passed details about the briefing to the relevant departments in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. To date, Mr. Strong has not passed any information to the Mission to the United Nations.

  Private Security Contractors
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many private security contractors are employed by the UK to protect its interests, individuals and agencies in(a) Iraq and (b) other countries abroad; in what roles they are
  308W
  employed; under which budget heads, including those of other Departments, the costs fall; what the current annual cost is on those budget heads where the main costs fall; and if he will make a statement. [177077]

  Mr. Rammell
  On Iraq, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on 25 May 2004,Official Report, column 1573W.

  Many of our overseas missions employ private security contractors but the detailed information requested on the numbers involved is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs. The majority of these contracts provide personnel to work as static guards at our missions and at staff accommodation in countries where the security situation warrants that level of protection. In some of our high-risk posts we use contract guards to provide a quick reaction force and to act as individual bodyguards. The costs of these contract guards fall under administration and programme budgets, which are devolved to regional and functional directorates within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The directorates then disburse funds to posts. Not including Iraq, approximately £6 million was allocated to fund contract guarding in the financial year 2003–04.

  Stephen Troth
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the French Government regarding discrimination against Stephen Troth on the grounds of nationality. [177083]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are not aware that Stephen Troth has made any allegations of discrimination on the grounds of nationality and we have made no representations to the French Government on this matter.

  Since Mr. Troth's arrest in Monaco in 2001, our consular staff in London and Marseille have followed his case closely. Our primary role has always been to ensure Mr. Troth's welfare. Our Consul-General in Marseille and Honorary Consul in Monaco visited Mr. Troth several times and our consular staff have provided Mr. Troth and his family assistance wherever they properly could and have recommended that Mr. Troth and his family continue to be guided by their lawyer on legal matters.

  Sudan
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on incursions by the Janjaweed militia into countries neighbouring Sudan; and what assessment he has made of the Sudanese Government's responsibility for them. [177038]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are concerned by reports of incursions by the Janjaweed militias into Chad. We are in regular contact with the Sudanese Government about the situation in Darfur. During the visit of the Sudanese Foreign Minister to London on 11 May, my right hon. Friends, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development, and I made strong representations to the Foreign Minister about Darfur and in particular the need for the Sudanese Government
  309W
  to act now to rein in the Janjaweed. Whatever the Government's relation to these militias, the Sudanese Government have a responsibility to protect their civilians.

  Our Embassy in Khartoum has discussed the conflict in Darfur with the Government of Chad. We have welcomed the role played by the Government of Chad in mediating at the ceasefire talks between the parties to the conflict, and their continued support to the 130,000 Sudanese refugees whom they are currently hosting.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace settlement in the Sudan signed at Naivasha; what help the Government intend to offer in relation to maintaining the peace, with particular reference to Abeyei, the Nuba Mountains and the Southern Blue Nile and Darfur; and what assessment he has made of the implications of the peace settlement for the possible implementation of Sharia law in the south of the country. [177443]

  Mr. Mullin
  We welcomed the signing on 26 May of the latest protocols at the Sudan peace talks at Naivasha. These protocols cover power-sharing, the two areas (Nuba Mountains and Southern Blue Nile) and Abyei, and, together with the previously agreed documents, provide the political framework for a comprehensive peace agreement. We are calling on all parties to continue to work towards the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement can be signed soon. In the expectation of a peace agreement the UK has allocated £35million to Sudan for 2004–05. In addition, we have also allocated £3.5 million from the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool.

  In respect of nationally enacted legislation, Sharia law will only apply in the states outside Southern Sudan, as stated in the Machakos Protocol of 20 July 2002.

  Despite the progress at the Peace Talks in Naivasha, we remain deeply concerned about the situation in Darfur. We have already committed over £18.2 million in response to the crisis there, and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for International Development, is currently visiting the region.

  Uzbekistan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Uzbekistan concerning discrimination faced by Protestant Christians in that country, with particular reference to(a) threats made against members of the Church of Christ by the public prosecutor's office in Nukus in April, (b) the closure by the authorities of the Urgench Baptist Church in Khorezm region in February, (c) attempts to force Murat Abatov to renounce his faith at a state-run farm in the Karakalpakstan region in April and (d) pressure being exerted upon Protestant Christians in Nukus, by the secret police and the regular police, to sign statements admitting they are members of a religious sect. [177455]

  Mr. Rammell
  We remain concerned by reports of religious intolerance and persecution in Uzbekistan and our Embassy in Tashkent maintains close contact with representatives of religious groups and NGOs. My hon.310W
  Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mike O'Brien) discussed the importance of an open, democratic society where freedom of expression was encouraged with the Uzbek Deputy Prime Minister on 4 February. An EU demarche made to the Uzbek Foreign Minister in April raised the cancellation of a Human Rights Watch Conference on Religious Persecution by the Uzbek Ministry of Justice. We strongly believe that permitting free expression of religious belief is the best means of combating the attractiveness of some of the more radical and extremist ideologies. While we have not made any representations on these individual cases, we have seen reports of discrimination faced by Protestant Christians, as well as other religious minorities, in Uzbekistan and shall continue to raise cases of religious persecution with the Uzbek authorities.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers families are awaiting removal in(a) Greater London and (b) the UK; and for how long each such family has been awaiting removal. [173875]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of unsuccessful asylum seekers awaiting removal—or the length of time for which they have been awaiting removal—is not available, partly because some applicants may leave the United Kingdom without informing the Immigration Service.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which countries(a) are reluctant and (b) refuse to accept the return of failed asylum seekers from the UK. [176289]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: When we return failed asylum seekers we do not distinguish them from any other individual with no right to remain in the UK and we do not inform the receiving country that they have claimed asylum.

  The vast majority of countries accept the principle of the return of their own nationals from the UK, once nationality has been established. The Chicago Convention obliges signatory nations to accept back those of their own nationals who do not qualify to remain in other States. 188 countries worldwide are signatories (see following list.).

  Despite their obligations under the Chicago Convention, Iran for example is reluctant to accept the enforced return of their nationals. We are currently in discussions with the Iranian government to agree an arrangement which will allow us to enforce returns to Iran.

  Contracting States to the Chicago convention

  Afghanistan

  Albania

  Algeria

  Andorra

  Angola

  Antigua and Barbuda

  311W

  Argentina

  Armenia

  Australia

  Austria

  Azerbaijan

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belarus

  Belgium

  Belize

  Benin

  Bhutan

  Bolivia

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei Darussalam

  Bulgaria

  Burkina Faso

  Burundi

  Cambodia

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Cape Verde

  Central African Republic

  Chad

  Chile

  China

  Colombia

  Comoros

  Congo

  Cook Islands

  Costa Rica

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Croatia

  Cuba

  Cyprus

  Czech Republic

  Democratic People's Republic of Korea

  Democratic Republic of the Congo

  Denmark

  Djibouti

  Dominican Republic

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Equatorial Guinea

  Eritrea

  Estonia

  Tthiopi

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gabon

  Gambia

  Georgia

  312W

  Germany

  Ghana

  Greece

  Grenada

  Guatemala

  Guinea

  Guinea-Bissau

  Guyana

  Haiti

  Honduras

  Hungary

  Iceland

  India

  Indonesia

  Iran

  Iraq

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kazakhstan

  Kenya

  Kiribati

  Kuwait

  Kyrgyzstan

  Lao, People's Democratic Republic

  Latvia

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

  Lithuania

  Luxembourg

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Mali

  Malta

  Marshall Islands

  Mauritania

  Mauritius

  Mexico

  Micronesia (Federated States of)

  Monaco

  Mongolia

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Myanmar

  Namibia

  Nauru

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Nicaragua

  Niger

  313W

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Palau

  Panama

  Papua New Guinea

  Paraguay

  Peru

  Philippines

  Poland

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Republic of Korea

  Republic of Moldova

  Romania

  Russian Federation

  Rwanda

  Saint Lucia

  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

  Samoa

  San Marino

  Sao Tome and Principe

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Serbia and Montenegro

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  Solomon Islands

  Somalia

  South Africa

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Suriname

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Syrian Arab Republic

  Tajikistan

  Thailand

  The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

  Togo

  Tonga

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  Turkmenistan

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  United Arab Emirates

  United Kingdom

  United Republic of Tanzania

  United States of America

  Uruguay

  314W

  Uzbekistan

  Vanuatu

  Venezuela

  Vietnam

  Yemen

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether China is prepared to receive back failed asylum seekers from the UK. [176290]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: China is prepared to accept back failed asylum seekers from the UK in principle. However, the Chinese have very strict conditions for re-documenting their nationals to enable repatriation. This issue is at the forefront of our bilateral relations with the Chinese and the my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister underlined the importance of finding a solution to the problem of undocumented returns during his discussions with the Chinese Premier earlier this month. We have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chinese on co-operation on illegal immigration, which will provide a framework to take forward our discussions with the Chinese to improve the system of returning failed asylum seekers as a matter of urgency.

  Child Pornography
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department is funding into the use of(a) peer to peer file-sharing technology, (b) Freenet and (c) other new technologies for the dissemination of child pornography. [173904]

  Paul Goggins
  The role of peer to peer file-sharing technology and related technology, such as 3G mobile phones, has been identified as a means of disseminating illegal content, including child pornography. This was confirmed in Home Office research which sought to examine current and potential future abuses of otherwise legitimate technology, and is consistent with the findings of similar studies which have been carried out by others in this field.

  Regardless of the method used to distribute these images, it is our intention to ensure that law enforcement have the capability to effectively identify and investigate individuals who are producing, distributing, and using them.

  Government continue to work in partnership with industry and law enforcement agencies to assess the new technology which is emerging and the potential it offers for the distribution of child abuse images and other illegal material. Our aim is to ensure that the technology does not present law enforcement with any barriers to fulfil their investigative role.

  As part of a wide range of on-going work of the Police Science and Technology Strategy Group (future scanning subgroup) seeks to ensure that the police service can exploit new technology at the earliest opportunity and is prepared for new technology based threats.

  Child Sex Tourism
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's plans are to tackle child sex tourism. [172797]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 17 May 2004]: The Government are committed to eradicating the sexual exploitation of children, including where British citizens go abroad to abuse children. We have put in place comprehensive legislation to deal with this problem:
  Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 enables courts in England and Wales and Northern Ireland to deal with British citizens or residents who commit sexual offences against children abroad. Similar provisions apply in Scotland.
  The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 makes it an offence for a person to conspire to commit an offence outside the UK, including sexual offences against children.

  In addition, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 has introduced a new civil preventive order aimed at protecting children abroad from UK sex offenders. The foreign travel order is targeted specifically against paedophile sex tourists—those who travel overseas to abuse young children because the opportunities to do so are more available in some countries than in the UK. It enables the courts to prevent those with a conviction for a sexual offence against a child aged under 16 from travelling abroad where there is evidence that they may cause serious sexual harm to children aged under 16 overseas.

  The Sexual Offences Act 2003 also includes a new order which enables the courts to make offenders who have received convictions or cautions for sexual offences overseas (whether they are British citizens or foreign nationals) subject to the notification requirements ("the sex offenders register") of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 if they come to the UK.

  The Government have also made regulations which reduce the period that "registered" sex offenders can intend to spend abroad before they have to notify the police form eight days to three days. The police can, and do, pass this information to other jurisdictions where they believe it will prevent the offender from committing an offence overseas.

  Finally, a working group has been established to further examine the issue of combating child sex tourism. This group includes representatives for Government Departments, the travel industry, NGOs and the police. The Home Office is also funding a research project, managed by ECPAT UK, aimed at identifying the best channels through which we can raise awareness of child sex tourism.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter from the right honourable Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 30 March with regard to Mrs. Ahmed and Farooq Ahmed. [172253]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 8 June 2004.

  Credit Card Purchases
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted in courts in England and Wales of(a) purchasing child pornography images and (b) other offences involving the use of a credit card on line in each of the last five years. [173055]

  Paul Goggins
  Such offences cannot be separately identified in the statistics of court proceedings collected centrally.

  Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role(a) further education and (b) higher education colleges have played in improving professional standards in crime and disorder reduction partnerships; and if he will provide examples of best practice. [174968]

  Ms Blears
  Further and higher education colleges offer a variety of courses in community safety for Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs). These include short course programmes on single topics, vocational qualifications, and degrees up to masters level. Some colleges have also assisted CDRPs with the development of their crime and disorder audits and strategies and analysis of specific local crime problems.

  There are no established examples of best practice. Individual colleges evaluate their own courses and they are also inspected by Ofsted, but no comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness in improving professional standards has been undertaken.

  The Home Office publishes details of courses available from a range of further and higher education colleges on the Crime Reduction Website.

  Crime Prevention/Detection
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many hours were worked by police officers in the latest year for which figures are available in each police force in England and Wales; [173567]

  (2) how many police officer hours were spent by each police force in England and Wales in combating and solving each category of crimes. [173566]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 May 2004]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  The latest published figures on police strength for September 2003, were given in online report 13/04, "Police strength in England and Wales 30 September 2004".

  Detainees
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the workings of the escort system for detainees about to be removed from the UK; and if he will make a statement. [173546]

  Mr. Browne
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not received any representations concerning the workings of the escort system for detainees.

  Detention Centres
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what figures he has collated on the use of force at(a) Yarl's Wood detention centre and (b) other detention and removal centres; and if he will make a statement. [173544]

  Mr. Browne
  During the period from the re-opening of Yarl's Wood in September 2003 to 17 May 2004 the total number of incidents where the use of force has been necessary are listed in the table.

  Those figures in brackets represent the number of detainees involved in these incidents.

  Number of incidents

  Number of detainees involved

  Campsfield House

  16

  (16)

  Dover

  28

  (24)

  Dungavel House

  24

  (23)

  Harmondsworth

  61

  (56)

  Haslar

  15

  (14)

  Lindholme

  9

  (9)

  Oakington

  9

  (8)

  Tinsley House

  13

  (13)

  Yarl's Wood

  20

  (14)

  Figures are closely monitored in order to identify and investigate any trends in the use of force.

  DNA Evidence
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have had their sentences quashed as a result of DNA evidence. [169238]

  Paul Goggins
  DNA technology can be used both to help the police identify criminals and to eliminate suspects. Convictions may be secured with the assistance of DNA evidence but it may also be a factor in leading to the quashing of a particular conviction and sentence. However, the information on the numbers of such appeal cases is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Durham Jail
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been held at Durham jail in each month since 1 May 2003. [176661]

  Paul Goggins
  The population of Her Majesty Prison Durham, by gender, in each month since May 2003 is given in the table.

  Population of HMP Durham—month end figures

  Males

  Females

  2003

  May

  603

  102

  June

  605

  107

  July

  603

  105

  August

  609

  104

  September

  601

  104

  October

  608

  100

  November

  597

  100

  December

  601

  97

  2004

  January

  595

  106

  318W

  Population of HMP Durham—month end figures

  Males

  Females

  February

  603

  100

  March

  619

  106

  April

  625

  103

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been released on early release from Durham jail since 1 May 2003. [176665]

  Paul Goggins
  Between 1 May 2003 and 30 April 2004 there were 118 prisoners released from Her Majesty Prison Durham on the Home Detention Curfew Scheme.

  Entry Clearance (Istanbul)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to visit the entry clearance operation in Istanbul. [169888]

  Mr. Browne
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no plans to visit the entry clearance operation in Istanbul.

  EU Accession Countries
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of people from EU accession countries living and working in the UK; and how many of those he estimates are working illegally. [161816]

  Mr. Browne
  During the period September to November 2003, an estimated 113,000 nationals of the 10 EU accession countries were resident in the United Kingdom. Of these, 51,000 were in employment, 48,000 were economically inactive, 10,000 were aged under 16 and less than 10,000 were ILO unemployed.

  Official estimates of the size of the illegally working migrant population in the United Kingdom do not exist. The Government have commissioned research into the methods used in other countries to estimate the size of their illegal populations (illegal workers forming part of this population) in order to define methods appropriate for the UK. Further research is also planned to investigate illegal working in order to help the Government tackle problem more effectively.

  The work required is challenging because, by definition, illegal migrants fall outside of official statistics and are therefore difficult to measure. People illegally present in the UK are also motivated to ensure they remain hidden, which is a challenge to conducting research.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision his Department made prior to 1 May to ensure that those to whom his Department had written indicating the termination of support and housing benefits had in their possession the documents necessary to enable them(a) to seek work in the UK and (b) to return to their EU member state of origin. [172927]
  319W
  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: On 1 May 2004, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta became members of the European Union and asylum seekers from these countries ceased to be eligible for support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) or a local authority under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999. Immigration Nationality Directorate officials wrote to all those affected to ensure that they were aware of their options after 1 May. Letters were sent on 5 and 6 April to those supported directly by NASS and on 16 April to those supported by local authorities. The letters explained the options available, namely to obtain work and register under the Worker Registration Scheme (except for those from Cyprus and Malta who are not required to register), to remain in the UK but become self supporting, or to return to their country of origin.

  The letters advised those affected that they could look for work immediately but that they could not take up that work until 1 May unless they already had been given permission to work by the Home Office. The letters also advised those affected that they could approach their embassy or consulate for advice on returning.

  Accession state nationals Who wish to make an application for a workers registration card whose passports are being held by the Home Office should indicate this on the workers registration form. Their documentation will then be considered alongside the application.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from EU accession countries arrived at UK international(a) airports and (b) bus stations in the first week of May last year. [173183]

  Mr. Browne
  Data are not available for the period requested.

  Data from the International Passenger Survey (IPS) shows that a total of 86,000 visits were made by nationals of EU accession countries in May 2003.

  Identity Card
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an identity card card reader will be available for purchase by the general public under proposals in the draft Identity Cards Bill and consultation document (Cm 6178). [173128]

  Mr. Browne
  There are a number of potential options for card readers, ranging from biometric readers which might be used to verify identity securely, to card readers on personal computers which might be able to verify the authenticity of the card. At present no firm decisions have been made on card reader specification. The Identity Cards Programme is investigating these options and evaluating them, looking particularly at how they might be used by potential user organisations and the privacy and security issues which arise from these options.
  320W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) availability and (b) reliability of technology designed to identify duplicate identities based on identical biometric information. [173131]

  Mr. Browne
  Where an individual attempts to enrol twice into the identity cards scheme using separate identities, it is essential that the second enrolment is detected by making a successful match against the biometric already enrolled by that individual. This form of negative matching is a common feature of existing biometric systems, including the police National Automated Fingerprint Identification Service (NAFIS) system and the on-going United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) biometric trial.

  The identity cards programme is at an early stage in investigating the details of the requirement for matching within a large database, the design of feasibility work to test it and the technical solutions to deliver it.

  Illegal Entrants
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clandestine entrants into the United Kingdom have been detected and served with illegal entry papers(a) on entry and (b) in country in each month since December 2001. [176336]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 17 May 2004, Official Report, column 761W.

  Immigration
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the average time spent by immigrants in(a) Metropolitan Police Authority and (b) British Transport Police cells is in (i) Camden and (ii) Greater London; [173872]

  (2) how many immigrants are being detained in (a) Metropolitan Police Authority and (b) British Transport Police facilities in (i) Camden and (ii) Greater London. [173874]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on persons detained in police cells is not held centrally and could be obtained only by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what changes have been made to the employment of UK immigration officers in Cherbourg during 2004; [170603]

  (2) what changes have been made to weekend operations involving immigration controls in Dorset during 2004. [170601]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: The UK Immigration Service does not presently operate in Cherbourg.

  On 19 July 2002 a pilot scheme started between Cherbourg and Poole. UK Immigration Officers provided advice and support to the carrier in respect of travel status of passengers prior to boarding in

  321W
  Cherbourg. The officer then returned with the inbound ferry to control passengers seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom during the crossing.

  On 22 February 2004 the scheme was suspended. Local managers are seeking to resume the pilot exercise at the earliest opportunity.

  Iraq Refugees
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has(a) to institute a voluntary assisted return programme for refugees from Iraq and (b) to begin forcibly returning individuals to Iraq who have been refused refugee status and other forms of protection in the UK. [173215]

  Mr. Browne
  Since July last year the Home Office has been facilitating, without incident, the return of small numbers of Iraqi citizens who want to return home through the International Organisation for Migration. Individuals returning under this programme receive independent advice and practical assistance with travel arrangements.

  We have also reached agreement with the Coalition Provisional Authority to begin enforced returns to Iraq. We are working to finalise the practicalities of the enforced returns programme, which we will implement as soon as the necessary arrangements are in place.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the status is of Iraqi individuals who were refused refugee status and other forms of protection in the UK in 2003. [173216]

  Mr. Browne
  The current status of Iraqi asylum seekers, who were refused refugee status and other forms of protection in the UK in 2003, will depend on whether they have appealed against this decision, and if so what the outcome of the appeal was. If all appeal rights have been exhausted and no leave of any kind has been granted, these individuals will have no basis on which to remain in the United Kingdom and will be expected to return to Iraq.

  Prisons holding life sentence prisoners, 31 March 2004

  Operational capacity

  Lifer population

  Total population

  Percentage of population serving life sentences

  Acklington

  881

  25

  869

  2.9

  Albany

  526

  111

  521

  21.3

  Altcourse

  1,010

  7

  988

  0.7

  Ashwell

  545

  52

  533

  9.8

  Askham Grange

  151

  10

  134

  7.5

  Aylesbury

  361

  46

  363

  12.7

  Bedford

  464

  7

  481

  1.5

  Belmarsh

  921

  47

  921

  5.1

  Birmingham

  1,400

  15

  1,406

  1.1

  Blakenhurst

  880

  4

  870

  0.5

  Blantyre House

  122

  27

  117

  23.1

  Blundeston

  464

  29

  462

  6.3

  Bristol

  584

  65

  581

  11.2

  Brixton

  798

  9

  818

  1.1

  Buckley Hall

  330

  8

  322

  2.5

  Bullingdon

  963

  6

  943

  0.6

  Bullwood Hall

  184

  37

  152

  24.3

  Cardiff

  669

  65

  675

  9.6

  Castington

  346

  8

  336

  2.4

  Channings Wood

  667

  51

  664

  7.7

  Chelmsford

  575

  9

  593

  1.5

  Coldingley

  390

  37

  387

  9.6

  Cookham Wood

  140

  15

  137

  10.9

  Dartmoor

  625

  18

  618

  2.9

  Doncaster

  1,120

  12

  1,118

  1.1

  322W
  We are currently facilitating the return of those who wish to go home through the International Organisation for Migration. We have also reached an agreement with the Coalition Provisional Authority to begin enforced returns to Iraq, and will commence these as soon as the necessary arrangements are in place.

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are serving a life sentence; how many of these have served(a) less than 10 years, (b) between 10 and 15 years, (c) between 15 and 20 years, (d) between 20 and 25 years, (e) between 25 and 30 years and (f) longer than 30 years. [173103]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of life sentence prisoners/ at the end of March 2004 was 5,553 and the table shows the life sentence population at the end of June 2002 by the length of time served.

  Population of life prisoners by interval since date of initial reception on life sentence—England and Wales, 30 June 2002

  Number of persons

  All

  5,147

  Less than five years

  1,928

  Five to less than 10 years

  1,389

  10 to less than 15 years

  819

  15 to less than 20 years

  515

  20 to less than 25 years

  299

  25 to less than 30 years

  110

  30 years and over

  86

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list prisons which accommodate life sentence inmates; what the capacity of each prison is; and how many and what percentage of prisoners are serving life sentences. [173104]

  Paul Goggins
  A list of prisons in England and Wales that held life sentence prisoners on 31 March 2004, together with the requested information, is given in the table.
  323W

  Prisons holding life sentence prisoners, 31 March 2004

  Operational capacity

  Lifer population

  Total population

  Percentage of population serving life sentences

  Dorchester

  260

  3

  223

  1.3

  Dovegate

  860

  129

  839

  15.4

  Drake Hall

  315

  5

  297

  1.7

  Durham

  746

  56

  725

  7.7

  East Sutton Park

  100

  3

  97

  3.1

  Eastwood Park

  346

  1

  334

  0.3

  Edmunds Hill

  310

  1

  299

  0.3

  Elmley

  985

  17

  973

  1.7

  Erlestoke

  426

  27

  421

  6.4

  Exeter

  529

  5

  516

  1.0

  Featherstone

  615

  17

  611

  2.8

  Feltham

  761

  6

  688

  0.9

  Ford

  541

  47

  527

  8.9

  ForestBank

  1,040

  3

  994

  0.3

  Foston Hall

  235

  30

  227

  13.2

  Frankland

  653

  275

  662

  41.5

  Full Sutton

  608

  261

  599

  43.6

  Garth

  667

  75

  659

  11.4

  Gartree

  404

  405

  406

  99.8

  Glen Parva

  808

  1

  778

  0.1

  Gloucester

  324

  3

  302

  1.0

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  567

  134

  557

  24.1

  Haverigg

  564

  16

  563

  2.8

  Hewell Grange

  170

  5

  165

  3.0

  Highdown

  753

  5

  732

  0.7

  Highpoint

  816

  39

  807

  4.8

  Hollesley Bay

  330

  34

  303

  11.2

  Holloway

  495

  5

  460

  1.1

  Holme House

  994

  8

  996

  0.8

  Hull

  1,071

  11

  1,086

  1.0

  Kingston(Portsmouth)

  140

  134

  136

  98.5

  Kirkham

  590

  31

  542

  5.7

  Kirklevington

  223

  14

  217

  6.5

  Lancaster

  232

  3

  235

  1.3

  Lancaster Farms

  532

  2

  519

  0.4

  Latchmere House

  196

  14

  197

  7.1

  Leeds

  1,254

  15

  1,243

  1.2

  Leicester

  385

  5

  374

  1.3

  Lewes

  526

  8

  513

  1.6

  Leyhill

  512

  124

  498

  24.9

  Lincoln

  481

  10

  461

  2.2

  Lindholme

  687

  53

  663

  8.0

  Littlehey

  706

  54

  698

  7.7

  Liverpool

  1,476

  114

  1,449

  7.9

  Long Lartin

  442

  194

  436

  44.5

  Low Newton

  396

  1

  320

  0.3

  Maidstone

  547

  23

  548

  4.2

  Manchester

  1,269

  126

  1,252

  10.1

  Moorland

  1,039

  42

  1,005

  4.2

  New Hall

  426

  4

  376

  1.1

  North Sea Camp

  307

  43

  303

  14.2

  Norwich

  760

  10

  726

  1.4

  Nottingham

  550

  15

  509

  2.9

  Parc

  1,028

  15

  1,016

  1.5

  Parkhurst

  507

  52

  496

  10.5

  Pentonville

  1,205

  8

  1,199

  0.7

  Preston

  664

  14

  675

  2.1

  Ranby

  858

  19

  858

  2.2

  Risley

  1,073

  47

  1,060

  4.4

  Rye Hill

  664

  117

  280

  41.8

  Send

  220

  3

  209

  1.4

  Shepton Mallet

  189

  186

  187

  99.5

  Shrewsbury

  350

  1

  350

  0.3

  Standford Hill

  464

  16

  423

  3.8

  Stocken

  622

  47

  621

  7.6

  Styal

  457

  18

  442

  4.1

  Sudbury

  559

  87

  556

  15.6

  Swaleside

  777

  345

  774

  44.6

  Swansea

  348

  1

  347

  0.3

  Swinfen Hall

  310

  34

  310

  11.0

  The Mount

  760

  26

  757

  3.4

  The Verne

  587

  32

  579

  5.5

  The Wolds

  360

  31

  358

  8.7

  Usk/Prescoed

  420

  39

  413

  9.4

  Wakefield

  565

  405

  562

  72.1

  Wandsworth

  1,441

  16

  1,432

  1.1

  Warren Hill

  222

  6

  218

  2.8

  Wayland

  706

  40

  699

  5.7

  Wealstun

  624

  18

  568

  3.2

  Wellingborough

  526

  27

  523

  5.2

  Whatton

  360

  9

  358

  2.5

  324W 325W

  Prisons holding life sentence prisoners, 31 March 2004

  Operational capacity

  Lifer population

  Total population

  Percentage of population serving life sentences

  Whitemoor

  458

  208

  423

  49.2

  Winchester

  655

  16

  591

  2.7

  Woodhill

  789

  18

  792

  2.3

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1,239

  228

  1,244

  18.3

  Wymott

  866

  38

  849

  4.5

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many current life sentence prisoners are detained beyond the expiry of their tariff for(a) less than five years, (b) between five and 10 years, (c) between 10 and 15 years and (d) more than 15 years. [173105]

  Paul Goggins
  This information is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how marry and what percentage of life sentence prisoners detained more than five years beyond the expiry of their tariff refuse to comply with penal and parole regimes that require the prisoner to admit their guilt or confront offending behaviour. [173106]

  Paul Goggins
  The information is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which motoring offences are included within the scope of his Department's statistics on offences that are brought to justice. [172405]

  Motoring offences included with Home Office offences brought to justice statistics

  Classification code

  Brief description of offence

  Legislation

  Indictable offences

  004/04

  Causing death by dangerous driving

  Road Traffic Act 1988 S.1 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 S.1 and CJA 1993 S.67

  004/06

  Death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs

  Road Traffic Act 1988 S.3A as added by Road Traffic Act 1991 S.3 and amended by Criminal Justice Act 1993 S.6

  008/04

  Causing bodily harm by furious driving

  Offence Against the Person Act 1861 S.35

  Triable-Either-Way Offences

  005/11

  Causing danger by causing anything to be on road, interfering with vehicles or traffic equipment

  Road Traffic Act 1988 S. 22A as added by Road Traffic Act 1991 S.6

  037/01

  Where, owing the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurs causing the death of any person

  Theft Act 1968 S.12A as added by the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992 S.1

  037/02

  Where the vehicle was being driven dangerously, where injury to any person or damage to any property was caused, or damage was caused to the vehicle

  Theft Act 1968 S.12A as added by the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992 S.1

  048/01

  Stealing motor vehicles

  Theft Act 1968 S.1

  802/00

  Aiding, abetting, causing or permitting reckless driving

  Road Traffic Act 1988 S.2 as amended by Road Traffic Act 1991 S.2

  814/01

  Fraud, forgery etc. associated with driving licence

  Road Traffic Act 1988 S.173(1) Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981 S.65 (1) (a) and (2)

  814/02

  Fraud, forgery etc. associated with insurance certificate

  Road Traffic Act 1988 SS.173 (1) and 175 (a)

  814/03

  Fraud, forgery etc. associated with registration and licensing documents

  Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 SS.44 and 45; Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 S.65 (1) (b) and (2)

  814/04

  Fraud, forgery etc. associated with work records

  Transport Act 1968 S.99 (5)

  814/05

  Fraud, forgery etc. associated with operator's licence

  Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 S.38; Sch. 5 Para 4; Road Traffic Act 1988 S.173 (1) Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 S.65 (1) (a) and (2)

  814/06

  Fraud, forgery etc. associated with test certificate

  Road Traffic Act 1988 SS.173 (1) and 175 (b)

  814/07

  Mishandling or faking parking documents

  Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 S.115 (1)

  326W
  Paul Goggins
  The table gives information relating to the motoring offences included within Home Office statistics on offences that are brought to justice.

  The offences brought to justice target counts notifiable (recorded) crimes that resulted in a positive outcome during the period, that is where the offender was brought to justice by being issued with a penalty notice for disorder (PND), cautioned, convicted or the offences being taken into consideration (TIC).

  Notifiable offences are those offences that must be notified by police forces to the Home Office and are published as recorded crime as part of the National Crime Statistics.

  The offence code 825/90 (miscellaneous motoring offences), which was included in the 2003–04 targets for each criminal justice system area, will be excluded from the 2004–05 offences brought to justice targets as most of the offences it covers are not notifiable. However, the notifiable element of 825/90 "Tampering with Motor Vehicles" will be retained by giving it a new offence code from April 2004 onwards.
  327W

  Motoring offences included with Home Office offences brought to justice statistics

  Classification code

  Brief description of offence

  Legislation

  Summary offences

  130/01

  Unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle or being carried knowing vehicle to have been taken or driven

  Theft Act 1968 S.12 (1) as amended by Criminal Justice Act 1988 S.37

  131/01

  Where the only factor is criminal damage of £5,000 or under

  Theft Act 1968 S.168 S.12A as added by Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992 S.2

  825/901

  Tampering with motor vehicle and other miscellaneous non-notifiable offences

  Road Traffic Act 1988 S.25 plus other road traffic legislation

  1 The offences included within the offence code 825/90 will be excluded from offences brought to justice calculations from 2004–05 onwards with the exception of "tampering with a motor vehicle", which has been allocated it own code from April 2004 onwards.

  Naturalisation Applications
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many naturalisation applications submitted prior to the reorganisation of the approval system carried out in summer 2003 remain to be processed; and if he will make a statement. [172998]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the applications referred to is not available.

  The latest published information on numbers of naturalisation applications granted can be found in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, "Persons Granted British Citizenship, United Kingdom, 2003",
  published on 25 May 2004.

  New Hall Prison
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at New Hall women's prison were on suicide watch during each of the last three months. [172653]

  Paul Goggins
  "Suicide watch' is not a term used by the Prison Service. The level of observation for any individual prisoner identified to be at risk of suicide or self-harm can vary and is decided by a multi-disciplinary case review team, or by the unit manager when there has not been the opportunity for the case review to be held.

  The inherent vulnerability of many women in custody, combined with the high levels of self-harm across women's prisons, results in a very large number of women prisoners presenting themselves as requiring special care, and being made subject to the "Self-Harm At Risk Form' F2052SH procedures. Staff caring for women prisoners face exceptional difficulties in distinguishing between those women who are intensely vulnerable and those who may be actively suicidal.

  The number of new F2052SHs opened, and the number of prisoners on an open F2052SH at New Hall during each of the last three months is shown in the following table:

  Month

  Number of new F2052SHs opened1

  Number of women on an open F2052SH2

  February

  48

  97

  March

  54

  92

  April

  64

  100

  Total

  166

  289

  1 These figures include women transferred into New Hall on open F2052SHs.

  2 These figures include newly opened F2052SHs and F2052SHs remaining open from the previous month.

  328W
  The number of apparently self-inflicted deaths at New Hall in each of the past three years is shown in the following table.

  Calendar year

  Number of self-inflicted deaths

  2001

  0

  2002

  2

  2003

  3

  In 2004 to date (11 May 2004), New Hall has experienced one apparently self-inflicted death.

  The number of reported incidents of self-harm that occurred in each of the last three months at New Hall, and the number of women involved, is shown in the following table.

  Month

  Number of reported incidents of self-harm

  Number of prisoners involved

  February

  131

  28

  March

  94

  28

  April

  39

  20

  Total

  264

  76

  The number of self-inflicted deaths and level of self-harm among women prisoners is recognised as a very serious concern by the Prison Service and Ministers. The main principles of the outline suicide prevention strategy that I announced on 31 March 2004 apply across all types of prisons and to all prisoners, whether male or female. Women prisoners are to benefit from a specifically targeted and separate suicide prevention and self-harm management strategy being developed for them. This builds upon a number of interventions including: individual crisis counselling for women prisoners who self-harm; the continued development and evaluation of Dialectical Behaviour Therapy, which is currently being trialled at Durham, Bullwood Hall and Holloway prisons; investment and planning to ensure progress on the detoxification strategy in women's prisons; and the introduction of a new training pack for all staff working with women in custody, which includes a module on the health and well being of women prisoners. £1 million from the Department of Health has been allocated to women's prisons to be spent on the recruitment of psychiatric nurses.

  New Hall itself has a comprehensive local suicide and self-harm prevention policy which is reviewed annually, and an active suicide and self-harm prevention team. A full-time Suicide Prevention Coordinator and recently appointed Safer Custody Manager are leading

  329W
  improvements to the existing suicide prevention and other safer custody arrangements. It is intended that an open, less institutionalised environment will allow better interaction between staff and prisoners, and the provision of a dedicated interview room will facilitate more open discussion between prisoners and staff, which may, in turn, lead to easier identification of at-risk prisoners.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what liaison took place between New Hall women's prison and the local area child protection committee about the welfare of girls under 18 in custody in(a) 2003 and (b) 2004. [172654]

  Paul Goggins
  During 2003 work began with Wakefield Social Services to develop child protection procedures for New Hall, these cover all child protection issues in the establishment including all individuals under the age of 18 and classified as juveniles, as well as mothers and babies.

  Over the last nine months, the Governor of New Hall prison has, attended the area child protection committee (ACPC) meetings on a regular basis. The ACPC has now agreed the Child Protection procedures. There is also regular liaison with the initial response team about any concerns that the establishment has for any young person under 18, as well as any baby held within New Hall.

  New Prisons
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new prisons have been commissioned since May 1997. [172408]

  Paul Goggins
  Nine new prisons have been commissioned in England and Wales since May 1997; seven are operating (Altcourse, Ashfield, Dovegate, Forest Bank, Lowdham Grange, Pare and Rye Hill) and two are under construction, Bronzefield (to open in June 2004) and Peterborough (to open in March 2005).

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new prisons are planned for England and Wales which will be opened within the next three years; where these prisons will be located; and if he will make a statement. [173290]

  Paul Goggins
  Two new private sector prisons providing 1,290 places are due to be opened within the next three years. Her Majesty's Prison Bronzefield at Ashford (near Heathrow), and Peterborough will open in June 2004 and March 2005 respectively.

  Offender Management
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the performance testing programme for prisons will continue in its current form under the National Offender Management Service. [168397]

  Paul Goggins
  Market testing is only one mechanism for ensuring contestability, but it will remain an important one. As it will be some time before we can introduce full contestability through the regional offender managers' commissioning role it is likely that, in the short term, the majority of contracts with the public sector prisons will be agreed on a national basis.
  330W
  We expect the first market tests to begin in 2005–06. No decisions have yet been reached on how many prisons will be market tested in the first year, or how the competitions will be structured

  Policing/Crime Statistics (Preston)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers preventing racial harassment have been introduced since 1997; and how many times these powers have been used in Preston. [169693]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Prior to 1997 the Race Relations Act (RRA) 1976 already prohibited discrimination on racial grounds. The RRA did not specifically refer to harassment, but it was clear from case law that racial harassment was a type of detriment capable of amounting to the kind of less favourable treatment prohibited by the Act.

  As part of its fulfilment of its obligations under the EC Race Directive the UK amended the Race Relations Act 1976 (by virtue of the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003) so as to make it unlawful to harass a person, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, in the areas of activity covered by the 1976 Act.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created new and separate offences where the offences of causing fear and violence or of causing harassment, alarm or distress under the Public Order Act 1986, or the offences of harassment or putting in fear of violence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 were racially aggravated. Figures for the number of prosecutions in Preston for this type of offence are not centrally available. Lancashire police figures for harassment offences (published by the Home Office under the requirements of S95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991) show a total of 717 recorded offences of this type in the Lancashire police area over the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  Prescoed Young Offenders Institute
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the proposed transfer of prisoners convicted of sex offences to open conditions at Prescoed Young Offenders Institute; and if he will make a statement. [173621]

  Paul Goggins
  I have received a small number of representations from various organisations and individuals. I have endorsed the Prison Service's decision to allocate certain prisoners convicted of sexual offences, who are in their final stages in custody, to Her Majesty's Prison Prescoed. I have also undertaken to monitor progress closely.

  Prisoners
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that no prisoner in England and Wales has to slop out at night. [172657]

  Paul Goggins
  All prisoners in normal location accommodation have access to sanitation by means of integral sanitation, electric unlocking, manual
  331W
  unlocking or open access. Where integral sanitation is not in place, sanitation pots are provided for use in certain circumstances, for example when there are electronic system failures, or where staff operating manual night unlocking are called upon to respond to unforeseen incidents.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the prison population to reach 80,000. [168837]

  Paul Goggins
  The prison population cannot safely exceed the operational capacity of the Prison Service. On current plans the useable operational capacity of the Prison Service will be around 79,500 by the beginning of 2006. Prison Service funding for 2005–06 to 2007–08 will be considered as part of the current Spending Review.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women who are category A prisoners were being held in prison in England and Wales on 1 May. [173291]

  Paul Goggins
  On 1 May 2004, 951 males and seven females who were being held in prison in England and Wales, were classified as category A prisoners.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners have taken part in the(a) core, (b) extended, (c) adapted and (d) booster prisoner rehabilitation programmes; how much each programme costs per prisoner; and what impact each programme has had on levels of re-offending; [171249]

  (2) how many prisoners have taken part in the (a) Enhanced Thinking Skills, (b) Reasoning and Rehabilitation, (c) Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage it, (d) Cognitive Self-Change Programme, (e) Cognitive Skills Booster Programme, (f) Healthy Relationships and (g) Prison Addressing Substance-Related Offending prisoner rehabilitation programmes; how much each programme costs per prisoner; and what impact each programme has had on levels of re-offending. [171252]

  Paul Goggins
  The following table gives information on the number of offending behaviour programmes that have been completed by prisoners in 2003–2004. Costs vary between establishments depending on the level of security and staffing. An estimate of the average cost is provided.

  Name of programme

  Number of programmes completed by prisoners1

  Average cost per completion (£000)2

  Sex Offender Treatment

  496

  7

  Programme (SOTP) Core

  SOTP Extended

  103

  7

  SOTP Adapted

  133

  7

  SOTP Booster

  183

  3.5

  Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS)

  6,120

  2.25

  Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R)

  1,090

  3

  Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage it (CALM)

  335

  3

  Cognitive Self Change Programme (CSCP)

  38

  13.8

  Cognitive Skills Booster Programme

  160

  2

  Healthy Relationships Programme

  28

  7.8

  332W
  1These are provisional figures. Final figures will not be available until the end of May 2004. These figures do not include prisoners who started but did not complete a programme. Prisoners may also have undertaken more than one programme.
  2The costs exclude one-off costs and overheads, and will vary between establishments.

  Information on Prison Addressing Substance-Related Offending is not yet available and I will write to the right hon. Member when it is. Details of the impact on the levels of re-offending for prisoners participating in ETS and R&R can be found in Home Office Research Findings Nos. 161, 206 and 226, and for SOTP core in No. 205. These can be found on the Home Office website. The levels of re-offending for prisoners participating in the other programmes are not yet available.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have taken part in the(a) RAPt, (b) Prison 12 Step, (c) Substance Treatment Order, (d) Action on Drugs, (e) FOCUS, (f) Ley Prison Programme and (g) North West Therapeutic Community prisoner rehabilitation programmes; how much each programme cost per prisoner; and what impact each programme has had on levels of reoffending. [171250]

  Paul Goggins
  Information on offending behaviour programmes has been collected centrally only since 2001–02. Information for 2003–04 has not yet been fully collated. Information broken down by each intensive drug rehabilitation programme is currently being collated, and I will write to the right hon. Member when this is available. The following table shows the number of prisoners entering intensive drug programmes for the two years for which figures are available.

  Intensive drug rehabilitation programme entrants

  Number

  2001–02

  4,691

  2002–03

  4,386

  Costs vary between programmes and establishments; and some costs are contained in existing baselines. The average cost per prisoner per programme is around £1,500.

  Due to the need to wait two years for reconviction results, only a limited research base on the effectiveness of prison-based drug rehabilitation programmes in reducing re-offending is so far available. Emerging research into the RAPt programme is, however, showing encouraging results, with 40 per cent. of graduates, rather than a predicted 51 per cent., re-offending within two years. Such results underline the importance of effective throughcare arrangements and timely aftercare services in the community.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many babies have been removed, voluntarily or compulsorily, from their mothers in prison in(a) 2003 and (b) 2004. [172352]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: This information is not available centrally. However, most separations are only temporary for the period of imprisonment and all decisions are made in the best interests of the child.
  333W
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been held in police cells in each region of England and Wales under lock-out arrangements in the last 12 months; what the total cost of lock-outs was over this period; and what the average daily cost was. [172412]

  Paul Goggins
  The total number of lockouts in each escort contract area between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004 is given in the table.

  Area

  Number of lockouts

  1

  South Wales and West

  51

  2

  South and South East

  12

  3

  Metropolitan Police District

  10

  4

  East Anglia

  153

  5

  West Midlands and Mid-Wales

  45

  6

  Merseyside and North Wales

  73

  7

  East Midlands and Humberside

  263

  8

  The North

  184

  Total

  791

  As police forces charge retrospectively, it is not yet possible to give a final cost for lockouts for 2003–04. However, the average cost per prisoner per night is calculated as £120, which means that the total cost for this period has been estimated at £94,920.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether prisoners serving sentences in England and Wales are permitted to pay national insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement. [172399]

  Paul Goggins
  Prisoners do not usually earn over the threshold for national insurance contributions. However, they are not exempt from payments. They may also make voluntary contributions whilst in prison.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sentenced prisoners aged over 65 years were released from prisons in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available. [172407]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of sentenced prisoners aged 65 years and over, who were released from prisons in England and Wales in 2003, was 341.

  Number of defendants1 proceeded against at the magistrates courts and found guilty and sentenced at all courts under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

  Statute

  Offence description

  Year

  Cautioned

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  Sentenced

  Absolute/ conditional discharge

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997

  Offence of harassment

  1997

  171

  507

  249

  248

  99

  Sec 2

  1998

  693

  4,304

  2,221

  2,224

  763

  1999

  1,147

  5,427

  27,09

  2,700

  973

  22000

  1,693

  5,760

  2,852

  2,853

  901

  2001

  1,861

  5,627

  2,704

  2,711

  915

  2002

  1,993

  5,594

  2,764

  2,765

  878

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sec 2 as amended by Crime & Disorder Act 1998, Sec 32(1) (a) (3)

  Racially aggravated offence of harassment

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1999

  37

  113

  44

  45

  8

  22000

  48

  217

  81

  81

  12

  334W
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to deal with prisoners who complain of rape and sexual assault. [173133]

  Paul Goggins
  Prisoners who complain of rape or sexual assault are reporting an extremely serious assault. The prison would refer such a complaint to the police for investigation. The referral would either be through the local police liaison officer or directly to the local police.

  The Prison Service would remain responsible for the aftercare of the prisoner and governors have available to them a range of specialist staff, including doctors and psychologists, to assist with this.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) average and (b) medium wage earned by prisoners in England and Wales was in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [172406]

  Paul Goggins
  The purpose of paying convicted prisoners is to encourage and reward their constructive participation in the regime of the establishment.

  While the Prison Service sets minimum rates of pay, each prison has devolved responsibility to enable them to set their own pay rates, details of which are not held centrally. The current average wage is approximately £8 per week.

  Protection from Harassment Act
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) police first stage warnings and (b) prosecutions have been made under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in each of the last five years; [170013]

  (2) how many people have (a) been imprisoned, (b) received a community sentence and (c) fined as a result of a breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; [170014]

  (3) how many prosecutions under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 have involved a (a) racial and (b) religious aggravation element. [170015]

  Paul Goggins
  The available information is contained in the table. Statistics on religiously aggravated offences were not collected centrally until 2003.

  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn of this year.
  335W

  Number of defendants1 proceeded against at the magistrates courts and found guilty and sentenced at all courts under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

  Statute

  Offence description

  Year

  Cautioned

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  Sentenced

  Absolute/ conditional discharge

  2001

  76

  246

  102

  102

  10

  2002

  35

  248

  99

  102

  10

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sec 3

  Breach of conditions of an injunction against harassment

  1997

  1

  7

  3

  3

  —

  1998

  8

  23

  14

  14

  1

  1999

  5

  30

  13

  15

  —

  22000

  5

  40

  22

  21

  3

  2001

  2

  31

  14

  18

  —

  2002

  4

  44

  23

  26

  2

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sec 4

  Putting people in fear of violence

  1997

  51

  243

  76

  76

  17

  1998

  173

  1,505

  522

  514

  108

  1999

  283

  1,632

  488

  494

  81

  22000

  403

  1,585

  515

  520

  104

  2001

  577

  1,502

  535

  539

  83

  2002

  655

  1,470

  585

  582

  61

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sec 4 as amended by Crime & Disorder Act 1998, Sec32 (1) (b) (4)

  Racially aggravated putting people in fear of violence

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1999

  15

  63

  25

  25

  4

  22000

  15

  118

  59

  60

  7

  2001

  7

  149

  55

  55

  8

  2002

  7

  130

  53

  52

  6

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sec 5

  Breach of restraining order

  1997

  —

  23

  16

  14

  2

  1998

  10

  357

  274

  273

  35

  1999

  3

  669

  461

  471

  60

  22000

  1

  777

  557

  561

  65

  2001

  4

  776

  539

  534

  76

  2002

  2

  847

  604

  597

  88

  Statute

  Offence description

  Year

  Fine

  Community sentence

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Otherwise dealt with

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sec 2

  Offence of harassment

  1997

  56

  48

  3

  33

  9

  1998

  512

  591

  18

  245

  95

  1999

  574

  722

  13

  294

  124

  22000

  620

  860

  29

  305

  138

  2001

  559

  815

  12

  284

  126

  2002

  517

  923

  10

  288

  149

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sec 2 as amended by Crime & Disorder Act 1998, Sec 32(1) (a) (3)

  Racially aggravated offence of harassment

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1999

  3

  14

  —

  16

  4

  22000

  10

  29

  4

  24

  2

  2001

  13

  52

  —

  23

  4

  2002

  11

  53

  —

  23

  5

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sec 3

  Breach of conditions of an injunction against harassment

  1997

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1998

  1

  6

  —

  5

  1

  1999

  6

  2

  —

  6

  1

  22000

  7

  3

  2

  6

  —

  2001

  8

  6

  1

  3

  —

  2002

  8

  8

  4

  3

  1

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sec 4

  Putting people in fear of violence

  1997

  16

  24

  1

  16

  2

  1998

  66

  194

  6

  121

  19

  1999

  80

  194

  8

  116

  15

  22000

  49

  188

  9

  148

  22

  2001

  54

  223

  12

  142

  25

  2002

  45

  237

  9

  167

  63

  336W 337W

  Statute

  Offence description

  Year

  Fine

  Community sentence

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Otherwise dealt with

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sec 4 as amended by Crime & Disorder Act 1998, Sec32 (1) (b) (4)

  Racially aggravated putting people in fear of violence

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1999

  3

  12

  —

  6

  —

  22000

  2

  26

  —

  22

  3

  2001

  3

  26

  —

  16

  2

  2002

  6

  23

  2

  15

  —

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sec 5

  Breach of restraining order

  1997

  1

  1

  —

  10

  —

  1998

  53

  57

  3

  123

  2

  1999

  89

  94

  12

  206

  10

  22000

  86

  154

  13

  226

  17

  2001

  93

  142

  14

  193

  16

  2002

  101

  169

  11

  206

  22

  n/a = Not applicable.

  1These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 Staffordshire police were only able to submit sample data for persons dealt with at magistrates courts in 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust at a detailed level and have been excluded from this table.

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times powers to prevent racial harassment have been used in Oldham, West and Royton. [170955]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Figures for the number of prosecutions in Oldham, West and Royton for this type of offence are not centrally available. Greater Manchester police figures for harassment offences (published by the Home Office under the requirements of S95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991) show a total of 2,075 recorded offences of this type in the Greater Manchester police area over the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  Reoffending
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how individual prisons will be held to account in order to reduce the reoffending of discharged prisoners. [167518]

  Paul Goggins
  Under the National Offender Management Service prison governors will continue to be accountable for the running of prisons. Over time regional offender managers will become responsible for ensuring the effective management of all offenders regardless of whether they have received a custodial or community sentence or a combination of the two. They will also commission services from prisons in the public and private sectors and specify standards to which each should perform. The regional offender managers will be line managed by the national offender manager who will report directly to the chief executive and will be responsible for reducing re-offending.

  Reconviction Rate
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how much the reconviction rate has changed since the introduction of the private sector to the Prison Service. [168396]
  338W
  Paul Goggins
  The first private prison opened in 1992. Figures for the number and percentage of prisoners reconvicted within two years of discharge from prison are given in Prison Statistics, England and Wales, 2002. Table 9.1 shows reconviction rates for samples of discharged prisoners in each of the years 1987 to 1999. The related text explains that to compare reconviction rates over time it is necessary to control for changes in the characteristics of discharged prisoners, such as age and previous criminal history, which are strongly associated with reconviction rates.

  Recordable Offences
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) acceptable behaviour certificates, (b) interim antisocial behaviour orders and (c) full antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in (i) Wales, (ii) the South Wales Police Authority region, (iii) the Bridgend Division of the South Wales police and (iv) the Ogmore constituency. [176579]

  Ms Blears
  Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs)—data on numbers of ABCs are not collected centrally.

  Interim antisocial behaviour orders—available information shows that interim orders have been issued for two offenders within South Wales between introduction (2 December 2002) and 31 December 2003 (latest available).

  Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs)—introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) ASBOs have been available to the courts since 1 April 1999. Since commencement, and up to 31 December 2003, the number of ASBOs issued in Wales, as reported to the Home Office, is 77. Data on numbers of ASBOs issued within South Wales (in which the South Wales Police Authority and the Ogmore constituency are located), are given in the table, by local authority area.
  339W

  Number of ASBOs, as notified to the Home Office by all courts within South Wales, by local authority area, 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2003

  Local authority area

  Total issued

  South Wales Of which:

  36

  From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 by pfa

  0

  From 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2003 by unitary authority area:

  36

  Cardiff CC

  13

  Merthyr Tydfil CBC

  8

  Neath Port Talbot County BC

  10

  Rhondda Cynon Taff County BC

  4

  Vale of Glamorgan Council

  1

  Note:

  Between 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 data available by police force area (pfa) only.

  Reducing Crime/Changing Lives
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the implementation team for the Reducing Crime-Changing Lives reform programme. [170440]

  Paul Goggins
  Implementing the reforms set out in "Reducing Crime-Changing Lives" is a complex and long-term programme. Full implementation will take several years to be fully concluded. We are currently consulting key stakeholders on our preferred model for the organisational structure of the National Offender Management Service.

  Security Patrols
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will implement the recommendation on oversight arrangements in relation to visible security patrols in residential areas set out in the recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation study. [176393]

  Ms Blears
  Responsibility for co-ordinating the deployment of the extended police family at a local level is a matter for local employers, such as individual chief officers or local authorities, in partnership with other local community safety related organisations. We shall continue to work closely with stakeholders to ensure maximum clarity on how these roles can be best used while not restricting local flexibility. The pending report of the Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) Thematic on Civilianisation and the evaluation findings from the £13 million suite of workforce modernisation pilots launched in March 2004 will add to our evidence-base of effective practice.

  Sentencing
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were serving a prison sentence of more than five years in prisons in England and Wales on 1 May 2004. [173531]

  Paul Goggins
  On 31 March 2004 there were 844 females serving sentences of more than five years in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. This is the latest date for which information is available.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were serving a life sentence in prisons to England and Wales on 1 May 2004. [173532]
  340W
  Paul Goggins
  The total number of prisoners serving life sentences in prison in England and Wales on 31 March 2004 was 5,553, of which 5,378 were male and 175 female.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were serving prison sentences in England and Wales for sexual offences on 1 May 2004. [173533]

  Paul Goggins
  On 31 March 2004 there were 5,665 males and 23 females held under sentence in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for sexual offences. This is the latest date for which information is available.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female foreign nationals were serving prison sentences in prisons in England and Wales on 1 May 2004. [173577]

  Paul Goggins
  On 31 March 2004 there were 5,784 male and 673 female foreign nationals held under sentence in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. This is the latest date for which information is available.

  Sex Offenders
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether people convicted of sex offences abroad are supervised or monitored on their return to the UK. [172354]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: The Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) which we placed on a statutory basis in 2001, provide a robust framework within which sexual and violent offenders are managed on a multi-agency basis in the community. The scope of the MAPPA includes those who were convicted of sexual offences abroad and have returned to the UK.

  The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a new civil order—the notification order. This order enables offenders who have been convicted or cautioned for a sexual offence overseas to be made subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The notification order is an important new tool which will help the police and probation services manage offenders who have committed sexual offences overseas.

  The police can also apply to the courts for a sexual offences prevention order (SOPO) to be made against an offender convicted of a sexual offence overseas who is living in the UK and who poses a risk of serious sexual harm. A SOPO can set prohibitions on an offender and will also make him subject to the notification requirements for the duration of the order.

  Shrewsbury Prison
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate the cost of replacing the gymnasium at HM Prison Shrewsbury; [171375]

  (2) what the expected completion date is for building a new gymnasium at HM Prison Shrewsbury; [171378]
  341W
  (3) when he expects the design for a new gymnasium at HM Prison Shrewsbury to be completed. [171379]

  Paul Goggins
  The existing gymnasium at Shrewsbury prison needs to be demolished for health and safety reasons. A business case for the re-development of the site has not yet been completed.

  Solvent Abuse
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were made of retailers selling restricted solvents to children in each of the last seven years. [169065]

  Paul Goggins
  The available information is contained in the table.

  Defendantsl proceeded against under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 19852, England and Wales, 1996–2002

  1996

  4

  1997

  11

  1998

  4

  1999

  9

  2000

  —

  2001

  1

  2002

  —

  1These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2The offence is to supply or offer to supply any intoxicating substances to a person under the age of 18 where the retailer may reasonably believe that the product will be used for intoxication.

  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Statistics (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racially aggravated incidents were recorded in each of the last seven years by the Metropolitan police, broken down by local authority area. [173250]

  Ms Blears
  The available information has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and relates to the number of recorded racially aggravated offences. These data are available only for the last four years.

  Racially aggravated offences recorded by the Metropolitan police

  Racially aggravated offences

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Barking and Dagenham

  407

  353

  297

  350

  Barnet

  509

  427

  450

  469

  Bexley

  225

  191

  185

  274

  Brent

  254

  260

  216

  238

  Bromley

  198

  214

  217

  243

  Camden

  291

  290

  210

  217

  Croydon

  509

  286

  343

  318

  Ealing

  397

  343

  289

  274

  Enfield

  383

  364

  363

  173

  Greenwich

  610

  512

  568

  434

  Hackney

  297

  356

  290

  310

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  355

  215

  201

  147

  Haringey

  255

  247

  196

  131

  Harrow

  250

  26

  232

  196

  Havering

  181

  160

  143

  176

  Heathrow airport

  50

  37

  38

  37

  Hillingdon

  333

  408

  356

  316

  Hounslow

  648

  649

  542

  507

  Islington

  334

  370

  269

  284

  Kensington and Chelsea

  216

  109

  126

  134

  Kingston upon Thames

  239

  207

  194

  248

  342W

  Racially aggravated offences recorded by the Metropolitan police

  Racially aggravated offences

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Lambeth

  419

  324

  331

  317

  Lewisham

  446

  351

  293

  266

  Merton

  408

  342

  355

  340

  Newham

  693

  612

  490

  450

  Redbridge

  234

  208

  232

  305

  Richmond upon Thames

  192

  209

  217

  161

  Southwark

  517

  527

  325

  409

  Sutton

  198

  213

  206

  265

  Tower Hamlets

  612

  598

  693

  567

  Waltham Forest

  318

  297

  250

  295

  Wandsworth

  293

  319

  232

  228

  Westminster

  Belgravia

  657

  96

  76

  75

  Charing Cross

  —

  74

  67

  75

  Marylebone

  —

  92

  107

  74

  Paddington

  —

  182

  128

  105

  West End Central

  —

  93

  125

  112

  Special Ops

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Annual MPS totals

  11,929

  10,802

  9,858

  9,520

  Stowaways
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated cost is of his Department's efforts to detect and deter illegal immigrants from entering the UK through concealment in vehicles in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [160377]

  Mr. Browne
  The costs are as follows:

  Cost (£000)

  2001–02

  2,178

  2002–03

  14,049

  2003–04 (To January 2004)

  4,919

  The costs cover both the capital investment and the costs of staff working both in the UK and at the juxtaposed control conducting the following tasks

  Physical vehicle searches

  The handling of trained people detection dogs

  The management of new detection technology equipment

  The operation and management of carbon dioxide probes

  The annual cost of funding the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is less than 1 per cent. of the Government's Total Managed Expenditure and this will reduce further from next year.

  The deployment of now detection technology and the extension of juxtaposed controls are part of a wide range of measures which have contributed to a 52 per cent. reduction in the number of asylum claims and the associated costs of supporting asylum seekers.

  Travellers
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Irish Government regarding the effect upon police resources of travellers. [170132]

  Ms Blears
  There have been no discussions specifically on the effect on policing. However I understand that officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are discussing the issue of Travellers with their counterparts in the Republic.

  Wiltshire Coroner
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received about delays in the holding of inquests by the Wiltshire coroner; and if he will make a statement. [171585]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: The Wiltshire coroner has reported that the investigation, and preparation for the inquest, into the death of Ronald Maddison at Porton Down in 1953 has proved extremely time-consuming and has caused delays to other cases. His county council has appointed an additional assistant deputy coroner in order to deal with the backlog.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Real IRA
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to proscribe the Real IRA under the Terrorism Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [176968]

  Mr. Pearson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for the proscription of groups which are concerned in the terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Following the RIRA judgment, the Attorney-General announced on 28 May that he would refer the ruling to the Court of Appeal. It would be inappropriate to comment further on matters which could be before the Court. It is however the Secretary of State's position that RIRA was proscribed under the Terrorism Act and he remains of the view that RIRA should be proscribed. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that RIRA is proscribed.

  Administration Budget
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards the 5 per cent. reduction in real terms in his Department's administration budget by 2008 announced by the Chancellor in the House on 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 331. [176506]

  Mr. Pearson
  The real terms reduction of 5 per cent. or more will be a central feature of the departmental settlements to be announced later this year in the Northern Ireland Priorities and Budget 2006–08 document.

  Assets Recovery Agency
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the Home Office about increased funding for the Assets Recovery Agency; and if he will make a statement. [176959]

  Mr. Pearson
  I was consulted by the Home Office on the Assets Recovery Agency's Business Plan for 2004–05. I refer the hon. Lady to the statement made to the House, by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on 27 May 2004.

  Attention Deficit Disorder
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) financial support and (b) other resources are available to each health board for help to groups assisting individuals who suffer from attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; and what (i) support and (ii) resources are offered by each board to such groups. [173095]

  Angela Smith
  There is no central specific financial support provided by the Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) services. Boards and trusts may fund local groups providing support to families of children with ADHD, through the Mental Health Programme of Care.

  The Eastern Health and Social Services Board has advised that South and East Belfast and Down Lisburn Trusts have offered some limited financial support to the Northern Ireland-ADHD Centre in Belfast.

  Autism
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the role of the new Educational Centre of Excellence for Autism will be. [167604]

  Mr. Gardiner
  It is the intention that the Middletown Centre for Autism will be dedicated to improving the educational opportunities of children and young people with autistic spectrum disorders. Provision will be made for comprehensive educational assessment, individual intervention, training and research support. The centre will be multi-disciplinary and will not replace or prevent the development of local provision, but will seek to enhance or support existing services through collaborative working arrangements.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what services will be provided at the new autism centre of excellence. [169724]

  Mr. Gardiner
  It is planned that the Middletown Centre for Autism will provide the following services:an educational assessment service;
  a learning support service;
  a training and advisory service for parents, teachers and other professionals; and
  a research and information service.

  The Centre will be multi-disciplinary in approach and work in collaboration with local services. It will not replace or prevent the development of local provision, but will seek to enhance or support existing services through collaborative working arrangements.

  Costello Report
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the first meeting of the Strategic Implementation Group following the publication of the Costello Report will take place. [176530]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Nominations to the Strategic Advisory Group have been sought from the key educational interests. The first meeting of the Group will be arranged
  345W
  as soon as all the nominations have been finalised. It is hoped that this meeting will take place before the end of the current school year.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients in each hospital have their discharge delayed while awaiting community care packages. [172739]

  Angela Smith
  The number of delayed discharges recorded in each hospital at 29 February 2004 (the latest date for which such information is available), is as follows.

  Number of delayed discharges, by hospital, 29 February 2004

  Hospital

  Total delayed discharges

  Ards

  0

  Bangor

  0

  Belfast City

  40

  Downe

  9

  Forster Green

  2

  Lagan Valley

  9

  Mater Infirmorum

  4

  Musgrave Park

  13

  Royal Victoria

  46

  Ulster

  46

  Antrim

  16

  Braid Valley

  34

  Causeway

  14

  Coleraine

  0

  Dalriada

  9

  Moyle

  10

  Mid-Ulster

  16

  Robinson Memorial

  2

  Whiteabbey

  28

  Craigavon Area

  11

  Daisy Hill

  11

  Loane House

  7

  Lurgan

  15

  Mullinure

  20

  South Tyrone

  10

  Altnagelvin

  9

  Erne

  6

  Tyrone County

  4

  Northern Ireland total

  391

  Note:

  Information is collected only for hospitals which provide an acute service. Delayed discharges refer to persons delayed in these hospitals while awaiting a community care package.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have left employment in his Department because of(a) anxiety, (b) stress, (c) depression and (d) other mental health reasons in each year since 1997. [175671]

  Mr. Pearson
  The 11 Departments of the NI Administration and their agencies and the Northern Ireland Office hold readily available information only in respect of the total number of ill-health retirements, details of which are set out in table 1. More detailed information showing the particular cause of actual ill-health retirements could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate costs.
  346W
  However figures set out in table 2 show the number of recommendations made by the Occupational Health Service of the Northern Ireland Civil Service for ill-health retirement under the general category of mental and behavioural disorders. Such recommendations would normally result in actual retirement but it should be noted that the date of a recommendation for ill-health retirement may fall into a different financial year from that of the actual retirement.

  Table 1: NICS ill health retirement

  Financial year

  Total

  2003–04

  172

  2002–03

  189

  2001–02

  133

  2000–01

  134

  1999–2000

  117

  1998–99

  127

  1997–98

  130

  Note:

  Figures for 1997–98 to 1999–2000 are for the six NI Departments and their agencies and NIO.

  Table 2: OHS recommendations for ill health retirement due to mental and behavioural disorders

  Financial year

  Total

  2003–04

  66

  2002–03

  59

  2001–02

  57

  2000–01

  48

  1999–2000

  34

  Note:

  No figures are available for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prosecutions there have been in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years of drivers who had in excess of twice the legal limit of alcohol in their blood. [176629]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of Roads Service (Dr. Malcolm McKibbin) has written directly to the hon. Gentleman in response to this Question

  Letter from Dr. Malcolm McKibbin, dated 1 June 2004.

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Parliamentary Question about how many incidents of thefts from cars parked in car parks operated by and on behalf of the Department of Regional Development in Northern Ireland there were in 2003. I have been asked to reply as the issue raised falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive Roads Service has over 370 car parks throughout Northern Ireland, of which 45 per cent. are charged and 55 per cent. are free. During 2003 there were some 126 incidents of theft or attempted theft reported by members of the public to car park staff. However since many car parks are unmanned, there may have been additional cases reported directly to the police.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  General John de Chastelain
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many full days General John de Chastelain spent in Northern Ireland between 1 January and 30 April; and what his salary was for the period. [175219]
  347W
  Mr. Pearson
  Between 1 January 2004 to 30 April 2004 General de Chastelain has spent 10 days in Northern Ireland engaged on decommissioning business. General de Chastelain is paid £600 per diem.

  Heart Conditions
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sudden cardiac deaths

  Table: Number of registered deaths by year in Northern Ireland resulting from (a) all heart diseases, (b) sudden cardiac death, so described, (c) acute ischaemic heart disease and (d) cardiac arrhythmias in persons, by age-group, 1999 to 2003

  Age group

  Cause of death/ Registration year

  0–14

  15–44

  45–64

  65—84

  85 +

  (a) All heart diseases

  1999

  3

  53

  587

  2,579

  1,114

  2000

  1

  60

  500

  2,294

  1,017

  2001

  2

  41

  455

  2,278

  1,115

  2002

  1

  46

  484

  2,143

  1,082

  20031

  0

  64

  410

  1,959

  1,055

  (b) Sudden cardiac death, so described

  1999

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2000

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2001

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2002

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20031

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (c) Acute ischaemic heart disease

  1999

  0

  22

  370

  1,597

  525

  2000

  0

  24

  302

  1,465

  513

  2001

  0

  10

  292

  1,423

  536

  2002

  0

  19

  272

  1,273

  514

  20031

  0

  21

  230

  1,179

  540

  (d) Cardiac arrhythmias

  1999

  1

  2

  1

  29

  22

  2000

  1

  4

  2

  23

  15

  2001

  0

  1

  3

  43

  36

  2002

  0

  3

  5

  54

  36

  20031

  0

  0

  4

  36

  38

  1Data for 2003 are provisional.

  2Figures only available from 2001, after the introduction of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) for coding cause of death.

  Heart Transplants
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients under the age of 16 are awaiting heart transplants in Northern Ireland. [176253]

  Angela Smith
  There are no patients under the age of 16 currently awaiting heart transplants in Northern Ireland.

  Annual cost of space and water heating for average size houses,(£)

  Fuel

  Type of heating system

  2 bed

  3 bed

  4 bed

  Solid Fuel

  House coal—Group 2

  Open fire with back boiler radiators and Domestic Hot Water cylinder

  562

  740

  1,046

  Anthracite Nuts—'Burnglo'

  Room heater with back boiler Radiators and Domestic Hot Water cylinder

  530

  694

  973

  Anthracite Grains

  Gravity feed boiler Radiators and Domestic Hot Water cylinder

  498

  655

  926

  Electricity

  Standard Domestic Tariff

  Electric radiators, immersion water heater

  1,266

  1,711

  2,510

  Economy 7 Tariff 1

  Storage heaters living rooms, Electric radiators bedrooms, Immersion water heater

  562

  747

  1,083

  Natural Gas

  Phoenix Natural gas Home Energy Tariff (Including optional Direct

  Gas fired boiler, Radiators and Domestic Hot Water cylinder

  348W
  there were in each of the last five years, broken down by age range; and if he will make a statement. [175162]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information requested is not directly available. It is not possible to give an exact number of cardiac deaths which occurred suddenly, as information on whether or not a death was sudden is not currently recorded at death registration. Therefore figures have been provided for all heart diseases, sudden cardiac death (so described), acute ischaemic heart disease and cardiac arrhythmias.

  Heating Costs
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the annual cost of heating an average domestic property in Northern Ireland by(a) electricity, (b) solid fuel and (c) natural gas. [175860]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following table contains the most recent available space and water heating costs for the fuel types across Northern Ireland.
  349W

  Annual cost of space and water heating for average size houses,(£)

  Fuel

  Type of heating system

  2 bed

  3 bed

  4 bed

  Debit Discount)

  474

  618

  870

  Gas fired condensing boiler, Radiators and Domestic Hot Water cylinder

  395

  512

  718

  Source:

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of domestic properties in Northern Ireland are heated by(a) electricity, (b) solid fuel and (c) natural gas. [175861]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is as follows:

  Fuel source

  Percentage

  Mains Gas

  3.2

  Solid Fuel

  14.3

  Electric

  8.3

  Dual

  9.5

  Note:

  Dual heating is either solid fuel and electric or solid fuel and oil.

  Source:

  Home Energy Conservation Report 2003, NIHE.

  Invest Northern Ireland
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many visits have been made under the auspices of Invest Northern Ireland by potential inward investors to each constituency within the past 12 months; and how many jobs have been created as a result in each. [171740]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Over the past year (April 2003 to March 2004) there have been 211 visits by potential inward investors to the Parliamentary constituency areas of Northern Ireland. These are detailed in the following table.

  Constituency

  Number of visits

  North Antrim

  1

  South Antrim

  10

  East Antrim

  5

  North Belfast

  39

  East Belfast

  40

  South Belfast

  54

  West Belfast

  17

  North Down

  2

  Strangford

  1

  South Down

  1

  Newry and Armagh

  5

  Lagan Valley

  4

  Upper Bann

  6

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  1

  Mid Ulster

  1

  West Tyrone

  4

  Foyle

  18

  East Londonderry

  2

  Total

  211

  Securing inward investment is the result of extensive work over an extended period which may involve a number of visits. As a consequence it must be recognised that there is a time lag between visits by potential investors and ultimately securing investment.
  350W
  Recognising this fact, during the past year (April 2003 to March 2004) Invest NI secured 11 new inward investment projects as a result of which 1,099 new jobs will be promoted (i.e. are expected to be created). The final constituency locations for all of the 11 projects have not yet been finalised. Not all of the 11 companies visited Northern Ireland during 2003–04, many visited during previous years.

  Maghaberry Prison
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reports he has received of physical and mental abuse of persons inside HMP Maghaberry, with particular reference to the(a) excessive use of strip-searching and (b) restricted movement of inmates; and if he will make a statement. [177189]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have received representations from the Ulster Political Research Group expressing their concern at the use of full-body searching at Maghaberry prison. Searching of accommodation and prisioners is a vital part of the prison routine and is essential in order to protect the safety of both prisoners and staff. I was able to assure the UPRG representatives that the level of searching that takes place in Maghaberry is the same across the rest of the UK for similar category prisoners.

  Milk Cup Tournament
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support his Department provides to the Milk Cup Football tournament. [175907]

  Angela Smith
  The Northern Ireland Events Company The Northern Ireland Events Company has provided funding for the Northern Ireland Milk Cup as set out in the table.

  £

  2001–02

  90,000

  2002–03

  90,000

  2003–04

  180,000

  Total

  360,000

  The Northern Ireland Events Company have also agreed funding of £80,000 towards the 2004 event.

  The Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  A total of £25,000 grant payment was made by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board in the period 2001–03 towards marketing costs of the Milk Cup Football tournament. £5,000 was provided for the 2001 Milk Cup tournament while £10,000 was provided for the 2002 tournament and again for the 2003 tournament.

  Motor Cycling
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his latest estimate is of the value to the Northern Ireland economy of the races and events associated with(a) the North West 200 motorcycle races and (b) the Circuit of Ireland Rally. [170246]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Government do not collect this information and are therefore not in a position to estimate their value to the Northern Ireland economy.

  However, the Northern Ireland Events Company (NIEC) provide financial support towards the North West 200. Based on information from the event organisers the NIEC will draw up a post evaluation report. This information will include bed revenue and tourist spend and will be required from the organisers within eight weeks of the date of the event.

  Based on figures for previous years prvided by Coleraine borough council it is estimated that the North West 200 will generate approximately £5.6 million tourism revenue to the Northern Ireland economy in 2004.

  Figures are not available for the Circuit of Ireland rally.

  MS Treatment
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients are waiting to commence beta interferon or glatiramer for multiple sclerosis treatment; and if he will make a statement. [173605]

  Angela Smith
  At 20 May 2004 there were 76 patients on the waiting list for disease-modifying treatments such as beta interferon or glatiramer; included in this number are a small number of patients who have signalled that they do not wish to commence treatment as yet.

  My Department remains committed to introducing drugs that offer the potential for significant improvement in patient care. There is a growing demand for treatment with disease-modifying drugs for people who suffer from MS and substantial extra funding has been made available to Health and Social Services Boards for these and other specialist medicines. However, despite this additional investment, there continue to be waiting lists for treatment due to the increasing levels of demand. My Department will continue to seek additional resources for specialist medicines that offer the potential for significant improvement in patient care.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients are receiving(a) beta interferon and (b) glatiramer for multiple sclerosis; and how many of each have commenced treatment since 1 January. [173607]

  Angela Smith
  At 20 May 2004 there were 513 patients receiving disease-modifying treatments such as beta interferon or glatiramer, with a further 17 currently suspended from treatment at present.

  During the period from 1 January 2004 to 31 May 2004, 26 patients have commenced treatment.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much Lottery funding has been allocated to sporting organisations relating to(a) soccer, (b) rugby and (c) hockey in Northern Ireland since the introduction of the Lottery.[175723]

  Angela Smith
  Since the National Lottery began the Sports Council for Northern Ireland's Lottery Fund has allocated the following funding to sporting organisations in relation to soccer, rugby and hockey in Northern Ireland:

  £million

  Soccer

  6.28

  Rugby

  1.63

  Hockey

  1.99

  Police Service
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many recruits undergoing training with the Police Service of Northern Ireland have criminal convictions; and for what offence in each case; [176684]

  (2) how many recruits undergoing training with the Police Service of Northern Ireland have relatives with criminal convictions; and for what offence in each case. [176685]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However all successful applicants who enter the Training College have met the criminal convictions criteria set out in the Police Recruitment Regulations 2001 and the criteria under the vetting procedure. This includes close family members.

  Police Trophies
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether an official record exists of(a) competition trophies, (b) presentations to Station Parties and (c) other items belonging to the (i) Royal Ulster Constabulary, (ii) Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve and (iii) associated bodies at the time of their inclusion within the Police Service of Northern Ireland; and where those items are located. [176332]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland have advised me that all sporting trophies presented to the RUC or RUC Reserve are the property of the Athletic Association and that no official police records of such trophies exist.

  No official records exists of presentations to Station Parties or of other items belonging to the RUC or RUC Reserve and of their location. Such a list could be compiled only at disproportionate expense.

  PPP Contracts
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times the principal private public partnerships officer with the South Eastern Education and Library Board (SEELB) met the Chief Executive of the SEELB over the past year to brief him on the development of negotiations in relation to the private public partnership scheme involving Comber
  353W
  High School and Bangor Academy; what matters were discussed on each occasion; and for what reasons the Chief Executive of the SEELB did not inform staff in March that jobs would be transferred from the Board to the preferred bidder in January 2006. [174009]

  Mr. Gardiner
  I have been informed that the Chief Executive of the South Eastern Education and Library Board met with the Head of the PPP Education Service/ Project Manager for the Bangor and Comber Project on 35 occasions since 17 May 2003 to brief him on the Bangor and Comber Project. All aspects of the project were discussed including those relating to legal, financial, technical, facilities management, staffing and consortia/bids.

  On 26 March 2002, meetings were held with caretaking, cleaning and catering staff in both Bangor Academy and Sixth Form College and Comber High School. Staff were informed that transfers were likely.

  School based staff were kept informed throughout the process through their line managers; line managers were kept informed through monthly briefing meetings chaired by a senior officer of the SEELB.

  On 15 January, 2004 meetings were held in both Bangor Academy and Sixth Form College and Comber High School. Staff were informed that transfers were likely.

  On 4 February, 2004 meetings were held in both Bangor Academy and Sixth Form College and Comber High School to allow staff to meet representatives of Jarvis. The caretakers of both schools attended; other staff did not.

  Pre-school providers in the Dundonald area

  Places available

  Number of applicants with Dundonald addresses at first preference

  King's Road Nursery School

  52 full-time places

  24

  Brooklands Nursery Unit

  26 full-time places, 52 part-time places

  79

  Ballybeen Women's Centre Playgroup

  16

  12

  The pre-school admissions process was completed on 31 March. At that date 17 children from the Dundonald area did not gain a place in one of their preferred settings. The local Education and Library Board has provided the parents of these children with details of unfilled pre-school places in the wider area.

  There were no places awarded to children under the age of three in 2004—05.

  Road Building
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated cost is of providing a dual carriageway between(a) Ballygawley and Omagh, (b) Omagh and Strabane and (c) Strabane and Londonderry. [176330]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of roads Service (Dr. Malcolm McKibbin) has written directly to the hon. Gentleman in response to this Question.

  Letter from Dr. Malcolm McKibbin to Mr. David Burnside dated 1 June 2004:

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Parliamentary Question asking what the estimated cost is of providing a dual carriageway between (a) Bally gawley and
  354W
  On 9 March 2004 the SEELB issued a letter to the catering, cleaning and caretaking staff in Bangor Academy and Sixth Form College and Comber High School informing them of Jarvis proposals and of the intent to establish a series of union meetings and the date of the first meeting.

  Trade unions were kept informed throughout the process and were furnished with documentation and opportunity to discuss staffing issues with the shortlisted bidders. This is in line with the Information and Communication memorandum as agreed by the trade unions, the five education and library boards and CCMS through the PPP Service Information and Communication Forum.

  Pre-School Places
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Pre-School Education Advisory Group (PEAG) places were allocated to each(a) private playschool and (b) state nursery unit in the Dundonald area in 2004–05; how many applications were received on behalf of children living in the Dundonald area seeking a pre-school place for their final pre-school year, at each pre-school facility; how many children living in the Dundonald area failed to obtain a PEAG place for their final pre-school year; and how many PEAG places were awarded to pre-school facilities in Dundonald for children under the age of three in 2004–05. [174007]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The information requested is as follows.

  Omagh, (b) Omagh and Strabane and (c) Strabane and Londonderry. I have been asked to reply as the issue raised falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of Roads Service.

  £million

  Preliminary estimates for the provision of these lengths of dual carriageway are:

  Ballygawley to Omagh (including bypass)

  110–153

  Omagh Strabane

  139–192

  Strabane (including bypass) to Londonderry (Craigavon Bridge)

  97–135

  I would stress the preliminary nature of these estimated costs. No feasibility studies or surveys have been undertaken of possible schemes and thus alignments for such schemes have not been identified. The costs assume a mixture of agricultural and development lands, are based on approximate lengths using typical costs, and depend on the standard of road provided.

  I trust this information is helpful.

  Sustainable Transport Plan
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress being made on the implementation of a sustainable transport plan for Northern Ireland. [176542]
  355W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Regional Transportation Strategy for Northern Ireland 2002–2012 sets out a strategic framework for the future planning, funding and delivery of an integrated, sustainable transport system for the region. The Transportation Vision of the RTS is"To have a modern, sustainable, safe transportation system which benefits society, the economy and the environment and which actively contributes to social inclusion and everyone's quality of life."

  The Strategy seeks to address the effect of years of under-investment in transportation. It tackles deficiencies in the current transportation systems to make best use of existing assets and introduces a number of important enhancements to the infrastructure and services. At the same time, programmes have been initiated to promote sustainable transport, such as walking, cycling and public transport, and to encourage modes of travel other than private car for appropriate journeys.

  An Annual Monitoring Report for 2003–04 on the progress to date in implementing the RTS is currently being prepared and will be published in September. Copies of the Report will be made available in the Library.

  Teachers
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the publication and circulation of the second part of the Curran Report into teachers' salaries and conditions of service. [176679]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Independent Inquiry's Final Report Part 2 is detailed and its recommendations have significant financial implications. The Department is currently costing these and the Report will be published and circulated in due course.

  Titanic Quarter (Tourist Facilities)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans are in place for the development of tourist facilities and attractions at the Titanic Quarter in Belfast by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board; and if he will make a statement. [174092]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The recent 'Tourism in Northern Ireland—A Strategic Framework for Action 2004–07' has identified Belfast, and in particular its historical connections with Titanic (Maritime) Belfast, as one of five signature projects for Northern Ireland tourism.

  Belfast city council and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board intend to commission research into realising the potential of the 'Titanic' theme for Belfast and Northern Ireland.

  Trevor Kell
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the investigation into the murder of Trevor Kell in December 2000 in North Belfast. [169234]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Government have received a variety of correspondence concerning the investigation of the murder of Trevor Kell.
  356W
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the status of investigations into the murder of Trevor Kell in North Belfast in December 2000. [169235]

  Mr. Pearson
  The murder of Trevor Kell is an ongoing investigation. A number of persons were arrested and interviewed but released without charge, due to lack of evidence. The police will continue to pursue any new line of inquiry to help develop and progress this inquiry.

  Water/Sewage Pipes
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the annual cost of leaking or damaged water and sewage pipes in each of the last five years. [168193]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of Water Service (Mrs. Katharine Bryan) has written to the hon. Gentleman in response to this question.

  Letter from Mrs. Katharine Bryan to Mr. Roy Beggs dated 27 April 2004:

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Parliamentary Question (No. 1259) about the annual cost of leaking or damaged water and sewage pipes in each of the last five years. I have been asked to reply as Chief Executive of the Water Service.

  Water Service undertakes regular and extensive maintenance and repair work on the water and sewerage infrastructure, including repairs to burst watermains and blocked sewers, maintenance of valves and hydrants and desilting of sewers. Over the last five years Water Service has spent £76.1 million on such work. The annual breakdown is as follows:

  Cost (£ million)

  1999–2000

  13.8

  2000–01

  13.8

  2001–02

  15.6

  2002–03

  16.3

  2003–04

  16.6

  In addition to maintenance and repairs, Water Service has also invested £282 million on upgrading watermains and sewers over the last five years, as part of the ongoing investment programme to comply with EU Directives, protect the environment and deliver customer service improvements.

HEALTH

  Dentistry
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on access to NHS dentists in Shropshire. [177295]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are currently 100 general dental services dentists providing National Health Service dental care in Shropshire County Primary Care Trust.

  There is a dental access centre in Shrewsbury and six further outreach centres throughout Shropshire County.
  357W
  Mr. David Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on his Department's consultation with the dental profession regarding the changes to the way NHS dentistry will be organised from April 2005. [177302]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We are implementing the biggest reform of NHS dentistry since 1948. We have just completed a consultation with representative bodies of the dental profession on our "Framework Proposals for Primary Care Dental Services in England"; this concluded on the 30 of April.

  NHS Funding
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of funds available to NHS trusts in East Sussex. [177301]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Between 2003–04 and 2005–06, the seven primary care trusts across Sussex will receive increases of £280 million. PCTs, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the financial situation of NHS trusts in Cornwall and Scilly. [177307]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In line with the Government's policy of shifting the balance of power, the responsibility for the performance and financial management of NHS Trusts rests with Strategic Health Authorities. The latest financial returns submitted by the South West Peninsula Strategic Health Authority forecasts an overall end of year deficit of £14 million for all organisations within the South West Peninsula health economy. The Strategic Health Authority is working closely with the NHS organisations in Cornwall in order to achieve financial recovery, while ensuring that the local health community continues to achieve its key targets.

  Diabetes
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on best practice for the delivery of services for diabetics. [177303]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Service Framework for Diabetes sets out the Government's vision for making the best practice in diabetes services already offered in some places in the National Health Service the norm throughout. The National Service Framework sets out the steps that the NHS locally can take to ensure that this vision becomes a reality.

  NHS Staff (Overseas Recruitment)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of health workers in the NHS who have been recruited from overseas. [177304]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally. Regulatory Bodies provide statistical analyses annually of those health care professionals entitled to practice in the United Kingdom.
  358W
  International recruitment makes a key contribution to services in the national health service and is a two way process. Welcoming staff from abroad enables the transfer of experience and the sharing of ideas.

  Nurses
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on developing the role of nurses in the delivery of health care. [177305]

  Mr. Hutton
  Developing the role of nurses has been at the centre of the government's plans for improving health services. Patients are benefiting from the most comprehensive programme ever that is increasing the number of nurses, creating new roles such as nurse consultants, and extending their responsibilities in prescribing, ordering investigations and referring patients to other professionals.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for community pharmacists. [177306]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We are currently negotiating a new contractual framework for community pharmacy with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee. We want to implement this as soon as is practicable.

  We have considered the report of the expert Advisory Group on reforming the current NHS regulatory system and will make further announcements shortly.

  Private Finance Initiative (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the private finance initiative development in the area of Mid Yorkshire Acute Trust; and what bed provision will be made in the three areas covered by the Pontefract, Wakefield and Dewsbury Trust. [177308]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust is working with its partner Primary Care Trusts to agree a final design brief for the Private Finance Initiative scheme. The trust expects to announce its preferred bidder for the PFI scheme by October 2004. The provision of acute beds will reflect good practice in the care of patients across community and hospital settings.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability of residential care for the elderly. [177309]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Care Standards Commission report "How do we care?", published in March 2004, reported that there were 12,990 registered care homes with 371,200 places for older people at 31 October 2003.

  Apnoea
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of sleep apnoea patients being treated with continuous positive airway pressure machines. [176858]
  359W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  The figures showing counts of admissions to hospital for sleep apnoea are shown in the table.

  Primary diagnosis ( ICD-10 G47.3, P28.3) sleep apnoea—count of finished admission episodes—national health service hospitals, England 2000–01 to 2002–03

  Diagnosis

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  G47.3

  Sleep apnoea (excluding newborns)

  10,709

  11,098

  11,479

  P28.3

  Primary sleep apnoea of newborn

  67

  60

  57

  Total

  10,786

  11,158

  11,536

  Notes:

  1. A finished admission episode is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  2. The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  3. Figures are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data for 2000–01. For 2001–02 and 2002–03, figures are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sleep apnoea clinics there are within the NHS. [176860]

  Dr. Ladyman
  That information is not available centrally.

  Primary care trusts and other local stakeholders are responsible for assessing the health needs of their populations, including those with sleep disorders, and commissioning services to meet those needs. Sleep services are provided as part of the overall service package that primary care trusts and other local stakeholders develop for their local populations.

  Asthma
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital episodes there were where the primary diagnosis was asthma, using the International Classification of Disease 10 codes J45–J46. in each year since 1996(a) in total and (b) broken down by (i) health authority and (ii) age. [177477]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Figures for admitted patient care finished consultant episodes held by the hospital episodes statistics data warehouse for 1996–97 to 2002–03, broken down by health authority of residence and age, have been placed in the Library.

  Care Home Closures
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issues to local authorities on criteria to be satisfied before a decision is taken to close a care home; if he will assess the extent to which the criteria were satisfied in the recent decision by Sefton Council to close Connolly House and Linacre Grange, Bootle; if he will re-examine the criteria; and if he will ask Sefton Council to reconsider its decision. [171748]
  360W
  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: Local councils are responsible for arranging and delivering services that will meet the assessed needs of their local populations. It is for each council to decide which services they should provide in order to meet those needs. In so doing, they are under an obligation to act reasonably.

  If it becomes necessary to close a care home, councils, acting both as commissioners and providers, should seek to achieve this in a planned way. There are a number of court decisions which set out the nature of councils' obligations towards residents in care homes which councils must have regard to. One of these obligations is to consult residents on any proposed closure.

  The Government are concerned that any decision to close a home is handled as sensitively and appropriately as possible, but are limited in the extent to which they can intervene in local decisions. Councils are obliged to comply with statutory obligations and relevant case law. When a home does have to close, the essential thing is that proper arrangements are made for the safe and satisfactory transfer of all residents to other suitable homes. There should be adequate time for this to be done, in a way that allows both residents and their relatives a choice in where they are to move to and which creates the minimum possible discomfort to all concerned.

  The Secretary of State does not intervene in decisions of this nature at local level. The relevant legislation and the Secretary of State's Approvals and Directions set out the extent of council's obligations to provide services to persons in their area. The council has statutory obligations to meet the needs of any residents it has placed in these homes, and if the homes are closed, it must ensure that those obligations are fulfilled in some other way. It must also comply with its obligations to consult all residents and to take into account their views. It is a matter for all councils to ensure that they comply with their legal obligations. If they do not, this may be challenged through local complaints procedures, the commissioner for local administration, and through the courts.

  Carers
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many carers have had their needs assessed(a) in the North West and (b) in Warrington since the introduction of such assessment. [176410]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows the number of carers who have been assessed in the North West and Warrington for the years 2000–01 to 2002–03.

  Data for previous years is not available.

  Number of carers1 who have been assessed in the North West and Warrington, 2000–01 to 2002–03.

  Rounded numbers

  North West2

  Warrington

  2000–01

  31,820

  250

  2001–02

  40,440

  260

  2002–03

  34,860

  720

  361W
  1 Care should be taken when comparing data across the years as recording practices, levels of completion and quality may have changed.

  2 Includes estimates for missing data.

  Source:

  RAP form A4.

  Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which primary care trusts have taken steps to ensure that the services recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the guidelines on the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary and secondary care are provided to patients in their area; and if he will make a statement; [176550]

  (2) what progress has been made in the implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines on the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary and secondary care since the guidelines were published; and if he will make a statement; [176551]

  (3) what steps he will take to ensure primary care trusts implement National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommendations within a three-month period; and if he will make a statement. [176552]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answers 7 June 2004]: Information is not available centrally on the steps taken by individual primary care trusts to implement the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline.

  The Healthcare Commission will inspect against healthcare standards. The healthcare standards were published on 10 February 2004 and were out for consultation until 4 May. NICE guidance features at two places within the standards. Within the core standards (under clinical and cost effectiveness, NICE appraisals are included; and under the developmental standards, NICE clinical guidelines are shown. The developmental standards are aspirational and for the NHS to implement over a longer period of time.

  National health service bodies are under a statutory obligation to provide funding for drugs and treatments recommended in NICE technology appraisal guidance within three months of publication. This obligation does not apply to the clinical guideline on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

  Continuing Care
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date information will be made available from the review of NHS continuing care in nine strategic health authorities; and if he will make a statement. [177562]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department is currently considering the report of the review of national health service continuing care in nine strategic health authorities. The report itself will be published in due course.

  Doctors' Language Tests
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has given to hospital trusts on training of overseas doctors in English language skills. [177463]
  362W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's guidance, "Health Service Circular 1999/137: Employment of European Economic Area (EEA) Nationals", which is available in the Library, makes clear that it is the responsibility of employers to ensure that all staff have the necessary language skills to carry out their duties safely, regardless of which country they come from.

  Dr. Andrew Holton
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds have been set aside by his Department in relation to(a) compensation payments to and (b) possible legal costs incurred by patients or patients' families and next of kin in response to claims arising out of treatment by Doctor Andrew Holton, a former consultant paediatrician at Leicester Royal Infirmary. [177471]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The National Health Service Litigation Agency is dealing with all negligence claims as a result of the actions of Dr. Andrew Holton.

  Detailed information about these claims is confidential and as such its disclosure could be prejudicial to the outcome of the current cases.

  Bamford Inquiry
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the findings of(a) his Department's regional office inquiry commissioned by Professor Lindsay Davies and chaired by Dr. Margaret Bamford, (b) the General Medical Council's investigation and (c) the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust inquiry into the professional conduct of and treatment of his patients by Dr. Andrew Holton with particular reference to (i) the independence of the inquiry teams and (ii) their prior knowledge of or professional connections with Dr. Holton and his work; and if he will make a statement; [177472]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the evidence given to the Bamford Inquiry by Dr. Mark Anthony Edgar; and if he will make a statement. [177473]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The independent inquiry panel members were chosen specifically because they had no connection with this issue, Dr. Holton's practice or the geographical area. The local clinical investigation involved independent experts from the British Paediatric Neurology Association.

  It would be inappropriate to comment on the General Medical Council's investigations of Dr. Holton's professional competence. Ministers are not able to comment on the clinical competence of individual practitioners.

  Conclusions drawn from evidence provided by individual witnesses is the responsibility of the inquiry panel. It would not be appropriate to comment on any evidence submitted as part of the inquiry.

  Family Planning Clinics
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many attendances of those aged 11 to 19 years there were at family planning clinics in the Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Avon Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000, broken down by age; [176121]

  (2) how many women aged 11 to 19 years were fitted with a contraceptive implant since 2000 in the Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Avon Strategic Health Authority, broken down by age. [176124]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends, the Members for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) on 7 June 2004,Official Report, columns 34–36W.

  Principal investigator

  Host institution

  Project title

  Completion date

  Professor Jonathon Hill

  University of Liverpool

  A pilot study of a new intervention for hard to treat children with conduct disorder

  September 2006

  Professor Richard Harrington

  University of Manchester

  A pilot randomised study of an intensive multi-modal cognitive behavioural programme for adolescent offenders in secure care

  February 2006

  Professor Robert Plomin

  Institute of Psychiatry

  Investigating the aetiology and developmental pathways related to the emergence of psychopathic tendencies in children

  December 2005

  Professor Anita Thaper

  University of Wales

  A longitudinal study of clinical, genetic and environmental risk factors for juvenile antisocial personality disorder in a high risk group

  June 2005

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist psychiatric centres specifically for children and adolescents with mental health problems there are in England and Wales; where they are located; how many consultant paediatric psychiatrists and psychologists work in them; what plans he has to develop further such centres; and if he will make a statement. [177512]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information is not collected in the format requested. The 2002 child id adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) mapping exercise identified 732 CAMHS teams in England. The teams ranged from those serving a local community, a regional service and those with a national remit. As of 30 December 2003, there were 461 whole-time equivalent consultants in England working in the speciality of child and adolescent psychiatry.

  The national service framework for children, due to be published later this year, will outline how a comprehensive child and adolescent mental health service may be provided. However, how these services are delivered is best decided locally.

  Information on the situation in Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received in relation to (i) waiting lists for appointments with child psychologists and (ii) shortages of educational psychologists in mainstream and special needs schools in England in each year since 2001; and if he will make a statement. [177517]

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned and undertaken in conjunction with the Home Office into(a) the provision of child and adolescent mental health services, (b) early intervention of educational psychologist services and (c) offending behaviour in young people; and if he will make a statement. [176058]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department is working very closely with the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills to establish a framework for the improvement of services for young people with mental health needs, including those at risk of offending behaviour. Developing a shared understanding of those interventions that are effective is essential to this programme of work.

  The projects shown in the table have been funded jointly with the Home Office:

  Dr. Ladyman
  None. However, we recognise that further work needs to be done to reduce the waiting time for child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). To help achieve this and also meet our target of having a comprehensive service in every area by March 2006, in the three years to March 2006 we shall be investing an additional £300 million in CAMHS provided by the national health service and local authorities.

  Decisions on the recruitment, retention and deployment of educational psychologists (EPs) are matters for local authorities as employers to determine in light of local circumstances and available resources.

  The Department for Education and Skills, which has the lead Government responsibility, is aware there are shortages of EPs in some areas. It has facilitated discussions involving a range of partners, including representatives of the Local Government Association, on developing a new shorter entry training route for Eps.

  NHS Independent Reconfiguration Panel
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the chairman of the NHS Independent Reconfiguration Panel receives in salary. [177299]

  Mr. Hutton
  For the year ending 5 April 2004 the Chairman of the Independent Reconfiguration Panel received a salary of twenty three thousand three hundred and three pounds and 54 pence (£23,303.54).

  NHS Upper Age Limits
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the upper age limit for(a) heart bypass surgery and (b) kidney dialysis in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [177576]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The older people's national service framework makes clear that national health service services should be provided, regardless of age, on the basis of clinical need alone. There is no upper age limit for either bypass surgery or kidney dialysis.

  PFI
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the private finance initiative programme. [177018]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The private finance initiative (PFI) is helping to deliver the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the national health service. Of the 107 PFI hospital schemes announced since 1997, 38 are already operational and a further 22 are under construction.

  In January 2004, I announced the next prioritisation round. This called for expressions of interest from strategic health authorities; trusts submitted their strategic outline cases in April. I expect to make a further announcement in the summer.

  Policy Collaborative Programme
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the external evaluation of the first phase of the Department's policy collaborative programme. [173840]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Copies of the evaluation report will be placed in the Library.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times a year the Board of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards is scheduled to meet; and when it last met. [175345]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The last meeting of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards was on 7 October 2003. It has since been succeeded by the Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards, which convenes annually. 13 regional sub-committees in England and one in Wales support the central committee. They meet two or three times a year.

  Spondylolisthesis
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into spondylolisthesis. [177106]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The Medical Research Council (MRC) currently supports three on-going clinical trials looking at interventions to relieve low back pain, including both recurrent and chronic back pain that may be of relevance to spondylolisthesis. A further MRC trial has recently been completed and the results are soon to be published. The clinical trials include comparison of the effectiveness of surgery to stabilise the
  366W
  spine with physiotherapy rehabilitation, and comparisons of various other interventions including exercise and manipulation by massage, chiropractors, osteopaths, or physiotherapists, and use of the Alexander technique.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been given to primary care trusts on treatment of spondylolisthesis. [177148]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: No advice has been given to primary care trusts on the treatment of spondylolisthesis. However, the Department is driving forward a major programme of work to improve equality of access to all national health service treatment and care services. Priorities for health and social care are set out in "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", the priorities and planning framework for 2003–06. Although spondylolisthesis is not identified specifically, people with this condition stand to benefit from the general improvement in access to specialist care we are bringing about, including for patients with any form of orthopaedic condition.

  Teenage Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to address problems with fertility amongst teenage cancer sufferers. [172794]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Currently, many teenage girls and boys are advised to consider having their eggs/ embryos or sperm stored for future fertility treatment. Fertility problems among teenage cancer sufferers will be included in the upcoming National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on child and adolescent cancers.

  This guidance is expected to be published in February 2005 and will specifically address specialist follow up for the late effects of treatment, including fertility, along with allied treatment services children and adolescents with cancer may need, such as fertility services.

  This guidance will take into account the fertility guidance already published by NICE in February 2004, which recommended early specialist referral when there is a known reason for infertility, such as prior treatment for cancer.

TREASURY

  Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners there have been in each year since 1979; and how many there are projected to be in each year to 2020, broken down by gender.[177558]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 8 June 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the number of pensioners for each year from 1979 to 2020. (177558)
  367W
  The attached table shows the population over state pension age in England and Wales, broken down by gender. The present state pension age is 65 for males and 60 for females. This will remain the case until 2010, after which the state pension age for females will rise progressively to 65 between 2010 and 2020.

  Mid 2002 population estimates are the latest available, therefore projections are shown for mid-2003 to mid-2020.

  Estimated1 and projected2 mid-year population aged over the state pension age3 England and Wales, 1979–2020

  Thousands

  Year

  Total

  Male

  Female

  1979

  8,696

  2,907

  5,789

  1980

  8,837

  2,950

  5,887

  1981

  8,928

  2,970

  5,958

  1982

  8,980

  2,970

  6,010

  1983

  8,993

  2,947

  6,046

  1984

  9,016

  2,936

  6,080

  1985

  9,117

  3,014

  6,103

  1986

  9,190

  3,072

  6,118

  1987

  9,250

  3,123

  6,127

  1988

  9,291

  3,158

  6,133

  1989

  9,337

  3,192

  6,145

  1990

  9,363

  3,217

  6,146

  1991

  9,400

  3,248

  6,152

  1992

  9,422

  3,274

  6,147

  1993

  9,435

  3,297

  6,138

  1994

  9,430

  3,314

  6,116

  1995

  9,449

  3,340

  6,109

  1996

  9,465

  3,365

  6,100

  1997

  9,484

  3,389

  6,095

  1998

  9,521

  3,414

  6,107

  1999

  9,543

  3,433

  6,110

  2000

  9,579

  3,460

  6,119

  2001

  9,627

  3,505

  6,122

  2002

  9,689

  3,552

  6,137

  2003

  9,780

  3,603

  6,177

  2004

  9,886

  3,653

  6,232

  2005

  9,999

  3,703

  6,295

  2006

  10,111

  3,743

  6,368

  2007

  10,310

  3,797

  6,513

  2008

  10,514

  3,878

  6,637

  2009

  10,705

  3,969

  6,737

  2010

  10,840

  4,063

  6,777

  2011

  10,864

  4,162

  6,702

  2012

  10,950

  4,325

  6,624

  2013

  11,014

  4,464

  6,550

  2014

  11,051

  4,577

  6,474

  2015

  11,078

  4,676

  6,402

  2016

  11,091

  4,763

  6,328

  2017

  11,104

  4,846

  6,259

  2018

  11,115

  4,928

  6,187

  2019

  11,126

  5,009

  6,117

  2020

  11,174

  5,085

  6,090

  Sources:

  Office for National Statistics1

  Government Actuary's Department2

  1 Estimates for 1992–2002

  2 Projections for 2003–2020

  3 State pension age is presently 65 for males and 60 for females. This will remain the case until 2010, after which the pension age for females will rise progressively to 65 between 2010 and 2020.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of people over 75 years with a personal pension who will take up the option in the proposed reform of pension taxation of an alternatively secured pension. [176823]

  Ruth Kelly
  The proposed Alternatively Secured Pension (ASP) will be a way of providing a secure retirement income after age 75. It will be attractive to 368W
  those with personal pensions who, on religious or other grounds, object to the pooling of mortality risk in an annuity. We do not anticipate significant numbers of people will choose this option.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of(a) the assets and (b) the liabilities of occupational pension schemes. [177547]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government does not monitor the level of liabilities in occupational pension schemes. The Government Actuaries Department's 11th Survey of occupational pension schemes for the year 2000 estimated total occupational scheme assets to be around £860 billion.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of corporation tax revenue forgone on employer contributions into pension schemes in each year since 1997–98; and what projections he has made for the future. [177561]

  Ruth Kelly
  No estimates are available.

  16 to 18-year-olds
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many 16 to 18-year-olds there were in the UK in each three month period ending in November in each year since 1997; and how many of those were not in full-time education, training or work in each of those periods. [177554]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 8 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about 16 to 18 year olds who are not in employment. (177554)

  The attached table gives estimates of the levels of young people aged 16 to 18 resident in the United Kingdom who were not in full time education and were not working or on Government-supported training schemes for the three months ending each November from 1997 to 2003.

  As with any statistical sample survey, estimates from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) are subject to sampling variability.

  People aged 16–18, United Kingdom, three months ending each November from 1997 to 2003

  Thousand

  People aged 16–18

  People aged 16–18 who are not in full-time education, not working or on Government training schemes

  1997

  2,130

  230

  1998

  2,124

  243

  1999

  2,107

  239

  2000

  2,114

  238

  2001

  2,195

  263

  2002

  2,253

  288

  2003

  2,290

  304

  Source:

  ONS-Labour Force Survey

  Accounting Officers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions since 1 July 2003 he has been informed of a Minister issuing a direction to an
  369W
  accounting officer as set out in paragraphs 14 to 17 of the Treasury document, The responsibilities of an accounting officer; on which grounds the note of dissent was issued; and if he will make a statement. [177235]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has not been informed of any directions issued by Ministers to Accounting Officers under this guidance, since the reply I gave the hon. Member on 5 March 2004,Official Report, column 1211W.

  African Debt
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is owed to the UK in bilateral debt by countries in Africa, broken down by country. [177418]

  John Healey
  Most of the debt owed to the UK Government by other sovereign Governments arises from defaults on export contracts guaranteed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD). These debts usually become the subject of Bilateral Debt Agreements entered into under the auspices of the Paris Club of official creditors. The following table shows the debt owed to the UK Government as at 30 September 2003 under Paris Club Arrangements.

  The UK Government have already announced their commitment to providing 100 per cent. irrevocable debt relief for all countries eligible for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative on their reaching Completion Point. In addition, for eligible HIPC countries yet to reach Decision Point, the UK does not ask for, or expect to receive, payments. Any debt payments that are made are held in trust until they can be returned to fund poverty reduction.

  The debts of Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal, Tanzania and Uganda were all cancelled when they reached the HIPC Completion Point.

  Total amounts outstanding1 held by African countries on Paris Club Agreements as at 30 September 2003

  Total owed (£ million)

  Algeria

  145.1

  Angola

  130.4

  Cameroon2

  64.1

  Central African Republic3

  0.4

  Congo3

  159.8

  Cote d'lvoire3

  18.9

  Democratic Republic of Congo2

  75.3

  Egypt

  151.9

  Ethiopia4

  11.8

  Gabon

  139.8

  Ghana2

  27.7

  Guinea2

  3.9

  Kenya5

  18.9

  Liberia3

  20.6

  Madagascar2

  27.2

  Malawi2

  0.4

  Morocco

  25.3

  Niger4

  8.2

  Nigeria

  4,905.1

  Senegal4

  1.4

  Sierra Leone2

  3.5

  Somalia3

  31.9

  Sudan3

  580.8

  Togo3

  19.4

  Zambia2

  174.4

  370W

  Total amounts outstanding1 held by African countries on Paris Club Agreements as at 30 September 2003

  Total owed (£ million)

  Total

  6,746.2

  1 Includes principal outstanding plus any arrears.

  2 At Decision Point of the HIPC Initiative.

  3 Eligible for the HIPC Initiative, but not yet at Decision Point.

  4 Graduated from the HIPC Initiative and had all debt irrevocably written off since end-September 2003.

  5 Eligible for HIPC Initiative but currently deemed sustainable without HIPC treatment.

  Business Premise Renovation Allowance
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was claimed in Business Premise Renovation Allowance in each qualifying ward in Wales, listed in descending order. [177350]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As announced by the Chancellor in Budget 2004, the proposed Business Premises Renovation Allowance scheme will be introduced in 2005, subject to state aid approval.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people within Tamworth constituency receive child benefit(a) through an Order Book, (b) through a Post Office Card Account and (c) paid directly into a bank or building society account. [176905]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Nationally, about 15 per cent. of child benefit (CB) recipients were being paid by Order Books at mid-May 2004, although arrangements are in place for some of these to move to direct payment when their books run out. About 5 per cent. of CB recipients have supplied Post Office Card Account details to Inland Revenue for payment.

  Separate figures are not available for each constituency. There were an estimated 12,000 child benefit recipients in the Tamworth constituency at November 2003.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff from Customs and Excise were employed at UK seaports and airports in each of the last five years. [177175]

  John Healey
  Statistics on the number of HM Customs and Excise staff employed at UK seaports and airports are not held centrally. Staff are increasingly formed into mobile teams working at seaports, airports and inland locations according to risk in order to improve the impact of their activity.

  Departmental Administration Budgets
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards the 5 per cent. reduction in real terms in his Department's administration budget by 2008 which he announced in the House on 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 331. [176513]
  371W
  Mr. Boateng
  HM Treasury's Spending Review 2004 settlement, agreed at the time of the Budget, fixes the Department's administration budget in cash terms at the 2005–06 level through to 2007–08. At forecast rates of inflation, that represents a real terms reduction of more than 5 per cent. There will be further announcements in the Spending Review.

  Gift Aid
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many responses he has received to the consultation he announced in the 2004 Budget on ending the entitlement of charities to claim gift aid on day memberships; and what percentage this represents of the number of organisations written to about this consultation. [177417]

  John Healey
  The Inland Revenue has written to 118 organisations—of which 84 are charities and 34 are representative bodies. A copy a this letter has been placed on the Inland Revenue website. At 8 June the Inland Revenue had received 14 written responses, representing almost 12 per cent. of those written to. Charities and representative bodies have until 11 June to respond.

  Officials and I have also held a series of constructive meetings with sector representatives and we will report this outcome of the consultation in due course.

  Home Computer Initiative
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) employers and (b) employees have taken part in the Home Computer Initiative in each year since its inception. [176985]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), on 27 February 2004,Official Report, columns 591–92W.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to promote the Home Computer Initiative (HCI) within the public sector; and whether he plans to offer the HCI to civil servants. [176986]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Head of the Home Civil Service has written to the Heads of Civil Service departments to inform them of the initiative and to encourage them to adopt computer loan schemes within their departments.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior citizens in(a) Leeds metropolitan district council and (b) Leeds, West constituency have qualified for the 10p rate of income tax in each year since its introduction. [176982]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The requested information is given in the following table.

  Number of pensioners taxpayers

  Thousand

  2000–01

  2001–02

  (a) Leeds Metropolitan District

  47

  51

  (b) Leeds West Constituency

  —

  4

  372W
  All income taxpayers benefit from the 10p starting rate. In the Survey of Personal Incomes the sample size of pensioners living in Leeds, West constituency is relatively small compared to other constituencies so a reliable estimate cannot be given for 2000–01. All estimates should be treated with caution because of sampling variation. Estimates are based on the 2000–01 and 2001–02 Survey of Personal Incomes. Figures for 1999–2000 are currently not available.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many pensioners in Greater London paid income tax at the(a) higher rate and (b) basic rate in each year since 1996–97; and what percentage of all (i) pensioner taxpayers and (ii) pensioners the figures represent in each case. [177046]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates are in the following tables.

  (a) Higher rate pensioner1 taxpayers in London boroughs

  Number: Thousan

  Number

  Percentage of London pensioner taxpayers (i)2

  Percentage of London pensioner taxpayers (ii)2

  1996–97

  27

  7

  3

  1997–98

  29

  7

  3

  1998–99

  33

  6

  3

  2000–01

  36

  7

  3

  2001–02

  33

  7

  3

  (b) Basic rate pensioner1 taxpayers in London boroughs

  Number: Thousand

  Number

  Percentage of London pensioner taxpayers (i)2

  Percentage of London pensioner taxpayers (ii)2

  1996–973

  165

  40

  15

  1997–983

  210

  49

  20

  1998–993

  246

  47

  23

  2000–014

  371

  74

  36

  2001–024

  358

  74

  35

  1Men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over.

  2 Mid-year population estimates supplied by the Office of National Statistics.

  3 From 1993–94 until 1998–99 the figures in the table do not include a number of taxpayers with taxable income in excess of the lower rate limit who only paid tax at the lower rate, not the basic rate. This was because only their dividend income and (from 1996–97) savings income took their taxable income above the lower rate limit. As such, this income was chargeable to tax at the lower rate and not the basic rate.

  4In 1999–2000 the starting rate replaced the lower rate. In 1998–99 the 20 per cent. lower rate band was £4,300. In 1999–2000 the 10 per cent. starting rate band was £1,500. Some taxpayers who were paying at the lower rate of income tax started paying at the basic rate.

  Estimates should be treated with caution because of sampling variation. The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes. Figures for 1999–2000 are currently not available.

  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many and what proportion of pensioners in(a) South West Surrey constituency and (b) Surrey paid income tax at (i) higher rate and (ii) basic rate in each year since 1996–97. [177266]
  373W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates are in the following tables.

  (b) Higher rate pensioner1 taxpayers in Surrey

  Number: Thousand

  Number(i)

  Percentage of all Surrey pensioners(i)2

  1996–97

  8

  4

  1997–98

  9

  5

  1998–99

  13

  7

  2000–01

  12

  6

  2001–02

  12

  6

  (b) Basic rate pensioner1 taxpayers in Surrey

  Number: Thousand

  Number(ii)

  Percentage of all Surrey pensioners(ii)2

  1996–97 3.5

  —

  —

  1997–983

  61

  31

  1998–993

  67

  34

  2000–014

  88

  44

  2001–024

  80

  40

  1 Men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over.

  2 Mid-year population estimates supplied by the Office of National Statistics.

  3 From 1993–94 until 1998–99 the figures in the table do not include a number of taxpayers with taxable income in excess of the lower rate limit who only paid tax at the lower rate, not the basic rate. This was because only their dividend income and (from 1996–97) savings income took their taxable income above the lower rate limit. As such, this income was chargeable to tax at the lower rate and not the basic rate.

  4 In 1999–2000 the starting rate replaced the lower rate. In 1998–99 the 20 per cent. lower rate band was £4,300. In 1999–2000 the 10 per cent. starting rate band was £1,500. Some taxpayers who were paying at the lower rate of income tax started paying at the basic rate.

  5 In the Survey of Personal Incomes the sample size of pensioners living in Surrey is relatively small compared to other geographical areas so a reliable estimate cannot be given for 1996–97.

  In the Survey of Personal Incomes the sample size of pensioner taxpayers living in the South West Surrey constituency is relatively small compared to other geographical areas so reliable estimates cannot be given. Estimates should be treated with caution because of sampling variation. The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes. Figures for 1999–2000 are currently not available.

  Inflows/Outflows
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) total inflow to the UK, (b) total outflow from the UK and (c) new inflow into the UK in each year since 1979. [177095]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Alan Duncan, dated 8 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question regarding estimates of international migration to and from the United Kingdom, plus net migration, since 1979. (177095)
  374W
  These estimates are shown in the attached table.

  International migration, time series 1979 to 2002, United Kingdom

  Thousand

  Inflow

  Outflow

  Balance

  1979

  194.8

  188.5

  6.2

  1980

  173.4

  228.4

  -55.0

  1981

  152.8

  232.3

  -79.5

  1982

  201.0

  257.3

  -56.2

  1983

  201.6

  184.2

  17.4

  1984

  200.9

  163.5

  37.4

  1985

  232.1

  173.7

  58.4

  1986

  250.3

  213.1

  37.2

  1987

  211.4

  209.1

  2.2

  1988

  216.0

  237.2

  -21.3

  1989

  249.8

  205.4

  44.3

  1990

  266.8

  230.8

  36.0

  1991

  328.4

  285.0

  43.5

  1992

  267.6

  281.1

  -13.5

  1993

  265.1

  266.3

  -1.2

  1994

  314.4

  237.6

  76.8

  1995

  311.9

  236.5

  75.4

  1996

  317.8

  263.7

  54.1

  1997

  326.1

  279.2

  46.8

  1998

  390.3

  251.5

  138.8

  1999

  453.8

  290.8

  163.0

  2000

  483.4

  320.7

  162.8

  2001

  479.6

  307.7

  171.8

  2002

  512.8

  359.4

  153.4

  Notes:

  1. Data tor 1979–90 are based on the international Passenger Survey (IPS) only. Data for 1991–2002 are based mainly on data from the IPS but also include adjustments for (1) those whose intended length of stay changes so that their migrant status changes; (2) asylum seekers and their dependants not covered by the IPS; and (3) flows between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. This means that figures for years from 1991 onwards include all categories of migrants and therefore represent total international migration, while figures for years Drier to 1991 exclude certain categories

  2. The estimates for years from 1991 onwards are compiled using the following main sources of migration data in addition to the IPS: Home Office data on asylum seekers and their dependants, and people who entered the UK as short-term visitors but were subsequently granted an extension of stay for a year or longer for other reasons, for example, as students or on the basis of marriage; and estimates of migration between the UK and the Irish Republic.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much compensation has been paid out by the Inland Revenue to accountants and other professional advisers following the admission of blame for errors in each of the last three years. [177192]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not pay compensation to accountants and other professional advisers. In accordance with its Code of Practice 1

  "Putting things right" the Inland Revenue reimburses customers for additional professional fees paid as a direct result of Inland Revenue errors.

  The total amount of compensation paid to customers, including reimbursement of professional fees, for each of the last three years is as follows:
  375W

  Year ending 31 March

  £ million

  2004

  2.43

  2003

  2.28

  2002

  2.57

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the late filings penalty notices for financial year 2002–03 were incorrectly issued because of a logging error by the Inland Revenue. [177196]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The information requested is not available.

  Migrants
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of(a) migrants in the UK and (b) dependant children of migrants aged under 16 years who were born (i) in and (ii) outside the UK. [177445]

  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. Julian Brazier, dated 8 June 2004:

  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what estimate has been made of the number of (a) migrants in the UK and (b) dependent children of migrants aged under 16 years who were born (i) in and (ii) outside the UK. (177445)

  For the purposes of this question, a 'migrant' is taken to be a person resident in the UK who was born in another country. The 2001 Census estimated that 4,643,086 residents of England and Wales were born outside the UK: this represents 8.9 per cent. of the total population of England and Wales. The figure can be derived from table KS05 in the "Census 2001 Key Statistics for local authorities in England and Wales' report which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Information on the country of birth of the dependent children of such 'migrants' is currently unavailable. However, you may wish to note that the Census recorded a total of 11,665,266 dependent children in England and Wales, of which 430,623 were born outside the UK. These figures are provided in table T12 in the "Census 2001 National report for England and Wales", which is also available in the House of Commons Library.

  The above figures for people born outside the UK will include people born in the Republic of Ireland and some UK citizens who happen to be born outside the UK, such as children born to Armed Forces personnel when the family was stationed overseas.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the net non-EU migration to the UK in each year since 1979. [177089]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Alan Duncan, dated 8 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question regarding estimates of net non-European Union migration to the United Kingdom since 1979. (177089)

  These estimates are shown in the attached table. The phrase "non-European Union migration" has been interpreted as referring to the citizenship of migrants as opposed to, for example, their country of birth or country of last residence.
  376W
  Please note that the definition for the European Union does not include the ten states that joined on 1 May 2004, nor does it include the non—EU states in the European Economic Area. The countries included are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

  International migration of people who are not citizens of EU countries, time series 1979 to 2002, United Kingdom

  Thousand

  Inflow

  Outflow

  Balance

  1979

  98.7

  49.5

  49.2

  1980

  88.9

  57.2

  31.7

  1981

  81.0

  53.0

  28.0

  1982

  85.8

  59.8

  25.9

  1983

  92.3

  50.5

  41.7

  1984

  86.1

  51.3

  34.8

  1985

  98.4

  52.5

  45.9

  1986

  94.2

  68.2

  26.0

  1987

  87.8

  58.0

  29.8

  1988

  99.3

  70.3

  28.9

  1989

  114.2

  61.2

  53.0

  1990

  123.7

  65.2

  58.6

  1991

  166.5

  77.5

  89.0

  1992

  131.4

  87.6

  43.9

  1993

  135.0

  77.3

  57.7

  1994

  155.8

  70.9

  84.9

  1995

  166.8

  63.0

  103.8

  1996

  151.7

  64.0

  87.7

  1997

  165.6

  77.4

  88.2

  1998

  205.4

  76.9

  128.6

  1999

  270.8

  93.0

  177.8

  2000

  316.2

  102.6

  213.6

  2001

  312.9

  99.4

  213.5

  2002

  355.4

  122.0

  233.4

  Notes:

  1. Data for 1979–90 are based on the International Passenger Survey (IPS) only. Data for 1991–2002 are based mainly on data from the IPS but also include adjustments for (1) those whose intended length of stay changes so that their migrant status changes; (2) asylum seekers and their dependants not covered by the IPS; and (3) flows between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. This means that figures for years from 1991 onwards include all categories of migrants and therefore represent total international migration, while figures for years prior to 1991 exclude certain categories of migration.

  2. The estimates for years from 1991 onwards are compiled using the following main sources of migration data in addition to the IPS: Home Office data on asylum seekers and their dependants, and people who entered the UK as short-term visitors but were subsequently granted an extension of stay for a year or longer for other reasons, for example, as students or on the basis of marriage; and estimates of migration between the UK and the Irish Republic.

  Registrar Records
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what back-up systems are in place for the records held on computers by registrars of births, marriages and deaths; and if he will make a statement; [177002]

  (2) what measures are taken against possible abuse of records held by registrars of births, marriages and deaths; and if he will make a statement. [177003]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Registrar General for England and Wales, who has been asked to reply.
  377W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Laurence Robertson, dated 8 June 2004:

  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions concerning what back-up exists for the records held on computers by registrars of births, marriages and deaths and what measures are taken against possible abuse of records held by registrars of births, marriages and deaths. (177002,177003)

  Every birth, death and marriage in England and Wales is registered locally in a register book. The Registrar General maintains a central archive of each registration created from paper certified copies of the original record. The certified copies are microfilmed to enable certificates to be issued by the General Register Office. The register entries and the central archive are the legal records of the event.

  Since the early 1990's part of the registration process has been computerised to facilitate the collection of the information and the local printing of certificates. The computer records are backed up locally and copies are sent weekly to the Registrar General.

  The information to be recorded by registrars of births, deaths and marriages is set out in statute and entered into a bound register book. Registers are kept locally in a secure fireproof store. In order to maintain the integrity of the records a register entry may be amended only by an authorised official and by the means set out in statute. The Registrar General maintains a central archive of all registrations made and any amendment made locally has to be duplicated in the central archive.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total expenditure on advertisements for tax credits has been since their inception. [176230]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Advertising expenditure on tax credits was £12.5 million in 2002–03 and £11.4 million in 2003–04.

  For earlier years, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 13 June 2002, Official Report, column 1397W.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the costs of administering the(a) children's tax credit, (b) child tax credit, (c) working families tax credit, (d) working tax credit and (e) family credit in each year since 1997–98; and what his projected expenditure on administration costs for each credit is in each future year for which figures are available. [177489]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The costs of managing and paying working families and disabled person's tax credits are shown in the Inland Revenue Trust Accounts, at Note 3 for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 and at Note 4 for 2002–03. A broad estimate of the annual cost of administering the child and working tax credits appears in the Regulatory Impact Assessment, published on 15 July 2002. The actual cost in 2003–04 will appear in the Trust Account for that year.

  I understand from the Department of Work and Pensions that the estimated annual costs for family credit in Great Britain are given in the Annual Reports of the former Department of Social Security. The administration of the children's tax credit for 2001–02 and 2002–03 was part of the Inland Revenue's routine work and was not separately identified in running costs.

  Transport Emissions
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rules and guidelines cover the recent modifications to the Office of National Statistics report on emissions and the information added on the website relating to aviation and road freight emissions. [177267]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, dated 8 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on modifications to the ONS Environmental Accounts report. (177267)

  The information on greenhouse gas emissions from transport were not removed from the ONS Environmental Accounts report published on 20 May 2004. The report was never altered from the version originally prepared by professional statisticians within ONS, and is publicly available on the National Statistics website.

  The focus of the accompanying News Release changed during drafting, as there were some unresolved statistical concerns over the reconciliation of road freight emissions figures using alternative definitions. Given these concerns, it was decided that it would not be appropriate for the News Release to focus upon transport emissions as had been intended. This decision was taken independently by senior Government statisticians, as a matter of professional judgement.

  The circumstances surrounding this decision are explained in a letter that I sent to David Rowlands (Permanent Secretary of the Department for Transport) on 28 May. This letter is available on the website of the Statistics Commission at: http:// www.statscom. org.uk/media_pdfs/correspondence/letter0189.pdf

  The ONS operates in accordance with the "Framework for National Statistics" and follows the principles and procedures set out in the "National Statistics Code of Practice" and its supporting "Protocols". One of the key principles within the "Code of Practice" states that National Statistics will be "fit for purpose and of high quality". Our concerns about the reconciliation of the emissions data led us to make the professional judgement that these measures, while of publishable quality, were not fit for the purpose of being the focus of a high-profile news release.

  "The Framework for National Statistics" also states that National Statistics must "be produced and presented without political interference". The Environmental Accounts report was produced and released fully in accordance with this principle.

  Travellers
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 24 May 2004,Official Report, columns 1461–62W, on travellers, what assessment of the risk of non-compliance in relation to the payment of income tax and VAT has been made in respect of unauthorised traveller developments in (a) England and Wales and (b) South Bedfordshire. [176835]

  John Healey
  Risk assessment is not carried out by demographic or socio -economic group. Therefore, no specific assessment of the risk of non-compliance in relation to the payment of VAT or income tax has been made in respect of unauthorised traveller developments.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the transfer of pension rights and benefits under TUPE for members of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme in to the Industry Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme complied fully with Article 3 of the EU Acquired Rights Directive; and if she will make a statement. [176636]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I am advised that, in accordance with Article 3 of the EU Acquired Rights Directive occupational pension rights—specifically old age, invalidity or survivors' benefits—are excluded from the operation of TUPE.

  However, recent rulings by the European Court of Justice may have implication, on whether early retirement benefits on redundancy are excluded from TUPE protection. Interpreting the ECJ ruling in relation to British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme (BCSSS) members and their current employers is a matter for the Pensions Ombudsman and the courts.

  The Government already funds the early retirement benefits on redundancy for members of the BCSSS.

  Business Support
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses were helped by each Business Link operator in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in 2001–02 [177127]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In 2001–02 there was one Business Link Operator in London, Business Link for London. In 2001–02 14,980 business were assisted.

  The breakdown in boroughs is approximately as follows:

  Number

  Camden

  440

  Islington

  544

  Kensington and Chelsea

  216

  Lambeth

  240

  Southwark

  365

  Wandsworth

  334

  Westminster

  733

  Barking and Dagenham

  63

  Bexley

  133

  City of London

  287

  Greenwich

  185

  Hackney

  331

  Havering

  159

  Lewisham

  231

  Newham

  298

  Redbridge

  215

  Tower Hamlets

  365

  Barnet

  277

  Enfield

  344

  Haringey

  332

  Waltham Forest

  237

  Bromley

  225

  Croydon

  378

  Kingston upon Thames

  188

  Merton

  169

  Richmond upon Thames

  257

  Sutton

  125

  Brent

  212

  380W

  Number

  Ealing

  372

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  261

  Harrow

  192

  Hillingdon

  174

  Hounslow

  220

  Not allocated to borough

  5,877

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many small businesses in Greater London increased their net profit above £15,000 in each year since 1997; and what the percentage change was in each year. [177129]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Coal Health Claims
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much had been paid(a) in total and (b) in Nottinghamshire for coal health claims for (i) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (ii) vibration white finger at 31 March. [176546]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: To date the figures are:

  COPD (£ billion)

  VWF (£ million)

  Total amount paid to claimants

  1.1

  972.4

  Total amount paid to claimants in 1Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire/ Leicestershire

  56.1

  123.5

  1Figures for Nottinghamshire are not available separately.

  Regional and constituency figures can be found on the Department's website: www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth. The information is complied in the middle of the month and shows the figures for the end of the previous month.

  IT Equipment
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how often since 1997(a) her Department and (b) its associated public sector organisations have undergone portable appliance testing of IT equipment; and what the cost was of portable appliance testing in each year since 1997. [174982]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has since 1997 undertaken annual testing of all portable appliances in DTI offices, including IT equipment, usually through its operations and maintenance contract. The cost of portable appliance testing is included in the overall price of the contract and cannot be provided separately.

  In respect of the DTI's executive agencies, each Chief Executive has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Claire Clancy to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 8 June 2004:

  I am responding to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of Companies House, which is an Executive Agency of the DTI.

  The Portable Appliance Testing of IT equipment at Companies House is carried out every three to five years in accordance with the IEE recommendations. The cost is approximately £5000.00 per annum.
  381W
  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 8 June 2004:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to you directly on behalf of The Insolvency Service in respect of your question (2003/3109) asking how often since 1997 (a) the Department (b) its associated public sector organisation have undergone portable appliance testing of IT equipment and what the cost was of portable appliance testing in each year since 1997.

  Since 1997, The Insolvency Service has undertaken annual testing of all portable appliances in our office, including IT equipment, usually using contactors from OGC 'Buying Solutions' call-off arrangements. The Service do not have the separate costs available for such testing as this is included with other maintenance costs.

  Letter from Ron Marchant to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 8 June 2004:

  Since 1997 the Patent Office has undertaken annual testing of all portable appliances in our offices, including I.T. equipment.

  Our appointed mechanical and electrical contractors undertake this work for us and these costs are included in our overall building maintenance contract.

  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 8 June 2004:

  You asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, how often since 1997 her Department and its associated public sector organisations have undergone portable testing of IT equipment and what the cost was of portable appliance testing in each year since 1997. I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS).

  Portable Appliance Testing is undertaken on a two yearly cycle within ETS as part of a planned programme of maintenance which includes the testing of IT equipment. I regret that I am unable to identify the separate costs within this associated with the testing of IT equipment.

  Marketing
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the Innovation Review, what research the Government have carried out into customer value and brand reputation marketing; and if she will make a statement. [176417]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  At the start of the innovation review, DTI collated the available evidence on the drivers of innovation, the UK's innovation performance and the factors that help explain it. The evidence paper can be found at www.dti.gov.uk/economics/economicspaper7.pdf. DTI funding is also supporting the projects on the measurement and management of intangibles assets. One ongoing project under this theme is "Facilitating Innovation through the Measurement and Management of Intangibles". This study focuses on the contribution, which 'intangible'assets (including brands and customer networks) make to processes of innovation. Further information can be found on the website at: www.ebkresearch.org/index.htm

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to carry out further research in the areas of brand reputation, customer value and marketing and their role in the innovation process; [176446]

  (2) pursuant to the Innovation Review, what plans the Government have to help companies make more effective use of marketing and branding as a means of delivering successful innovation and increasing customer satisfaction. [176448]
  382W
  Nigel Griffiths
  Support for the development of marketing skills falls within the new "Achieving Best Practice in your Business" theme that promotes the new best practice products produced from the Business Support review. For example, the information and advice product has a suite of literature aimed at promoting E-marketing. On the support side, we aim to support 9,000 benchmark diagnostics and up to 2,000 best practice projects, many of which will have marketing/branding aspects.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the planned regional competition deadlines are for the grant for research and development over the next 28 months; and if she will make a statement; [174711]

  (2) what funds have been allocated for the grant for research and development between 2004 and 2007; and if she will make a statement.[174712]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Overall spend on programmes to improve UK innovation performance and accelerate business exploitation of science and technologies is planned to increase from £377 million in 2004–05 to over £387 million in 2005–06.

  Following a review of the Department's business support Grant for Research and Development was introduced on 1 June 2003 to replace and enhance the Smart scheme. It has proved just as popular as its predecessor so regional competitions for the grants have been introduced to ensure that expenditure on the product remains under control and to ensure that those research and development projects which best meet the grant selection criteria are supported.

  The first regional competition deadline for Grant for Research and Development was 28 May. The dates of further competitions are yet to be decided.

  The Department is planning to spend £36 million on Grant for Research and Development and its predecessor, Smart, in the financial year 2004–05 and £26 million in 2005–06. Plans for subsequent years will be agreed as part of the 2004 Spending Review process.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government have taken to help small businesses in Bootle since 1997. [176527]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Business Link Operator for Merseyside, Greater Merseyside Enterprises (GME), has provided assistance to 713 enterprises in the Bootle constituency since 2001. The Small Business Service was set up as an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry in April 2000. Contracts were exchanged with a national network of 45 Business Link Operators (seven in the North West) to provide business support to small and medium-sized enterprises from April 2001. Before this date, Government support to business was provided through training and enterprise councils and the SBS does not have access to these data.
  383W
  85 of the 713 companies received business start-up advice, other assistance provided included: workforce development, financial advice, Investors In People, specialist business advice, international trade, and marketing assistance.

  29 of the companies were female-run businesses and 39 were ethnic-run businesses.

  Under the Enterprise Grant scheme, 11 companies have received offers of grant with a total value of £333,380 since 1997.

  Under the Research and Development scheme, 12 companies have received offers of grant with a total value of £678,044 since 1997.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effects of the EU Social Chapter on the residents of Bootle. [177000]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The residents of Bootle have benefited from the EU Social Chapter by having their employment rights extended to include:the right to parental leave, which gives parents the right to 13 weeks unpaid leave at the birth or adoption of a child;
  the entitlement of part-time workers to the same pro-rate terms and conditions of employment as full-time workers, thereby removing any discrimination and improving the quality of part-time jobs;
  the provision that once a prima facie case has been made in an employment tribunal claim, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant (usually the employer), who will need to demonstrate that sex discrimination has not occured;
  rights under the Fixed Term Work Directive that provide for the fair treatment of fixed term workers and prevent abuse of fixed term contracts; and
  rights under the European Works Council Directive, which requires companies with at least 1,000 employees in total and at least 150 workers in each of the two member states, to establish structures for consulting workers on issues that affect them.
  384W
  In addition, the Information and Consultation of Employees Directive to be implemented in the UK by March 2005, establishes a right to new minimum standards for workforce communication and involvement in large firms.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the visual impact of wind farms in operation; and if she will make a statement. [175000]

  Mr. Timms
  The visual impact of proposed wind farm developments is considered on a case-by-case basis by the relevant planning authorities.

  The Government's national planning policy with regard to wind farms and renewable energy is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG) 22: Renewable Energy, which gives local planning authorities guidance on a range of issues that affect the siting of wind turbines—including visual impact.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the composition was of the working group responsible for the ETSU-R-97 report entitled the Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms. [175562]

  Mr. Timms
  The working group responsible for the ETSU-R-97 report entitled the Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms was:

  Name

  Mr. R. Meir—Chairman

  DTI

  Dr. M. L. Legerton—Secretary

  ETSU

  Dr. M. B. Anderson

  Renewable Energy Systems

  Mr. B. Berry

  National Physical Laboratory

  Dr. A. Bullmore

  Hoare Lea and Partners

  Mr. M. Hayes

  The Hayes McKenzie Partnership

  Mr. M. Jiggins

  Carrick District Council

  Mr. E. Leeming

  The National Power Company Ltd.

  Dr. P. Musgrove

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Mr. D. J. Spode

  North Cornwall District Council

  Mr. H. A. Thomas

  Isle of Anglesey County Council

  Ms E. Tomalin

  EcoGen Ltd.

  Mr. M. Trinick

  Bond Pearce Solicitors

  Dr. J. Warren

  National Wind Power Ltd.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Probation Board
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  I have today published the Probation Board for Northern Ireland business plan for 2004–05. The plan sets out the board's key objectives and performance targets for the year. Copies of the plan have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Health and Social Services Estates Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith)
  Stage two of the quinquennial review of the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates Agency has been completed. The report has been made available in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Northern Ireland Assembly's Libraries and on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's website.

  The conclusion of the stage one report, published on 4 June 2003, was that the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates Agency should remain in being as an agency.

  Stage two examined how the agency operated and looked at the potential for improving its future performance. The consultants invited views from a range of respondents, including Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA), HPSS boards trusts, and agencies and departmental staff. Their report makes recommendations to improve the agency's effectiveness and efficiency.

  The report's overall conclusion is that much has already been done to address areas for improvement identified in the stage one report. The report recommends, however, more:
  monitoring of compliance with policy standards;
  consultation and engagement in formulating and monitoring standards;
  practically oriented advice to the Department which can influence capital plans;
  early engagement with the Department on estate-related policy issues with wider implications for capital planning;
  early involvement of the agency in the development and approval of capital plans and business cases;
  involvement in the development of policy which may have capital implications;
  communication and integration across all parts of the agency.

  Implementation of the report's recommendations will improve the effectiveness of the agency and will enhance its ability to contribute to improvements in the quality of care to patients.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Courts Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  My noble Friend the Secretary of State, the Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has made the following written ministerial statement."The Queen has agreed that the new courts agency will be named Her Majesty's Courts Service when it is established in April 2005. The Courts Act 2003 allows the Lord Chancellor to create a new executive agency responsible for the administration of the magistrates' courts and the higher courts".

DEFENCE

  Department of Defence Mental Health
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  As part of the Ministry of Defence strategy to modernise and improve defence mental health services, I can announce today that the Ministry of Defence has awarded a contract to King's College London, widely recognised as a leader in this field, to establish, in partnership with Defence Medical Services, a Department of Defence Mental Health.

  This Department, which will come under the auspices of the Royal College of Defence Medicine, will be based in London as part of the King's College centre for military health research. It will have a small permanent staff, consisting of a senior lecturer in military health studies, who will be appointed by King's, and a clinical senior lecturer and nurse senior lecturer, who will be Defence Medical Services staff. Administrative support and accommodation will be provided by King's.

  This department will become a centre of excellence for the study of service mental health conditions, enabling us to develop a better understanding of their causes, treatment and prevention. It will greatly enhance the level of training available to our mental health specialists, and provide invaluable support to our newly enhanced community-based teams of mental health specialists.

  Iraq
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  On 4 May, I told the House that 33 cases of civilian deaths, injuries or alleged ill-treatment in Iraq have been investigated by Service Police. The Secretary of State repeated this figure in the House on 10 May, as did the Prime Minister on 12 May.

  A detailed verification exercise was put in place to ensure that all cases were being properly investigated and centrally reported. As a result of this continuing exercise it has come to light that the figure given on 4 May failed to incorporate details of investigations from all branches of the Service Police.

  The correct number of investigations into civilian deaths, injuries or alleged ill-treatment undertaken at 4 May was 61. Of these 23 were still in progress, 31 had

  5WS
  concluded with no further action being taken and seven were pending a decision whether to prosecute. None of these additional 28 cases relates to detention facilities.

  We have initiated a further 14 investigations since 4 May. These new investigations can principally be attributed to the high operational tempo over the last month, and a small number of new allegations made by Iraqi civilians relating to earlier incidents.

  Steps have been taken to ensure that information on all Service Police investigations into incidents in Iraq are now held centrally. I will continue to update the House on significant developments as appropriate.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Poverty
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  Today I have published the Government response to the Work and Pensions Committee Second Report of Session 2003–04 [HC 85–1] "Inquiry into Child Poverty in the UK" (CM 6200). Copies have been placed in the Library and are available for the Vote Office.

  I am grateful to the Select Committee for their report which is detailed, comprehensive and helpful.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Lord Garden
Air Marshal Sir Timothy Garden, KCB, having been created Baron Garden, of Hampstead in the London Borough of Camden, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Williams of Crosby and the Lord Roper.
Lord Drayson
Paul Rudd Drayson, Esquire, having been created Baron Drayson, of Kensington in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Jay of Paddington and the Lord Levy.

Deafblind People
2.47 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What recent measures they have taken to assist deafblind people.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, in 2001 we issued guidance under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 specifically on services for deafblindness. The guidance has raised awareness among local authorities of deafblindness and services are improving. General measures to improve the accessibility and quality of NHS and local authority services to disabled people will also help deafblind people.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but in view of those activities can she perhaps explain the fact, as revealed by Sense, the organisation for deafblind people, that more than 50 per cent of deafblind people have not even been identified by local authorities and that more than 95 per cent of deafblind people do not have the services of communicator guides that are so essential for that double disability? Will my noble friend try to explain that to the House?
Will my noble friend also tell me if I am right in assuming that the Government made a big mistake in not backing the Private Member's Bill some four years ago? That Bill would have laid a definite duty on all local authorities to locate, identify and assess all deafblind people in their area and then provide the services. That would have been a clear obligation but the Government said, "No thanks", and opted simply
136
for guidance. However, we all know that guidance can be ignored by local authorities. We need a complete change of policy.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend for the fact that we have guidance in the first place. He may be disappointed that there was no Bill but the guidance is clear and is working effectively. My noble friend, who has been a friend for many years, will know that this is very much a developing situation. Figures from the Social Services Inspectorate show that in 2001 there was not a single senior manager responsible for deafblind people; now 98 per cent of councils have such a manager. Some 89 per cent of councils now make information available in formats accessible to deafblind people and 82 per cent have a database that identifies deafblind people.
I am the first to agree that a lot more needs to be done, but we are starting from a very low base. It is entirely due to my noble friend that deafblindness is recognised as a unique condition which needs a unique set of services. I hope that he will take some comfort from that and will look forward to more progress being made.
Lord Laming: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that particular attention will be given to the needs of children so that an assessment is made as early as possible and a plan put into operation which will ensure their proper development so that in future we do not have the kind of situation that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, outlined?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. Deafblind children with communication problems that we can hardly begin to comprehend suffer an additional disability. Early assessment is absolutely essential. The early support pilot project will be one way of picking up these young children very quickly. However, much will depend on their assessment under the framework of assessment of children in need, which is a good framework. We need more interveners to work with those children to develop their communication and social skills. That is something that we are working on very aggressively at the moment.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, will the Minister add to her original Answer by also paying tribute to the work of the voluntary societies in this area that often work in partnership with local authorities under Section 7 of the Act? I speak from particular experience as president of the Cheshire Deafness Support Network, which last year opened a specific deafblind facility for people who are among the neediest in our society. One can scarcely imagine what it is like to be deafblind but the workers are very dedicated. They are enabled by Section 7 of the Act but work in partnership with a vigorous voluntary society. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to those people, too?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I certainly shall. One of the major contributions of those people is the

137
development of capacity in the service. They are doing so much to develop the specialist profession. I refer to social workers who are specially trained to deal with deafblind people, volunteers who can work on a one-to-one basis who know the real problems that these elderly as well as young people face, and the establishment of a deafblind studies diploma. There is a great deal of partnership with local authorities through the Department of Health. Deafblind UK and Sense are leading the field. I am delighted that we are working so closely with them.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the term "deafblind" covers people with a wide degree of problems, from those with a profound problem with communication—the classic example was Helen Keller—to people who are totally blind with hearing loss but would not describe themselves as deafblind? Even the description now used—dual visual and sensory impairment—does not really help, because it is the degree of difficulty of communication that is crucial in the definition.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is right, and it is why we owe my noble friend Lord Ashley such a debt for identifying it. We need specialists to address the issues of communication particularly. The effort going into building a capacity to understand the specialist assessments carried out by local authorities is the key to making sure that people get the needed services. Those services cross a very wide range of social services to do with disability and being elderly.
Lord Addington: My Lords, has the Minister been made aware that there are many cases of people referring to the guidance being told by social services departments that it is only guidance, and that they do not have to do much about it? Does the attitude of those responsible for that build any confidence within the Government about any duty that there might be for, for instance, the promotion of equality through any future legislation?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the guidance is statutory guidance under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act. It has to be followed unless there is a very good reason for not following it. We would think it reprehensible for local authorities not to try. We have to allow for the building up of progress and capacity in new areas of policy. I reiterate that the guidance is compulsory; it is being implemented at different rates, but there is no excuse for not implementing it.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend. To put this Question into perspective, is she aware that it was my noble friend Lord Ashley, 35 years ago in 1969, who led the way in enacting—as Section 25 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act—the world's first ever legislation specifically to assist deafblind people? Is that not the very best of credentials for being listened to very
138
carefully on the urgency of the need for further progress in reducing the handicapping effects of this devastating combination of disabilities?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord reminds us of exactly how long a history my noble friend Lord Ashley has in developing this area of policy; as, indeed, he does himself. It would be a very unwise government who did not listen to my noble friend, and they would do so to their cost. In terms of implementing his advice, we have a new instrument in the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Its job, following the Social Services Inspectorate, will be to make sure that councils follow the guidance.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister said that the guidance was working effectively. Is she aware that, more than three years after it was issued, 13 per cent of local authorities still do not have any kind of services at all appropriate for deafblind people? Does she not agree that the Government have to keep a close eye on the area?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I agree. The figures vary somewhat about who is implementing what at the moment, which is one very good reason for close monitoring. However, with the Commission for Social Care Inspection we have a new and more robust method for following the matter up. With the voluntary sector's participation, I am sure that we will be pressed to reduce the inequalities in the service, as is quite right.

Mental Health Services: Children and Adolescents
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen Baroness Massey of Darwen asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they are implementing child and adolescent mental health services; and what plans they have to improve these services.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, local health and social services partnerships are working to achieve the targets set out by the Department of Health in our public service agreement and priorities and planning framework, assisted by the £300 million provided in the three years to March 2006 to increase capacity and reduce inequalities. Future developments will be determined by recommendations in the National Service Framework for Children, which is due to be published later this year.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Would she agree that, sometimes at a local level, the services are not adequate or given sufficient prominence? Will she give examples of good practice at a local level that might be replicated?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, 10 years ago, mental health services for children were nowhere on the political map, and the situation is now very different. One of the most difficult challenges is to get local authorities to work closely with health and education services, and we are beginning to see them do so. As the noble Baroness may know, the emerging framework of the National Service Framework for Children, which was published last year, set out a draft children and adult mental health service plan that local authorities could follow. It was a comprehensive plan for children's services, and they are beginning to follow it. It has a very heavy emphasis on partnership. The emerging framework spends pages talking about good partnership, what it should look like and how it should be achieved.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the issue is very broad? She will no doubt have seen the latest WHO study of more than 150,000 young people, which found that teenagers in England in particular, but also their counterparts in Scotland and Wales, have some of the highest rates of drinking, smoking, drug use and underage sex, and the lowest levels of life satisfaction. That is the root of some of the problems under discussion. What are the Government doing to work in conjunction with the Health Development Agency, particularly in schools, to try to root out some of the problems before they arise in the acute form?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the WHO paints a rather dire picture. There has recently been a positive development in respect of schools. The National Healthy Schools Standard has published its module on promoting emotional health and well-being as part of the PSHE curriculum as a whole. We need to pay a great deal more attention to promoting positive mental health throughout the curriculum, and that is a place to start.
I shall deal with how we are responding to adolescent crises. We have created 41 early intervention teams to pick up early signs of psychosis, follow through with families, and provide the support to make sure that those young people are treated early. That will help a great deal. It does not deal with the preventive aspect, but it is a response that we need to make. In terms of what we do about the psychological health of our young people, we do not just start with mental health services, it goes very far back to family support during early development.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report last week from the Office for National Statistics that about half of the children in public care in Wales and Scotland have a mental health disorder? Are the one in four such children who are now fostered outside their local authority getting proper access to child and adolescent mental health services? Will she undertake to check that there are adequate relations between local primary care trusts and out of authority CAMH services?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, it is a serious problem because children who are taken into care,
140
whether foster care or residential care, come with a history of trauma, abuse or neglect which sets them apart from other children. They have to be provided for properly. There is a series of innovative projects on children and adolescent mental health services being funded by the Department of Health that has just come to a conclusion. Many of those projects address the issue of children in care.
In terms of foster care, what we are doing to train foster carers and to enable them to draw on services in a more positive way will help a great deal, as will what we are doing in schools with designated teachers. I am absolutely sure that there is more that we should be doing. We should be closely watching the Quality Protects and Choice Protects programmes to make sure that they pick up on this.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is aware that yesterday saw the launch of the Mental Health Research Network. Can she confirm that research into children's mental illnesses will be included in its portfolio and that funding will be made available for that purpose?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Mental Health Research Network will act as a host to partnership arrangements to promote high quality research on mental health across all age groups. So I am sure that there will be reference to children. It means that we can conduct bigger research studies that will involve more clinicians, researchers and so on. I should also tell my noble friend—I am sure that he has not forgotten, because it was such good news—that we have announced £100 million over the next four years, £25 million a year, to develop medical research. Two of the four priority groups will be medicines for children and mental health. So, we are looking to more activity in that field.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that adolescents often fall between the adults and the children as far as services are concerned? Will she tell the House if there are enough services and beds in this country for those people with eating problems such as anorexia?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I cannot answer the last question. I do not think that I could ever answer a question which asked me whether there was enough of anything, particularly in mental health services. However, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the particular problems that occur with 16 and 17 year-olds, because often local authorities will provide well up to the age of 16 and then expect the adult services to take up the 16 to 18 year-olds, although some do not. The 16 and 17 year-olds sometimes fall into that gap, which is totally unacceptable. We expect the National Service Framework for Children to ensure that we have proper, coherent services that are accountable and which provide across that age group, because the answer to psychosis often lies with young people aged 16 and 17.

Skin Diseases
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any proposals to improve the provision of long-term medical treatment for those with chronic skin diseases.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their support.
We have developed several initiatives to improve skin disease services. In particular, we have funded the Action On Dermatology programme. New drugs for skin disease have been referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Between September 1997 and December 2003, consultant numbers in dermatology increased by 35 per cent.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I must declare an interest, having had a long association with dermatology and being a member of the all-party parliamentary group. I thank the Minister for her reply and apologise that she has had to work so hard on health issues today. I certainly recognise the importance of the Action On programme and the increase in consultant numbers. However, the Government now have the GMS contract for general practice. Given that 10 per cent of the population suffer from eczema conditions and 80 per cent of adolescents have acne, some of them so seriously that they are driven to suicide, there is a huge need for having skin disease represented in the quality framework for primary care, so that there is adequate education of the primary care team. The National Service Framework for Long Term Conditions seems to have omitted inflammatory skin disease from its long list of conditions that need ongoing care. Does the Minister intend to make sure that those two small omissions will be rectified?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, they are not small omissions in that creating a national service framework is a huge undertaking, which is why we only ever do one a year and is why we are currently preparing one for children. We may consider one on dermatology in future, but these exercises are major challenges to capacity in the health service and have good outcomes when they work. Regarding GPs, the best news that I could give the noble Baroness is that 104 GPs, 35 nurses and one combined service have opted to become GPs with special interests in dermatology, which is encouraging. It is also significant that that represents more interest than has been shown for any other specialism. I hope that that
142
will spread because, the noble Baroness is right. The incidence of skin disease is extremely high and we may not have taken it seriously enough in some ways.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, after that good news, will the Minister confirm that the omission of inflammatory skin diseases from the White Paper to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred does not mean that those skin diseases will not be included in the establishment of chronic disease management clinics? Will those clinics also have the function of dealing with inflammatory skin diseases, which constitute something like the fourth highest chronic disease in the country?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I simply cannot give the noble Lord the answer to that. I shall have to write to him. As he says, it would seem likely that they would, given that inflammatory skin disease is a chronic condition—although not necessarily life-threatening. However, I shall certainly find out and write to him.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Psoriasis Association. Does the Minister feel that the waiting lists are adequate for people with skin problems, given that some parts of the country, including north Wales and the West Country, are very short of dermatologists?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, let me give more good news: consultant numbers have increased by 35 per cent. Interestingly, the number of doctors in training has also increased by 32 per cent, so we have a rosier picture in terms of recruitment and waiting times. No patient is waiting more than 12 months for admission to hospital—there were 74 in 1997. In March 1997 there were almost 29,000 patients waiting more than 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment following GP referral. Now there are only 2,652. Waiting lists are coming down, particularly for skin cancer, where 98 per cent of people are seen by a consultant within two weeks of being referred by a GP. So there is some genuinely good news on waiting times.

United Nations Environment Programme
3.8 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What contribution they offered or made to the United Nations Environment Programme on World Environment Day on 5 June.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government's main contribution to UNEP this year has been a £4.2 million donation to its main Environment Fund, making us the single largest donor to the fund this year. In addition, the UK provides funding for specific UNEP activities, such as on great apes and coral reefs. On

143
World Environment Day the Government supported UNEP in its call for urgent international action on cold water coral reefs.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that countless marine species and important undersea habitats are at risk and that marine life, human health and livelihoods are threatened, largely by land-based sources of pollution? These are all exacerbated by climate change. Bearing in mind this important day, are any more initiatives likely to be founded?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is clearly right that the oceans are under significant pressure not only from global warming and climate change but also from development, over-fishing and pollution generally. It is important that the UK plays its part in tackling those problems. We set out our full policies in our first marine stewardship report, published two years ago. We are now taking that forward in an update, taking into account our commitments under the WSSD programme. As to today, which, as noble Lords are presumably aware, is World Oceans Day, the UK Government, along with our EU partners, will be calling for urgent action at the UN to protect high-seas biodiversity in particular.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us what he believes the UN Environment Programme can do realistically in regard to, in particular, informing the developing countries of the seriousness of climate change? Frankly, I was unaware that today is World Oceans Day. But we must all be aware of the real threat that now comes from climate change. When developing countries put in new industrial equipment, does the UN Environment Programme not have a real role to play in helping those countries to ensure that that equipment emits less carbon dioxide than do the present, older industrial structures in Europe? Is that a programme that the UN Environment Programme will put in place?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the UN Environment Programme will be looking at various impacts, including that of climate change on biodiversity, the nature of the oceans and the cleanliness of the oceans. The issue of switching away from carbon-based industrial development goes wider than the responsibilities of UNEP, and it is being pursued to a large extent under the Kyoto process and other commitments in which developed countries are taking the lead. But it is clear that the developing countries must be encouraged by all means possible—partnership, aid, trade and private investment—to engage in less carbon-rich technologies in the course of their development than we adopted in the West in previous decades. That programme is the responsibility of us all and it is being pursued by both UN agencies and the UK Government.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the fact that many noble Lords, together, I suspect, with
144
the rest of the country, are unaware that we have just had World Environment Day and that today is World Oceans Day says to me that the Government have failed to take advantage of what has been put in place to inform citizens of environmental issues. The Government should take a leaf out of the RSPB's book, in whose Big Garden Birdwatch an enormous section of the population of this country took part. I suspect that our beaches and marine environment would benefit from people being more aware of the issues that surround them.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government certainly respect the requirement to inform the public and undertake to do so. If individuals and individual enterprises do not recognise the threats that exist to our environment and change their behaviour, then, in many respects, whatever the number of resolutions, designated days or programmes, they will not reverse the degradation of the planet. As I said, in this context the UK Government are the largest donor to the UN Environment Programme Environment Fund, which, in part, is about informing as well as delivering programmes.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the Minister referred to the fact that the theme chosen for World Environment Day was "Wanted: Seas and Oceans—Dead or Alive". As the main day was celebrated in Barcelona, were the Spanish Government, as one of the hosts, able to offer any concessions towards the conservation of fish stocks and marine life?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I say with some difficulty that it is true that the Spanish Government have signed up to the changes in the common fisheries policy, which I know some in this House would wish us to withdraw from just at the point where it is becoming a conservation, rather than an exploitation, policy, and the Spanish Government are part of that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the Minister tell us the purpose of World Oceans Day, which I, like most people, seem not to know?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is designed to draw attention to, and bring about some activity in relation to, the problems surrounding oceans. It has clearly failed lamentably in the case of the noble Earl and many other Members of this House. Indeed, it is important that we do not focus on such matters simply on the day designated by particular international organisations. It is important that we have a proper and sustained programme on these issues.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, following my noble friend's question, is not the problem in this country that many people probably know a great deal about the Great Barrier Reef or underwater fishing or swimming in the Red Sea but they are totally unaware of the richness of the marine environment around our own shores?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that, regrettably, that is correct, but the Government have taken a

145
number of steps to create and protect marine sites around this country. We are drawing attention to the problems of development and have restricted development in the most vulnerable sites.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, given that this country has an extraordinary reputation historically in linking science to all forms of changes in the natural world, the answers that he has been able to offer from the Dispatch Box today might, in 30 years' time to anyone reading Hansard, look extraordinarily complacent?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not think that that is fair comment. This country is the lead supporter of the UNEP Environment Fund and we have probably put more than anyone else into the development of the programme to mitigate and tackle the problems of climate change. Indeed, some would say that the Kyoto process would not have been achieved had it not been for the intervention of this Government. In Europe, we are seen fairly widely as the leader on virtually all environmental issues. It is, of course, an uphill struggle. That is, in part, due to the fact that we need to change the behaviour not of governments and institutions but of a large range of individuals and commercial enterprises. We all need to recognise that we have a responsibility to safeguard the future biodiversity of the planet and, indeed, as the noble Duke mentioned, the life of our oceans and our atmosphere.

Queen's Counsel Appointments
3.16 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart asked Her Majesty's Government:
How long they expect the interim system for appointment of Queen's Counsel, set out in the Written Statement by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on 26 May, to continue.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, before answering, I shall make my usual declaration of interest. I was a QC; my wife is a QC; and my brother-in-law is a QC.
Decisions on how long the interim scheme should continue and in what form will be taken in the light of the outcome of the longer-term study of the legal market and Sir David Clementi's review of the regulation of the legal profession.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this is an issue of some importance, and I regret that the noble and learned Lord did not choose to make an oral Statement. That would have given us an opportunity for a short debate—or, indeed, given the number of QCs in this House, perhaps a long one. Does the noble and learned Lord recognise that the interim scheme is, in effect, the restoration of the status quo and must not be allowed
146
to continue indefinitely? Is he prepared to set a timescale for the introduction of the wider scheme mentioned in his Written Statement and, if so, what timescale does he have in mind?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is not a continuation of the status quo in that the decisions about who should become a QC will now be taken by the professions—namely, solicitors and the Bar—as opposed to the Government. We felt that it was wrong to abolish the rank of QC when there was considerable evidence that it benefited the market—in particular, so far as concerned the international business that came to London in relation to legal services.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that uncertainty is a great disadvantage to busy barristers? It is essential that the Government reach a final conclusion in this matter—preferably one which enables Queen's Counsel to continue as before.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, so far as concerns the uncertainty for barristers, the Written Statement that I made to this House made it clear that we hoped that the professions would put in place a scheme that allowed practitioners to apply for Silk towards the end of this year with a view to decisions being made early next year. I hope that that deals with the question of uncertainty relating to individual barristers.
Dealing with the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I believe that it would be wrong to set a time limit on the length of the interim scheme because we need to see both the results of the market study and the report of Sir David Clementi.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, given that last year was regrettably a fallow year in the appointment of Her Majesty's Counsel, will that be taken into account in the numbers that are envisaged when normal service is resumed, albeit in a different form? I declare my interest.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, plainly it is for the professions to determine how the decisions are made. But my noble and learned friend is absolutely right: it was a year when no QCs were appointed, and no doubt that will have an effect on the applications.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the scheme worked out by the professions be subject to the agreement of the noble and learned Lord? If so, will he bear in mind the necessity for playing fair by the provincial Bar and by the specialised Bar?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I made clear in the Written Statement that I made on this point, it is for the professions to work out of what the scheme should consist. The role of the Minister is to pass the recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen.

147
I would do so only if I were satisfied that the scheme was fair, that it promoted fairness and diversity and that it ensured that merit was the criteria.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that he was a QC. Would the present tense be more accurate? I was invited to a nice lunch today, at which he spoke and on the invitation he was described as a QC. I am not sure what he considers his position to be at present.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my understanding is that on becoming Lord Chancellor I ceased to be one of Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the law because I became one of Her Majesty's judges.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend recognise not only that counsel—who have been very well represented in the House—should have a say, but that the solicitors' profession is very important in this matter? Would my noble and learned friend underline that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I welcome the intervention of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. He is the first person to have spoken in the debate so far who is not or has not been at some stage a QC. My noble friend Lord Whitty spoke of World Oceans Day in an answer, so perhaps we should describe this as "World QC Day". Of course, there is an important role to be played by the solicitors' profession in the selection of people who are to become QCs. Both professions will play a role in the selection.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I speak as someone who has no interest to declare in this matter, unless the noble and learned Lord wishes to change his mind. Does the noble and learned Lord consider that it would have been better to have instituted a scheme before getting rid of the old one?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the criticisms made about the way in which the old scheme operated, in particular by Sir Colin Campbell and the Judicial Appointments Commission, made the Government conclude that it would be impossible to continue on the old basis. The arrangement that we have made allows for the market to be looked at and, at the same time, the position of QCs will not be prejudiced. For example, because of the arrangement that we shall put in place for the professions, those who apply this year may be selected as QCs next time.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, given that there is a backlog caused by the hiatus, does the noble and learned Lord consider that the interim scheme will be able to double the number of QCs—I plead guilty to being one—or will there be roughly the same proportion as in the past? Will we see a shoal of QCs appointed this year?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is roughly the same question as my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon asked. It is a matter for the professions when they set up the scheme as to who they select. I know there was a year when no appointments were made. No doubt that will be taken into account in the arrangements that are made.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Government seem to be losing control of the supply of Queen's Counsel, can the noble and learned Lord say whether the whole matter should be referred to the Office of Fair Trading and to the Monopolies Commission?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, because he is the first non-lawyer to have spoken on this subject. The OFT considered the matter, and we considered what it said before drawing the conclusion that the right course was to continue on the basis that I have described, but also to look at the market overall. No doubt, the views of the OFT will be taken into account when we do that.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) rose to move, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1

Schedule 1

Clauses 2 to 7

Clauses 9 to 13

Schedule 2

Clauses 14 to 22

Clauses 24 to 33

Schedule 3

Clauses 34 to 40

Schedule 4

Clauses 41 to 48

Clause 8

Clause 23

Clauses 49 to 53.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should explain that this order of consideration allows Clauses 8 and 23 to be taken towards the end of the Report stage. That has been agreed through the usual channels for the convenience of the noble Lords concerned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
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 Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of:
(1) Schedules 2 and 4; and
(2) new clauses relating to—

(a) appeals;

(b) support and benefits for asylum seekers, refugees and others; and

(c) treatment of persons subject to immigration control in respect of the procedure for marriage.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Government have produced some fresh policy in the important areas covered by the Bill, and we believe that these amendments are important and necessary. Asylum and immigration are areas that are subject to unexpected change and require constant review to ensure that the system is robust and resistant to abuse. To allow the House to consider it properly, we have offered to recommit the Bill, and the usual channels have accepted.
We are tabling our amendments today. If this Motion is agreed to, they will be considered in Committee on Tuesday 15 June and on Report provisionally on Monday 28 June.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Gender Recognition Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 56 as first printed for the Lords.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 21, page 8, line 42, at end insert—
"(6) Nothing in this section prevents the exercise of any enforceable Community right."
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This amendment addresses an issue which was discussed at length in Standing Committee in another place.
150
Clause 21(1) provides that a person will not be regarded as having changed gender solely by virtue of having changed gender under the law of another country or territory. This is necessary because standards for recognition are not uniform throughout the world, and we wish to ensure that the UK grants recognition only to those individuals who have recognition in a country or territory with criteria at least as rigorous as our own.
Where other countries' criteria are as rigorous as our own, people in that position should receive recognition under a simpler process, and this is provided in Clause 1(1)(b). Conversely, if the recognition is from a country or territory with criteria that do not meet our standards, we believe that, to gain recognition in this country, an individual should have to apply in the standard way, with the gender recognition panels scrutinising a full set of evidence.
Questions were raised in Standing Committee in another place about whether a different approach was warranted for those who have recognition in another country from the European Economic Area. We reviewed the position in light of the comments and concluded that it would be useful to clarify that Clause 21 is subject to any enforceable right under EC law.
The amendment reflects the fact that in practice a national of another country in the European Economic Area who has been granted legal recognition of their gender change in their own country will not need to apply for a UK gender recognition certificate. Equally, no further application will be required for recognition of the post-recognition opposite-sex marriage of an EEA national.
We have recently completed our research on gender recognition across the EEA. This indicates that all the EEA states that have systems for recognition have criteria for recognition that are as rigorous as our own. We expect to add all these states to the list of approved countries, and individuals with recognition there would be able to apply for a UK gender recognition certificate under the simplified process in Clause 1(1)(b) if they wished to do so, but would not be obliged to do so.
This broad mutuality of standards within the EEA also means that the risk that we foresee in extending the principle of mutual recognition any further, and of accepting overseas recognition given on criteria less rigorous than our own, does not arise on the amendment that we have proposed.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Filkin.)
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, can he explain why the reference is to Community rights and not to European Community rights? Does that involve the issue of rights of people from European Economic Area states or not? It seems slightly odd. Secondly, what will happen if a European Community state grants recognition to someone on the basis of an application that has been made and accepted in a third country, whose standards are not acceptable to the United

151
Kingdom? Would such a person become acceptable whether the recognition is endorsed by a European Community country or not?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, the changes we are making following the Standing Committee consideration of the issue, simply ensure that the Bill complies with the free movement rights enshrined in Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome 1957. As the House will know, when the UK Government joined the European Community in 1972 we signed up to the various obligations in the Treaty of Rome, and the European Union Community law was given legal effect in the UK by the European Communities Act 1972. If memory serves me right, its effect goes slightly wider than the members of the European Union Community because it also includes Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
I think that addresses the first part of the noble Lord's question. As to the second part, were a member of the European economic area to grant legal recognition to someone from another country, I assume that it would apply its own domestic tests and rights of eligibility. As I said, our research indicates that those countries in the European economic area which grant legal status for recognition to people for a gender change have processes which appear to be at least as rigorous as ours.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a complementary question. Is he satisfied that someone who is granted a gender reassignment certificate in this country will be fully accepted throughout the European Community on the basis of our tests? Given that we will not have some of the requirements of other countries—for example, evidence of being a post-operative transsexual—is he satisfied that our citizens will have equal rights when they travel abroad in the European Community?
Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords, I am. It follows that the rights that we recognise that we have and obligations to recognition processes in other member states apply exactly to the rights we grant our residents in that respect. We and they are caught by the obligations of the Treaty of Rome with regard to the free movement of peoples. So, yes, we can have no doubt that they should be secure.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, is there an enforceable Community right which, but for this provision, the Act might contravene?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is to avoid any doubt that the Commons have made this amendment and why we believe that it is right to do so. As I said when I introduced the amendment, we believe that the Treaty of Rome already gives these rights. Therefore, we are ensuring that there is no implicit contradiction to that by the Bill as it was drafted when it left this place.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say previously that the free
152
movement of people was in question. Does that mean that the free movement of people requirement would carry with it an implication about recognition of a gender status? Or is he really depending on the fact that apparently in most if not all the European economic area countries the tests are in his view as rigorous as our own?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that relates to the former point rather than to the latter. The latter point was a point of comfort to those who might have had any anxiety in that respect.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the point which I raised originally with the noble Lord. I do not think his reply was unduly clear. There are more communities than the European Community. It seems to me that to leave this bare reference to "the Community" or "Community rights" is not adequate. Can the Minister give us some precedents for that? If not, perhaps he will consider that this should be set out as rights under the European Communities Act, or something of that kind, or as rights of citizens of the European economic area, the European Union or whatever other organisation he likes to list. But the matter does not seem to be terribly precise.
Secondly, although I hope that all our partners in Europe will uphold the same high standards in the application of Community law as this country, I am not sure that that is necessarily true.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as to the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, were that to be the case there would he a right of redress in the courts to an individual who felt so aggrieved.
On the other issue of enforceable Community rights, that is the term referred to in Section 2 of the European Communities Act.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 29, page 13, line 13, leave out subsection (2)
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. The amendment removes the privilege amendment passed in your Lordships' House at Third Reading.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Schedule 1, page 15, line 33, at end insert—
"Council on Tribunals
8A In Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c. 53) (tribunals under supervision of Council on Tribunals), before paragraph 22 insert—

"Gender Recognition

21AA. Gender Recognition Panels constituted under Schedule 1 to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (c. 00).""

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
During proceedings of the Standing Committee in another place there was discussion of an amendment, the effect of which would have been to require the president of a gender recognition panel to make an annual report to Parliament.
At that time my colleague, David Lammy, gave the assurance that the panels will report annually as part of the tribunals service. He went on to say that the Council on Tribunals will also undertake a supervisory role, reviewing the work of the panels from time to time and investigating any matters referred to it. I gave a similar assurance in correspondence back in February to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and to members of the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs.
As many noble Lords know, the Council on Tribunals plays a valuable role in supervising judicial panels. These powers are set out in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. The Council on Tribunals reports annually to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor. By conferring this supervisory role in respect of a gender recognition panel, the president of the panel will be able to take advantage of the council's specialist knowledge in the good governance of judicial panels.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as this is the conclusion of our interesting discussions on the Bill, I should like to pay tribute to the Bill team, to Peter Thompson and to all the officials who have worked well, and particularly for the way in which they have engaged positively with both those who disagreed and those who agreed with us outside the Chamber. That was exactly what I wanted. I compliment them on that.

Higher Education Bill
3.38 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 12 [Qualifying complaints]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No.1:
Page 5, line 24, at end insert ", or
(c) as a member of staff or former member of staff of that institution"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is about the inclusion of staff within the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. I have again tabled this amendment, after moving it in Committee, to provide the opportunity to move closer to a solution to the problem.
Let me briefly recap the arguments that I made in the previous discussion. First, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator replaces the visitor system for dealing with complaints, but just for student complaints, not staff complaints.
Secondly, coverage of staff employment complaints by employment legislation and employment tribunals is satisfactory and we are not asking for any change in those procedures. For staff complaints that relate to whistle-blowing, the staff are protected by the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Again we are satisfied that this provides support for the staff in those circumstances.
However, there is a range of issues that are not covered by employment rights or the Public Interest Disclosure Act and are still dealt with for staff by the visitor system. They include, for example, procedural matters and some issues relating to academic freedom. They were the focus of our concerns in discussing the matter in Committee. I quoted to Members of the Committee the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the other place, who said:
"In a small number of cases, there is some ambiguity. The Government do not believe that the status quo is acceptable, or that the independent route that we are establishing for students is necessarily an appropriate route for staff complaints".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee H, 12/2/04; col. 93.]
In the other place it was accepted that movement was needed. We talked a lot about that in Committee. The Minister was sympathetic to our case and argued that there was a case for looking at the issue again. He said:
"In the case of employment issues there is a remedy through employment law and the tribunals"—
as I have been saying—
"There are remedies relating to academic freedom, which, for good historic reason, have involved visitors and continue to do so. As I indicated, there is a class of cases that may not fall into either category and that may give rise to the difficulties that, I accepted, could occur, particularly with regard to human rights legislation. In that light we certainly will be prepared to look at that area, where there may be a lack of definition that is precise enough to meet the objections made".—[Official Report, 10/5/04; col. 109.]
It is in the light of that that I raise this issue again. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he has made any progress on those issues. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She is right to point out that Ministers have now made several assurances that they are addressing the problem. At this stage I very much look forward to hearing how the Minister plans to do so.
Clearly, there is an issue. I have found it difficult to get my brain round the difficulty that arises from the replacement of the visitor system for student complaints on the grounds that it does not satisfy the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 6 of the ECHR, yet apparently the Government are prepared to allow the loose end

155
whereby staff are expected under the Bill to continue to use the visitor system. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her persistence on this matter. She certainly has our support in pressing the Government to resolve it now.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that Universities UK, of which I am chief executive, and as such declare an interest, has opposed amendments in this House and another place that seek to bring all staff complaints within the remit of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. We have done so for a number of reasons, which I shall briefly outline.
I want to make it clear that opposition to these amendments does not mean that we do not recognise that there is a small number of staff complaints in pre-1992 universities which still fall within the jurisdiction of the visitor. Indeed, in Committee I made it clear that there is an issue that warrants further discussion, not least because of the ruling of this House in 1993 that, where the visitor acts within his jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is exclusive and complainants are prevented from seeking redress from the courts. As I think I made clear, there is a question over whether the right way to address that is to remove the visitor's jurisdiction or to remove the immunity from judicial review.
Following the report of the Nolan committee, Universities UK and the Standing Conference of Principals established a group to devise guidelines on procedures for higher education institutions in dealing with public interest complaints. Those guidelines included a final stage for independent appeal against the findings or penalties concluding the internal procedures. The group recommended that all institutions should adopt such procedures.
UUK is committed to reviewing the guidance, so this is an area that we can find an early opportunity to revisit. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has been disappointed with the time that it has taken to respond to concerns raised during the passage of the Bill relating to such complaints. Those are now being taken forward. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will be reassured to know that I have written to the general-secretary of the Association of University Teachers to invite her to meet me and other interested parties to discuss the issues raised by the debates in this House and in another place. Although I remain opposed to the idea that the Office of the Independent Adjudicator is the appropriate forum for all staff complaints, I hope that through discussion we can find a satisfactory way forward.
There are clearly a number of other issues that should be explored. It would not be right to pre-judge the appropriate way forward without being clear about the nature and extent of the problem.
The amendment includes all staff complaints. Noble Lords will be aware that the Office of the Independent Adjudicator already operates as a voluntary scheme. It was established to deal with student complaints alone. Its establishment was the result of consultation with
156
the sector as to the best way forward. It would not be right at this stage, and in this way, to extend its remit so dramatically.
Notwithstanding the areas in which the visitor retains exclusive jurisdiction in pre-1992 universities, we should not lose sight of the fact that staff and students are in essence and in law very different categories. The relationship between higher education institutions and their students is distinct from the relationship between those institutions and their staff. That said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will agree that the passage of the Higher Education Bill has thrown light on that subject. I join other noble Lords in congratulating her on her dogged pursuit of the issue.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I join both noble Lords who have thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for raising these issues. As I said in Committee, there is a real issue to be resolved.
I hope that the noble Baroness will appreciate that we accepted during the debate in another place and in Committee that the current position was far from ideal, particularly the visitor's jurisdiction over staff complaints. As noble Lords have pointed out, there is an inconsistency in removing the visitor's jurisdiction over student complaints but not that over staff complaints. There is also an inconsistency between staff rights in chartered universities and those in new universities.
We accept that we should address those problems now; therefore we have tabled an amendment today to remove the exclusive jurisdiction of the visitor over academic staff. If it has taken us a little while to get to this point, it was in the effort to ensure that we got the right solution rather than just a solution. However, it is clear that the student complaints scheme as currently proposed would not be appropriate for staff, as it relies on institutions accepting the recommendations of the reviewer—without the consensus at present on the coverage of staff, they are unlikely to do so.
It is for Universities UK, the Universities and Colleges Employers Association and the staff unions to consider whether separate independent review arrangements need to be put in place. I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, indicate that Universities UK will be willing to discuss the problems and the current arrangements with the Association of University Teachers, and others. I am sure that that will be welcomed and encouraged by your Lordships' House. Should the parties want the Department for Education and Skills to be involved in these discussions, which would consider the merit of alternative arrangements and the benefits of applying those across the sector, we would obviously be willing to offer our support.
I stress that once the visitor's exclusive jurisdiction is removed he or she will still be able to act in a non-visitorial capacity as an independent reviewer on staff complaints on, for example, matters of academic freedom. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp,

157
will accept that in the timescale available in this Bill it is not possible to achieve a complete resolution of the issue. However, we have made some progress, and we can use the Bill to address the anomaly—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister; I am a bit of a new boy here. He said that he had tabled an amendment today. Could he point out where it is? I am not aware of the text of the amendment, or where it has been tabled.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the amendment, which removes visitorial jurisdiction, comes relatively late in the order, and I will ensure that its precise identification is available to the noble Lord as quickly as possible.
For the moment, while we have made progress, we can use the Bill to address the anomaly that we all accept exists in the visitors' jurisdiction. We also welcome the point that has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, to offer discussions to the staff unions, and we hope that those discussions will progress well. Apparently the amendment is before Clause 43. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I was unaware that the new amendment had been tabled. Am I right in thinking that it is Amendment No. 52A? No, that is on the right of appeal. The amendment is not on the Marshalled List, so I take it that we shall be considering this amendment at Third Reading. The Minister indicated to me in discussions that we had outside the Chamber that he was likely to be fairly forthcoming on this issue, so I was expecting a fairly benign answer from him, as indeed we have had. I take it that we will see an amendment at Third Reading.
I am grateful to those noble Lords who have supported me, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for the good news that Universities UK and the Association of University Teachers will be getting down to talks on this matter. As I indicated in Committee, my main purpose in tabling this amendment was to try to get some movement on this issue—
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I owe the House an immediate apology. My belief was that the amendment was tabled today, but I understand that in fact it is being tabled, and it will be available for the debate in your Lordships' House next Monday. If I have caused any misapprehensions, I entirely apologise, but the material will be there, and it will precisely meet the specifications that I have identified.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as I say, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the real effort that I know that he has put in to securing some movement on this issue. It is excellent that that is so. This issue has been around for the past four or five years. We have a good student appeals and complaints mechanism up and running now, and let us hope that
158
within the next year we can see some positive movement. Staff complaints is a fairly minor area, but it is a nagging area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Triesman Lord Triesman moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
"EXTENSION OF PERIOD WITHIN WHICH DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDINGS MUST BE BROUGHT
(1) In section 76 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65) (period within which proceedings to be brought) after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) Where in England and Wales—

(a) proceedings or prospective proceedings under section 66 relate to the act or omission of a qualifying institution, and

(b) the dispute concerned is referred as a complaint under the student complaints scheme before the end of the period of six months mentioned in subsection (2)(a),

the period allowed by subsection (2)(a) shall be extended by two months.
(2B) In subsection (2A)—

"qualifying institution" has the meaning given by section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004;

"the student complaints scheme" means a scheme for the review of qualifying complaints, as defined by section 12 of that Act, that is provided by the designated operator, as defined by section 13(5)(b) of that Act."

(2) In section 68 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) (period within which proceedings to be brought) after subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) Where in England and Wales—

(a) proceedings or prospective proceedings by way of a claim under section 57 relate to the act or omission of a qualifying institution,

(b) the dispute concerned is referred as a complaint under the student complaints scheme before the end of the period of six months mentioned in subsection (2), and

(c) subsection (3) does not apply,

the period allowed by subsection (2) for instituting proceedings in respect of the claim shall be extended by two months.
(3B) In subsection (3A)—

"qualifying institution" has the meaning given by section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004;

"the student complaints scheme" means a scheme for the review of qualifying complaints, as defined by section 12 of that Act, that is provided by the designated operator, as defined by section 13(5)(b) of that Act."

(3) In Schedule 3 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) (enforcement and procedure), in paragraph 13 (period within which proceedings must be brought) for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
"(2) If, in relation to proceedings or prospective proceedings under section 28V—

(a) the dispute concerned is referred for conciliation in pursuance of arrangements under section 31B before the end of the period of six months mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), or

(b) in England and Wales, in a case not falling within paragraph (a), the dispute concerned relates to the act or omission of a qualifying institution and is referred as a complaint under the student complaints scheme before the end of that period,

the period of six months allowed by sub-paragraph (1) shall be extended by two months.
(2A) In sub-paragraph (2)(b)—

"qualifying institution" has the meaning given by section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004;

"the student complaints scheme" means a scheme for the review of qualifying complaints, as defined by section 12 of that Act, that is provided by the designated operator, as defined by section 13(5)(b) of that Act.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, which is grouped with the consequential amendment, I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who put forward the arguments in Committee for this provision, which I am pleased to say we have decided to accept.
The time limit for submitting court cases under Part 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act is generally six months, but there are provisions to extend this by two months where the dispute has been referred to an approved conciliation service within the time limit. We accept that a similar extension should apply to complaints against qualifying institutions referred under the student complaints scheme. Although the original amendments referred only to cases of discrimination on grounds of disability, for the sake of consistency this amendment also provides two-month extensions to the six-month limits for court cases against qualifying institutions under the Sex Discrimination Act and Race Relations Act. Where the Acts provide for specific extensions in other circumstances, such as cases referred to conciliation, there will be only one automatic extension of the time limit. I hope that the amendment meets the concerns raised by noble Lords. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this amendment, which answers precisely the points that I raised in our discussions in Committee. It was not a major issue, but for those affected this amendment means a great deal. I raised the original amendment on behalf of the Royal National Institute for the Blind and for Skill, the organisation that campaigns on behalf of disabled students. I pass on their thanks to the Minister. In the ordinary course of events, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, speaks on behalf of Skill. As some noble Lords may know, she has been indisposed for some time, but she was back yesterday, and I was able to tell her that we had secured this amendment and she was extremely pleased. She asked me to give her thanks to the Minister.
While discussing disability issues, I also thank the Minister for the letter of clarification in relation to Clause 12(2) and complaints by disabled students about the failure of institutions to make reasonable adjustments to academic processes. It would be useful to get some part of that letter on the record, and I will read one paragraph. The Minister wrote to me:
"It is, as you say, not possible to list all the circumstances in which complaints may qualify, as teaching and assessment methods differ between institutions and within subject areas, and, of course, the OIA will make its decisions on the individual circumstances of each complaint. However, I can confirm that if students are excluded from components of a course, such as field trips, work placements or study abroad and the institution fails to make reasonable adjustments to the assessment arrangements, including to the maximum marks that can be achieved, then such
160
complaints would come within the remit of the reviewer. Similarly, if disabled students are treated less favourably than other students in terms of resources available to them, then these too are complaints which are within the reviewer's remit. Of course, we would normally expect the student to exhaust the internal complaints procedures of the institution before referring the case to the reviewer to allow the institution to resolve any problems".
I am grateful to the Minister for this clarification, which has helped to identify and calm the fears around that issue. This is a very satisfactory outcome to the probings that we made on these two issues in Committee. I thank the Minister.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister on this amendment, which the Government proposed in Committee in answer to an amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and another in the names of my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lady Seccombe. Both covered the single point that this Bill and the Disability Discrimination Act differ in one important respect, that of the time given to disabled students to complain of unfair treatment in higher education establishments. Thanks to this government amendment, which was welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and by the RNIB and Skill, the Bill and the Act are now on a par. As the Minister has pointed out, it is not only disabled students who need the extra two months, but those who are sexually or racially discriminated against; something that I confess did not occur to me in Committee. My stance then, that it would be easier to amend previous legislation than this Bill, has been vindicated. I am extremely grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
"ACADEMIC SALARIES REVIEW BODY
(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an Academic Salaries Review Body ("the Review Body") to provide independent advice on the remuneration of teachers and researchers in institutions of higher and further education in the United Kingdom.
(2) In reaching its recommendations the Review Body is to take into account—

(a) comparability between academic salaries and those of other professions since 1950, and

(b) the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitable and qualified academic staff in a full range of academic disciplines in institutions of higher and further education in the United Kingdom.

(3) In appointing members of the Review Body the Secretary of State shall include representation from institutions of higher and further education and from other professions including those for which a university degree is not an obligatory qualification.
(4) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to submit the report of the Review Body annually to both Houses of Parliament together with his own plans in relation to the implementation of its recommendations."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, several noble Lords have already observed that the trouble with this Bill is that it does not altogether effectively address the central problems in our higher education system today. Among these are under-funding of staff, as well as of the under-funding of universities in general, and

161
an astonishing insensitivity to the central dilemma of access; namely, that students from low income backgrounds are often debt averse.
I declare an interest as a university professor. In Committee, I introduced an amendment, and my intention was to focus attention on what everyone agrees is one of the most serious problems affecting our universities today. University staff are very poorly paid. The gap in remuneration between university teachers and other professions has steadily increased over the past 20 to 40 years. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—I am sorry that I do not see him in his place—emphasised that point at Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Tugendhat spoke very effectively to that amendment, as did other noble Lords.
4 p.m.
In Committee, however, I placed my proposed academic salaries review body under the wing of the new Arts and Humanities Research Council, which was widely felt to be unsuitable. Following the advice of several noble Lords who spoke, I have now been able to rectify that. Moreover, following the later advice of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and others, I have simplified the proposal, which makes the plan much less prescriptive in its specifications concerning the composition of the board.
I was taken aback in Committee when one much respected noble Lord opposite, after endorsing the figures that I had quoted—a 45 per cent decline in academic earnings compared to non-manual income over the past 20 years—very soundly observed that that was so well known that there may be no need,
"to declare again that academic salaries are far lower than comparators. We need the funding to do something about it".—[Official Report, 10/5/04; col. 30.]
I am afraid that it is beyond my power and, I suspect, beyond the power of this House to generate the necessary funding by amendment. We all know that the fee income generated by the Bill will go about half way to cover the universities' current recurrent funding deficit. It is therefore highly unlikely that it will make any significant positive impact on the current level of salaries. It will be lucky to pay them, let alone to increase them.
We can at least show that this is a matter of continuing concern of which we and others deserve to be reminded annually until some effective move can be made to rectify the position. That is what the amendment seeks to do. It is a rather modest amendment, but it will at least have the effect of keeping that important issue before our eyes. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am happy to add my name to this amendment and therefore to support it very much in the terms that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. When I began practice in the National Health Service at its inception in 1948—I subsequently served in it for 40 years—there were repeated problems and many
162
conflicts between the members of the medical profession on the one hand and government on the other relating to pay and other financial support for doctors.
The first row came within two years when GPs complained, as independent contractors, that their salaries were inadequate. It turned out that the Government had taken GP income tax returns before the National Health Service as a guide to what their subsequent remuneration should be. When the GPs found that to be inadequate, it perhaps suggested that general practitioners were no more honest than the rest of the population in relation to their income tax returns.
Over the years, there was conflict after conflict. There were repeated negotiations between doctors, government and the Department of Health in relation to remuneration issues, which were sometimes so bitter and prolonged that the late Baroness Castle of Blackburn, when she was Secretary of State for Health, referred to the British Medical Association as the shock troops of the middle classes.
This preamble is relevant because when ultimately the Government agreed to establish a review body relating to the remuneration of doctors and dentists those conflicts ceased. Ever since that review body was established, there has been a satisfactory situation where government and the profession have agreed with the advice of that review body on all issues relating to remuneration. Similar issues arose over the pay of nurses and teachers and other review bodies have been similarly effective.
When the Bett report on academic salaries was published a few years ago, I remember asking a question in this House. The then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who I am glad to see in her place, said that the Bett report was an important report but that the remuneration of academic staff was a matter for the universities and not for government. No doubt, we shall get the same response from the Minister today.
A major issue of remuneration of university academic and research staff exists in the terms that were so clearly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. To establish a review body to give advice to government on the remuneration of teachers and researchers in higher and further education would help to resolve that problem. I am therefore happy to support the amendment.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, I spoke on this issue before. Again, perhaps I may warmly congratulate the two noble Lords who have spoken on the principle of what has been raised. There is no question but that the low level of academic stipend has been an extraordinary national scandal for a very long time; in fact, since 1979–80. These are very talented people who, commonly and necessarily, because they do graduate work, enter the profession later than many other people. Although top salaries have risen, the starting point is still very low, the spine is very long and the general economic and financial expectations of university teachers are appalling. I speak as a former vice-chancellor. The situation was bad nine years ago and it is worse now.

163
We have funding for the universities, which is enormously welcome, but, inevitably, the new funding will go into proper development and the building up of the superstructure facilities for students, and so forth. There will not be anything like sufficient funds for those very talented, very poorly paid people in our society. It may be that the Government will say that this is perhaps the wrong Bill in which to have this particular proposal, which I can understand. But if that is the reply, I should be very grateful if my noble friend the Minister would tell us what would be the right Bill and what would be the procedure.
It seems that a yardstick of some unassailable kind is needed for university stipends: when I began as a university teacher in the 1950s, they were part of the public service scales of the Civil Service. That has long been set aside. Now university teachers are left to the mercy of cash-strapped universities and the most valuable people—the people who create our university system—are the victims. If the amendment is not acceptable in its present form, I hope that we shall hear from the Government what would be acceptable and whether very urgent action will or will not be taken to deal with this national scandal.
Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, I agree so strongly with the three speeches that have just been made that there is very little to add. I declare an interest as Chancellor of the University of Bath. I think that a great many problems in the economy and social matters can often be helped towards a solution if there is a degree of publicity and transparency surrounding them.
It may be very well known in this House, in academia or in Whitehall that academic salaries have fallen very far behind comparable activities, but I do not believe that it is so tremendously well known in the public at large. My impression is that among the public at large there is a certain misunderstanding about the levels of remuneration for academics and a certain assumption that everyone lives like Oxbridge dons used to live before the war. It may be surprising that that misapprehension remains, but I think that to a large degree it does in many circles.
Therefore, the important point in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, is his reference to providing "independent advice". I think that the provision of independent advice, which would, I hope, receive a suitable amount of publicity in the newspapers, and so forth, would contribute to public understanding and therefore to the resolution of the problem.
I am struck by the success achieved over time—it did take a long time—by the Senior Salaries Review Body in bringing about an improvement in the salaries of senior civil servants and even, to some extent, of Ministers. The extent to which senior civil servants now earn salaries below those of their comparators in some other professions is much less than it was before these matters received publicity.
I want to make only one small comment on the wording of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. It refers to comparability between academic salaries and those of other professions. For this
164
body to do its work most effectively, it should compare full professors in universities with personal assistants in the financial services sector. Personal assistants in financial services provide an indispensable service, as I know well and to my own benefit, but it is strange that full professors in universities often earn less than such personal assistants. Comparisons of that sort and, indeed, of others made by an advisory body of this kind would be helpful.
Of course I accept, along with other noble Lords, that it is for the universities themselves as employers to take decisions about how much their employees are to be paid, but that in itself is not an argument against a body of the sort recommended by my noble friend. Quite apart from whatever the Minister may say about who is responsible for salaries, I would be very interested to hear why it would be a bad thing for more publicity and transparency to be brought to bear in this area.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Josiah Mason sixth-form college in my former parliamentary constituency of Birmingham Erdington. There is a certain attraction in this amendment and I think that there is agreement on all sides of the House that academic salaries in both higher and further education have become out of kilter. However, I have to say how much I agree with a note I have received from the Association of Colleges, which may also have been sent to other noble Lords. It makes the point that this amendment is an attempt to treat both the higher education sector and the further education sector as if they were parts of the public sector. They are not. Indeed, it was the noble Lord's government of a few years ago that took them out of the public sector and incorporated them as independent bodies. Since then they have been responsible for their own affairs.
I turn now to talk about the further education sector. After many difficulties during the changeover period, the colleges are now responsible for negotiating levels of salary with all their staff, not only their academic staff. An immediate effect of this amendment, were it to be carried, would be to do away with that system, thus sending us back to conducting a plethora of negotiations in colleges up and down the land.
The more important objection to the amendment is that it attacks the independence of colleges. Certainly it was my experience, when the colleges were taken out of the public sector and made to stand on their feet, that part of that process meant that, while standing on their own feet they also went for each other's throats. I can say from personal knowledge that in the city of Birmingham there was a period of some years when every college wanted to attract the maximum number of students. They did not care two hoots about what happened to the college down the road and, let it be said, little consideration was given to the courses on offer—whether they repeated courses already available a couple of miles away or whether the needs

165
of certain groups of students were ignored altogether. What had happened was that the accountants were put in control.
Happily, those days are over. I can speak only of the City of Birmingham, but today there is extremely good co-operation between the colleges in the city. I hope that that is also the case elsewhere. Colleges sit down together to plan provision across the city for the various age groups, not least for the enormous number of adult part-time students who, rather than going back into education, are increasingly entering education properly for the first time in their lives. Instead of colleges competing with each other, sensible co-operation now applies.
I have some sympathy for the wish to put the clock back, but I do not think for a moment that the noble Lord is arguing for a return of colleges of further education to the public sector. However, given that they stand on their own feet, I do not see how what is suggested in the amendment can be imposed upon these independent bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, cited the experience of the National Health Service, which makes my point exactly. The National Health Service is in the public sector with one employer, the Government. That example helps to make my point in objecting to what is being proposed in the amendment. Not for a minute do I seek to quarrel with anyone who points out that there is a real crisis in the payment levels of those in higher and further education which ought to be addressed, but I do not feel that this is the way in which to do so.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am reminded of the days when I was a parliamentary candidate. When knocking on doors and canvassing, people would say, "I would vote for you if I thought you could win". I have much sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, as well as for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Detchant, who emphasised the satisfactory work of pay review bodies on some occasions. Nevertheless, I also pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, that the amendment seems to look back to a different era. As he rightly pointed out, colleges and universities are now independent. When we raised the issue of the Betts report, the answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, at the time was that this is a "matter for the colleges". Today that is a fact.
A new pay scale has just been negotiated and agreed. It is a very long one and embraces its own areas. In a sense, therefore, a degree of locally negotiated pay is now coming in; the system is moving in that direction and it would be difficult to roll it back. Members on these Benches have sympathy for the case for a little more in terms of nationally negotiated arrangements but, equally, times have moved on. Therefore I do not feel that this amendment is appropriate.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness has just pointed out that there is a new pay
166
scale. However, the point here is that—as we were told by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, when this matter was raised in Committee—within universities staff pay accounts for 58 per cent of their total expenditure. That means that if academic salaries in the universities are to be brought up to a reasonable level, they need much more money, but the extra funding that they will receive under this Bill is to be limited by a cap. So the Government are doing nothing to help the universities achieve this.
I hope that the Minister is not going to say in response that this is a matter for the universities and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. However, she is smiling so perhaps that is exactly what she is going to say. However, that is simply not going to help the situation at all because the extra money under the Bill is so limited.
The point made by my noble friends Lord Tugendhat and Lord Renfrew that a little publicity would help things along is important. Whether that comes about from a review body or by some other means, regular publicity highlighting academic salaries would help the public to understand that the Government themselves are being extremely frustrating about this matter. Somehow, academic salaries have to improve, but if 58 per cent of universities' budgets is already accounted for in this way, it is no good us looking to the Higher Education Funding Council for England to achieve that unless it is given a lot more money to do so.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in favour of the amendment for much the same reasons just outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour: it would give publicity to this issue. For some years, as Chancellor of a Scottish university, I have been all too aware of the very low level of academic salaries, but it is only recently that I have come more directly back into contact with Oxbridge, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat. How distant it is from any dreams one might have had of what those places were like before the Second World War.
The college of which I am Master has recently lost a Fellow who concluded that he could no longer go on in the expectation of a salary that would always be lower than that of the driver of a train on the London Underground. Consequently we have lost a man of great brilliance and great potential.
I believe that there is a need to bring these facts to the attention of the informed public and Members of Parliament on a regular basis without, I hope, ever getting into a situation where that becomes restrictive. It is terribly important that universities should be able to raise salaries for academic staff who deserve it. We should not get into a situation where everything is rigidly set down in rules and flexibility is reduced.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend has returned to the subject that he raised in Committee. I was very struck by what my noble friend Lord Tugendhat said. Not long ago, I was speaking to a leading law firm, not too far from here,

167
and was told that its starting salaries were £80,000 a year. An academic finishing a career would not be earning anything approaching that kind of salary.
I have made the point in your Lordships' House before that academics are underpaid, under-resourced, undervalued but overburdened by bureaucracy. If we are to continue to deliver a high quality of education able to compete with that offered in other countries, each of these problems has to be addressed. My noble friend's amendment is therefore necessary but not sufficient.
I declare an interest not only as an academic but, perhaps more importantly in this context, as a head of department. I am conscious of the extent to which universities are surviving on the good will of academics. I am profoundly aware of how much members of my department are putting in to ensure a level of excellence in teaching and research that is not met by the salaries they receive. As the head of department I know the problems of recruitment and retention as a result of inadequate salaries and working conditions. We cannot carry on without addressing the question of poor salaries; we cannot carry on without addressing the issue of resources. That is why the later amendment on additionality is so important.
It can be argued—and has been—that the amendment may not be appropriate in the Bill, but I want to draw out the relationship between the Bill and the problem embodied in subsection (2)(b) of my noble friend's proposed new clause. Students will incur substantial debts in taking a first degree; if they want an academic career, they will need to devote their time and finances to acquiring a doctorate; by the time they are ready to enter the academic world in their mid to late twenties, they will be carrying a massive burden of debt. Why then should they go in to a poorly paid university job when they can earn far more abroad or in another profession? We must recognise the linkage.
We simply cannot go on as we are. There are already major problems with recruitment and retention. They will become worse if the cost of education increases and the salaries paid to academics continue to decline relative to other professions. For the reasons I have touched upon, I therefore welcome my noble friend's amendment. It addresses a major problem that confronts higher education and which is likely to become even more of a problem once the Bill has been enacted.
In replying, the Minister will not only be responding to a specific amendment but sending out a wider message to higher education. It is vital that that is not a negative message.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend not only on moving the amendment at this stage of the proceedings on the Bill but also on the splendid debate that we had at an earlier stage on the issue of academic salaries. I do not propose to repeat any of the arguments now.
On the face of it, the amendment looks like a well-designed fly for the Government; it should attract their attention. The Minister is looking puzzled. "Fly" as in fishing. It seeks to establish a review body which would
168
achieve nothing, so it should have enormous appeal to the Government. It is very clever of my noble friend to have redrafted it in that way.
I am torn because the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, described academic salaries as a national scandal. I do not think it is a national scandal at all; I do not think the nation knows anything about it. I freely admit that it was a great shock to me to discover what academic salaries were. I found out only by virtue of the role I am carrying out in your Lordships' House in respect of the Bill. I fully acknowledge that some of the shame should be borne by me as well as by the Government because this happened on our watch when we were in government as much as it has happened under this Government.
But the notion that this serious problem—which goes to the central structure of the edifice of higher education in Britain—can be resolved by publicity and the setting up of a review body that will draw attention to the plight of academic salaries is, I fear, a mistake.
If one looks at the salaries of the vice-chancellors one notices that they have not been subject to the same constraint as some of those who work under them—there has been a movement in direction among the vice chancellors if not among the humble lecturers—but I do not believe for one moment that anyone responsible for running any of these institutions would not like to resolve the problem of academic pay tomorrow if they could. The way they would do that would be through resources and funding. While I do not wish to widen the scope of the consideration of the amendment, I do not believe that the Bill addresses the problem of under funding or will provide the resources to do so.
I have a high regard for my noble friend Lord Renfrew and I would like to support him, but I fear that to set up a body of this kind for the sake of creating publicity—a body which will, as the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, pointed out, interfere in what are essentially private institutions subject to public support—would be a mistake. I cannot support my noble friend's amendment but I very much support his urgent plea. I endorse his view that unless we address the question of academic pay we will see crumble our centres of excellence and our institutions of higher education.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I never expected to find myself agreeing with almost every word that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. He is absolutely right—it is not a good idea to set up institutions that are not very likely to produce results. I entirely agree with him—and therefore disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat—that an academic salaries review body is hardly likely to lead to a huge amount of publicity in favour of the cause of increasing academic salaries. This is not an issue on which it is easy to engage the great British public. For all the wonderful work that academics do, they are not like nurses; they do not feature in the public imagination. So I do not believe that we should set up a body of this kind for that reason.
I also disagree with my noble friend Lord Morgan and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that there is not enough money under the Bill to make some

169
difference to academic pay. It is not inevitable that all the money will go on facilities and other items related to better quality in terms of scientific laboratories, libraries and so on, although I hope there will be an improvement in them as well.
The Government, vice chancellors and those who manage universities must take a responsible view in looking at the extent to which academic salaries have fallen—and, in that sense, I am very sympathetic towards what lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew—but I ultimately agree with my noble friend Lord Corbett. Universities and further education colleges—and we must never forget the colleges because a great deal of HE goes on in them—are independent institutions. I believe that it would be better—this is probably also the position of Universities UK, the body that represents universities—to leave decisions about academic salaries with the universities so that they have the discretion they need, rather than set up a salaries review body which is far more appropriate for those public services that are entirely run by the Government or their agencies, such as the NHS.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, mentioned that when the Betts review was being debated in this House, my response was that I thought it more appropriate for that task to be left to the universities. I said that as a Minister and I now say it again as someone who is about to become a vice-chancellor. I think that that will lead to better outcomes and I agree, therefore, with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that I was pleased that he was able to disentangle this issue from the Arts and Humanities Research Council. I understand and appreciate all noble Lords' concern. The theme that has run through this debate has been everyone's concern about academic salaries. In our previous discussions, we have talked about the way in which they have lagged behind other salaries and pay awards. I do not think I need add anything more—we have acknowledged it. My noble friend Lady Blackstone acknowledged it as a Minister; my right honourable friend Alan Johnson has acknowledged it as a Minister; and it has been acknowledged in public many times by the department.
At the risk of saying exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, predicted I would say, we do not believe that it is the Government's job to regulate salaries in the further and higher education sector or, indeed, to dictate to institutions at what level they should set salaries.
The amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare an implementation plan for the review body's recommendations. But the Secretary of State does not have any powers to control academic salaries, and the amendment does not confer any on him.
170
Higher and further education institutions are independent, autonomous bodies. We want to make sure that they are managing their own resources as they see fit. Institutions, as employers, are responsible for determining the level of pay for their staff through negotiation with staff and the relevant unions. I agree wholeheartedly with everything that was said by my noble friends Lord Corbett and Lady Blackstone.
My noble friend Lord Morgan asked which Bill such a proposal would belong in, if not this one. I do not think it is a question of a Bill. Noble Lords have raised very interesting issues. We have discussed the importance of the Betts report in this House and have talked about Universities UK and the joint negotiations taking place.
In terms of monitoring, measures are in place to extend the data that are now available on staffing matters in higher education through the Higher Education Statistics Agency. That will give institutions a better picture of the situation. From 2003–04 it will look at all academic staff and, for the first time, non-academic staff, and then at all categories of staff from 2004–05. That may generate a little more publicity, although I agree with my noble friend that academic pay does not capture the imagination in the way that the pay of nurses and others does—more's the pity, as I am sure your Lordships will believe, but that is the reality. It is important that we are very mindful of this and recognise the importance of academic pay in providing for world-class institutions and ensuring, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, that they do not crumble.
I believe that the Bill represents a way of supporting, with further funding, institutions in order to make the right kind of choices between investment of different kinds, including investment in their workforce, who are so critical. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is supportive of this. I look forward to his plans for further investment. Clearly I will have to get my fishing analogies right, which may be difficult. None the less, this is a very important subject.
We do not believe that this amendment is the right way to go. I accept that the issues are very dear to your Lordships and that it is right and proper for this House to continue to debate them. But we do not believe that the amendment would be effective in terms of doing anything appropriate for institutions. We think it is right for institutions to make the decisions; we think the new joint arrangements on negotiations should be given the opportunity to work effectively. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate and, indeed, a rather sad one. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and to the Minister for her very courteous treatment. "More's the pity" were her words—I quote her with accuracy, I think. That is the position that we have reached in university funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, did not suggest very many solutions but said that it was not easy to engage the great British public in the matter of

171
university pay. To my regret, I think that that was the position of my noble friend on the Front Bench. If I felt that he had a clear plan up his sleeve to remedy university funding when the present Opposition are in power, then I would have been much more encouraged by that position.
I also listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. In her speech in Committee on the amendment which had the same intention, she said that she was with it in spirit but did not feel that it was in the right place in the Bill. That was when it was associated with the Arts and Humanities Research Council. So I was disappointed to sense today that she was less with the amendment in spirit than she had been, and I did not altogether understand the difference.
I used and withdrew the word "complacency" in a previous discussion on this amendment, but I want to reintroduce it into this discussion in the light of the debate we have just had. I have not heard one individual offer any hope of improvement except, perhaps, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who said that more money is coming into universities, so why do they not spend it in this way? I will study with great interest the salary trajectory within the university which is so fortunate as to have the noble Baroness as a future vice-chancellor. I predict that she will find it difficult to increase academic salaries substantially when most commentators on the Bill agree that the top-up fees will bring in sufficient funding to go about halfway towards covering current university deficits. I shall be very interested to learn how they are supposed to offer a significant enhancement in academic salaries.
The comments which impressed me the least—to say that I was irritated would be a discourtesy to noble Lords—were those of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. He said that since universities were not public bodies, we should not give attention in this form to their problems. It is perfectly true that universities are independent bodies and many of us wish that they were much more independent than they are. But one of the defects of the present Bill, it has been argued, is that the top-up fees are capped. I do not wish to enter into that argument; I simply remind noble Lords that if universities wish to spend more money on academic salaries, they would not have the means. My noble friend Lady Carnegy made the point very well: as more than half of the funding coming into universities goes on academic salaries, if the shortfall is of the order of 45 per cent over 20 years, how would they do this without increased funding from public sources?
The Minister's speech was entirely moderate and constructive, but I think that she used the word "regulate" at some point. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, seemed to imply that the proposed review body would be interfering with the independence of universities. I simply cannot believe that to be the case.
I think that this is a sufficiently significant amendment because this is a matter of deep concern in the universities. I noted with interest that Universities
172
UK made no comment on this amendment, although it has on many earlier ones, and that, I hope, will be noticed in the country at large.
If noble Lords support me, I intend to test the opinion of the House. It is an occasion to stand up and be counted. I shall be interested to see how many noble Lords in my party are content to follow the Government's line. I shall be interested to see how many Liberal Democrats follow the line advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Although I am not hopeful of carrying the amendment, it is of sufficient importance that the country and universities at large should be able to see how Members of this House have voted and, therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
4.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Monson, L.

Ampthill, L.

Morgan, L.

Avebury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bagri, L.

Naseby, L.

Bramall, L.

Norton of Louth, L. [Teller]

Bridges, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Parkinson, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Patten, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Chadlington, L.

Prior, L.

Cox, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Deedes, L.

Quinton, L.

Denham, L.

Quirk, L.

Dundee, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. [Teller]

Eden of Winton, L.

Elles, B.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Feldman, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Fowler, L.

Slim, V.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Ullswater, V.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Wakeham, L.

Jopling, L.

Walpole, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Kimball, L.

Warnock, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Weatherill, L.

Mar, C.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Marsh, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Blackstone, B.

Alli, L.

Blackwell, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Borrie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Andrews, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brookman, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Burlison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Carter, L.

Bach, L.

Chandos, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Chester, Bp.

Bhatia, L.

Christopher, L.

Billingham, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

173

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lipsey, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Lockwood, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

David, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dearing, L.

Mitchell, L.

Desai, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Drayson, L.

Ouseley, L.

Dubs, L.

Palmer, L.

Elder, L.

Parekh, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Paul, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pendry, L.

Filkin, L.

Peston, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Fitt, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gale, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gavron, L.

Radice, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Golding, B.

Richard, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rooker, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sawyer, L.

Goudie, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Hayman, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thornton, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Triesman, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Turnberg, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hoyle, L.

Vinson, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Whitty, L.

Jones, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winston, L.

Layard, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.51 p.m.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Condition to be imposed by English funding bodies]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 9, line 13, leave out from "course," to end of line 17 and insert "no fees are payable by any qualifying person, and"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 9 to 13, 16 and 31. This set of amendments replicates those that I tabled in Committee and seeks to eliminate from the Bill any mention of fees, whether higher or basic amounts of fees. I have spoken already at length at Second Reading and in Committee about why we as a party object to the policy of charging fees to students and
174
would prefer a system which provided the education element of higher education free of charge. I do not propose to repeat the arguments that I made on those two occasions, which have not found much favour in your Lordships' House. In making the arguments, I have been called ingenuous and accused of living in cloud-cuckoo-land. I reject both accusations.
We make much in this country of the importance of democracy and of the democratic machinery of our government. I remind your Lordships that an important element in democracy is the existence of an opposition, which can present and argue for alternatives. This House, to a very much greater degree than the other place, has accepted the line taken by this Bill that there is no alternative—that the only way in which to raise the extra resources that the universities need is to charge fees of the students. My argument has been that there is an alternative.
Our proposals, unlike those of the Conservatives, have been fully worked out and fully costed and. if implemented, would put more resources into the hands of the universities more quickly than the Government's proposals. OK, we propose to fund our proposals from taxation, by imposing a higher. 50 per cent band of tax on the very rich. I take the mood of the House, which is to reject any notion of such a tax. In doing so, however, let me remind your Lordships that you are in effect going to levy a tax.
What is being proposed is a form of graduate tax, and those who will pay it will be young graduates. For those young graduates whose salaries rise very rapidly from the present average of £20,000 up to £70,000, or the £80,000 starting salary with the lawyers to which the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, referred, paying back a debt of something like £20,000 or £30,000 may be insignificant. However, for the many whose salaries rarely go above the £30,000 or £35,000 mark, it will last for a very long time. Those who choose to go into careers in the public or voluntary services in which incomes rise slowly will often find that they are paying that graduate tax for the best part of 20 or 25 years, and sometimes even longer. That means that, on top of their income tax and their national insurance payments, a 9 per cent rate of tax is being charged—so the marginal rate of tax is 42 per cent, which is higher than we are asking millionaires to pay on their income. For those young graduates, debts will hang around for a very long time and will bite deeply into their monthly pay packets. Why should we impose on them that higher rate of tax?
However, I see that I make very little headway in persuading your Lordships that there is a better way than that proposed. One of our main objections to the current proposals is that they put so little into university coffers. It is extraordinary that rather less than £1 billion is being put into university coffers, at a cost to the Exchequer of at least £1.5 billion a year.
I rest my case on it being the job of the Opposition to present alternatives. In this case, as in so many, it is not the case that there are no alternatives; there are many alternatives, and we have presented your

175
Lordships with one of them, but Parliament has chosen so far not to explore this alternative. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, the noble Baroness suggested that she did not have support, but I have some sympathy for many of the points that she makes, and for her amendment. Indeed, the previous debate illustrated clearly the scale and extent of the problem and the lack of a remedy in the Bill. The provisions on fees in the Bill, with all the difficulties and hardships which they will cause to students who have to repay the fees over the course of their working lives, do not actually represent good value for money for the taxpayer. The cost of that whole machinery exceeds the revenues by at least £200 million.
I am at one with the noble Baroness in opposing the Bill's remedy on fees, but I cannot quite bring myself to support her amendment, because it leaves the other aspect of the Bill in place—the provisions which leave the universities subject to the OFFA regime and the provisions for access agreements. However, I do not want to repeat the arguments that we had earlier. Perhaps the noble Baroness can be persuaded to consider withdrawing her amendment and coming back at a later stage, focusing on the issue of fees alone. That issue is separate from the issue of access agreements and the role of OFFA, which we on these Benches find deeply repugnant.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, first, I should tell the noble Baroness that I consider her to be a lady of great principle. I do not endorse any of the comments that might have been made about her in your Lordships' House. I believe that she comes to your Lordships' House with a position. Although I do not believe that position is workable, for reasons that I gave at great length in Committee and which I shall reflect on briefly now, I accept that it is a position.
The noble Baroness has made it clear that the position that she would wish to see is to raise more resources for universities through the general taxation of a particular group of people. Noble Lords will have heard me say already that the difficulty with that arises when one considers the number of things that any government wish to achieve in the course of their lifetime, in terms of the range of needs in our society.
I spoke before about the differences in funding levels available to those who pursue higher education and the benefits that accrue to those individuals, compared to the amount of money that we spend on primary or nursery schools to support our younger children. As noble Lords have said on many occasions, that is where the work needs to happen—to support young people into higher academic achievement, if that is appropriate to them. That is a position that noble Lords have understood; they have understood, too, the importance in the Bill of the money being available to institutions for them to spend as they see fit. In the light of the previous debate, given the passion with which the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, spoke about academic salaries, I believe that that is an important part of it. too.
5 p.m.
We have a balance before your Lordships' House between recognising the role of the taxpayer and the role of the state in higher education. We have not debated the importance of looking to alumni, business or other support for universities much in this House. Critically, those who benefit from higher education do so not just because of their academic abilities and the rewards that that may bring them, or just because of the higher salaries that they may acquire, but because of what we know about graduates' mental and physical health. They are more likely to take part in our democracy and are more likely to be fulfilled, if I may describe it that way. Those are also important benefits.
I do not wish to take more of your Lordships' time but I tell the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that when we are debating these issues it is important that we are clear about his party's position and that he brings that into the debate. That is important in looking at the way forward.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness is unaware of our position. It is that if the Bill will give universities revenues of £900 million and the cost to the taxpayer is £1.1 billion, would it not be more sensible to give the £1.1 billion to the universities?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I take that as a commitment from the noble Lord that he intends to give the universities an additional £1.1 billion. I am not sure that I can.
I believe that the way in which we have put together—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, this is getting like the House of Commons. If the noble Baroness thinks that £1.1 billion is enough to deal with the size of the problem, then I rest my case that the Government's response to that problem in the Bill is inadequate.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was alluding to the issues that have been raised by the noble Lord's right honourable friend, Mr Letwin, and where he is saying that his priorities would lie in education. That is a perfectly reasonable stance but not one from which universities would benefit. It is important that when we look at the way forward we are clear about the options available in your Lordships' House, to the Government and to the relevant institutions about what is on the table. Those are important issues to have before us. The noble Baroness should not press her amendment. The Bill recognises the need to ensure that funding comes in to the institutions, to the universities. We recognise that those who benefit should contribute to it. On that basis, she should withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her sympathetic response on this issue. We have explored these issues on previous occasions and the answer that I have received is the one that I expected. It is important not to base

177
too much hope that financing universities may come from the third leg, as it is called—from industry. I have worked on the economics of research and development for a long time. How little the industrial sector has chipped in to research and development has been continuingly and extraordinarily disappointing. The same applies in the funding of university endowments and so forth. We had a debate the other day sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in which he pointed out that charitable giving in this country has gone down by 25 per cent over the past 10 years. We should not put too much hope in that source. The main stream of funding has to come from the Government.
As I pointed out earlier, in effect the Government are taxing young graduates in order to put more money into universities. This may be the right way to do it but we do not think that it is. I shall withdraw the amendment as I think it might be sensible for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and me to get together to see what we might be able to come up with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No.7:
Page 9, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) to ensure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no qualifying fees are charged to any eligible student for any academic year beyond the first three years of a first degree course."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, all the amendments in this group aim to achieve the same end, namely that those students who are studying courses that are longer than three years should not have to pay any fees for the fourth or further years or, in the case of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Renfrew, any subsequent years after the first three. In other words, his amendments have the same effect as Amendment No. 7.
Our Amendment No. 7 will ensure that the governing body of the relevant institutions under Clause 23(1) will not be able to charge fees beyond the basic rate for any qualifying course beyond the first three years of a first degree course. Meanwhile, my noble friend's amendments will ensure that fees may be charged but that the Secretary of State will foot the Bill. I cannot imagine what the Treasury would have to say about that idea, but the Minister will doubtless enlighten us in due course. We had a long debate in Committee on this issue and I do not want to take too much of the House's time reiterating what I said then, so I shall try to summarise the main concerns.
In the cases of doctors, veterinary surgeons, architects and a few other professions, courses at university extend for more than three years. The British Medical Association has calculated that the measures contained in the Bill could lead to a medical student in London incurring a maximum debt of just over £64,000. It also claims that the Government have not produced any figures to disprove this and argue that a student in a family with a residual income of
178
£20,000 will be committing himself to 91 per cent more debt by choosing to study medicine instead of the more normal three-year degree. The increased levels of debt that medical students will incur will inevitably cause some students to think twice about studying medicine, regardless of their social backgrounds.
Laboratory-based subjects such as medicine are among the most expensive courses, with teaching costs per student at around £10,500 a year. Medical colleges are therefore likely to charge the maximum fee of £3,000. The BMA is concerned that the Bill's proposals on the package of fees and finance will be a disincentive to increasing the number of doctors in this country, something that the Department of Health, quite rightly, has as a major policy. As it stands, the Bill, once enacted, will mean that the Department of Health is operating with one hand tied behind its back. It will be looking at this arrangement again, but only after—I repeat, after—the Bill is passed, to assess whether it will pay the full amount of the increased fees, the £3,000, for the fifth and sixth years of training for trainee medics and dentists. That is hardly joined-up governance. Has the Department for Education and Skills any plans to help medics and dentists meet the full increased fees if the DoH decides that it cannot fund the full amount?
Nurses will be similarly affected. According to the DfES, nursing students and other allied health professionals, such as physiotherapists, currently have their fees paid by the NHS, which buys up places contractually from the universities. Will this continue? If so, this amendment would enable the NHS to put the money it would have provided for the fees for the fourth year into other, much needed, aspects of the NHS. If not, the effect will be an inevitable decrease in the membership of professions supplementary to medicine.
Future architects, not being in the public sector, will be badly off too. They have to study for five years and then do two years in practice before passing their professional exams. I calculate that the average debt per student will be at least £57,000. The debt of £30,000 for one of my noble friend's research assistants, to which I referred in Committee, is just about half of what she would be encumbered with once the Bill is enacted. Future veterinary scientists will be in much the same boat.
These very real concerns should all be considered in line with the "gateway to the professions" review announced by the Secretary of State at Second Reading in another place. This too will begin only after the Bill is passed. It will assess the impact of variable fees on such professions and will further consider the matter. In Committee, Ministers failed to indicate how long the review would take. Are they now in a position to inform the House of that?
This amendment is needed to ensure that all higher education students are treated fairly and that these particular students are on a par with those on other undergraduate courses. The Government must not wait for what would have to be up to seven years for a medic, vet or architect to complete fully his or her

179
training before a full and proper assessment can be made of the detrimental effect or otherwise of variable fees. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I should like to intervene for only a few moments because I was unable to be here for parts of the Committee stage on the Higher Education Bill due to an illness of a member of my family and my need to attend hospital every day.
I should like to have a point in the amendment clarified. It raises with me the issue of what happens in the case of four-year university foundation course degrees in the sciences. I am not entirely sure about what the amendment means by "qualifying course". Can I take it from the noble Lord's comments in moving the amendment that "qualifying course" would include those four-year foundation courses? As I understand it, they are usually characterised by the need for some students who have taken particular courses at A-level, who have often received poor guidance from those in a position of responsibility in schools and taken the wrong subjects, to receive an additional year's training in the form of a foundation year before the three-year training.
Let us say that someone who has done Latin and Greek at A-level suddenly decides that he wants to be a chemical engineer. He would go to a university and do a foundation year perhaps in maths, chemistry, physics and a generality of studies that would equip him to proceed with an engineering degree. In so far as the need for that additional year of study very often derives either from bad advice or simply from a student's inability to decide at A-level—or, post O-level, precisely what A-levels they should be doing—surely they should not have to pay for effectively an additional year at university.
My request is quite clear. I seek to understand what is meant by "qualifying course". If what is meant is a foundation year, then I shall certainly support the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name is associated with the amendment and I should like briefly to speak to it. Perhaps in doing so I can answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.
The situation is precisely as the noble Lord suggested. Some courses are four-year courses, and I have in mind another one. Many engineers these days do an MEng, which is a four-year course, rather than the three-year course. They would be hit precisely by this proposal. As it stands, they would have to pay the higher fees through the four years.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, one of my sons did five years at Leeds University. He did a one-year foundation course, the three-year degree and then an additional year for an MA. That is five years, not four.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. If they were doing an MEng course, they would do five years, just as architects, for example, do seven years. A range of degrees require
180
longer periods. It is precisely those professions that are extremely worried about the impact that the higher fees might have on entry into the professions.
The point is very unclear at the moment. The purpose of the amendment is to make clear that we are looking for three years' worth of fees from the student and how to handle degrees that extend beyond that period and are not paid for, as with doctors after, as I understand it, the fourth year when payment is made by the National Health Service, where it is not paid for separately. As I said, the aim of the amendment is to make it clear that the student shall pay three years' worth of fees and that any further years of fees should be paid for.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I have tabled Amendments Nos. 14, 19 and 20. If I were more confident of my powers of persuasion, I would seek to separate my amendments from Amendment No. 7 which has just been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I fully agree with the arguments that he made for the necessity of the amendment; and in that he has been very ably supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I also concur that if someone is registered for a degree when they are undertaking a foundation course, which I believe them to be, then under this amendment, and under my amendments, they will stop paying after three years. I think that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is clear.
However, it became clear at the Committee stage, when a very similar amendment was proposed, that there is a significant problem because the amendment as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and as supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, means, very properly, that the student pays only three years and after that the university pays. That is what is wrong in general with this Bill. The universities keep on having to carry the can.
If I felt it appropriate, I would seek first to persuade your Lordships, if invited, not to vote for Amendment No. 7, but, when we came to it, to vote in favour of Amendment No. 14. However, I am not sure that I have the courage to divide your Lordships' House again so early in the evening. That is why I have not sought to dissolve the grouping. However, I want to underline the difference. My amendment would be worded identically were it not that I required a separate clause to delete—if noble Lords look carefully, as I did—"university to pay" and insert "Secretary of State to pay".
As I already indicated, and as the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite indicated, it is unfortunate that I have perhaps become severely sharp in my criticisms. I detected that hint in her own words. She may be right. I am disappointed that the opposition spokespersons have introduced amendments that very rightly point to a defect in the Bill and very rightly suggested that students have paid enough fees after three years. I agree that three years for an undergraduate course is enough. However, the solution is to say that, after that, the Secretary of State should pay.

181
Why should the universities have to carry the can in this way? The problem with the Bill is that it is not giving universities sufficient funding. That is why, with the greatest disappointment—I think I made this clear in our debate in Committee—I do not feel able to support my noble friend's amendment and why I am still critical of noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat side who say, "Yes, that is all right. We want to change it so that the universities pay and carry the can". I do not think that that is acceptable.
So that is why I oppose the amendment. My reason for not pressing my own Amendment No. 14 separately is that I do not wish to try the patience of your Lordships' House.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether the Government have consulted the Scottish Executive about this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, may be able to confirm whether I am right in thinking that in Scotland a student pays fees for the first four years, because courses are four years in Scotland, and after that the fees are funded by the Scottish Executive, and presumably that money is allowed for in the Barnett formula. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have consulted the Scottish Executive.
It seems to me that one of these sets of amendments probably contains the answer to a problem that the Government have with the Bill: what is going to happen about these longer courses. It also presents a problem for Scotland—I have not consulted about this—as it seems to me that as one has to pay only the first four years if one is studying to be an architect or a doctor in Scotland, there may be a flight from England to Scotland for those courses just at the time when the Barnett formula does not increase, as money is coming into the English universities from students. Therefore, the increase in expenditure that would qualify Scotland for a higher amount under the Barnett formula will not be forthcoming. That seems to me an added complication.
However, my main interest is to know whether the Government have consulted the Scottish Executive and what they were told. I mentioned this in Committee, so if it had not been drawn to their attention before, it was then.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 would ensure that fees may not be charged after three years at all, while Amendments Nos. 14 and 19 require the Secretary of State to meet the fees after the third year on the student's behalf. The effect for the student is the same. If higher education institutions are not allowed to charge fees to students beyond their third year of study, they will lose fee income. If the Secretary of State is required to meet the cost of fees for all students after their first three years, resources would need to be found from elsewhere in the HE budget. So both methods of exempting students from fees after three years would have an impact on the funding received by HEIs, and I should leave noble Lords
182
under no illusion that the Government could find extra funding to make up that loss in funding. I was invited by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to test the feelings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that proposal. I suspect that he would be unlikely to be moved by that additional appeal.
There is no reason why our proposals should deter students from studying subjects such as medicine, the courses for which are longer than three years. I want to comment on a number of the professions that have been mentioned.
For each year in which fees are charged, eligible students will continue to benefit from the generous student support package and, regardless of the level of loan which they have taken out, their monthly repayments will be the same. There is no evidence indicating that students are deterred from taking longer courses, and we believe that there are two principal reasons for this: first, the support is there to enable them to complete these courses; and secondly, students recognise the real benefits to them, personally as well as professionally. They study on these courses because they realise that the benefits will outweigh the costs. Indeed the OECD recently confirmed that the rate of return in terms of earnings for graduates in the United Kingdom is the best in the world.
All of this will remain the case under the variable fees system. The importance that the Government attach to courses which last more than three years such as education, medicine, dentistry, architecture, veterinary medicine and so on—many of the courses that were mentioned earlier—is demonstrated now by the significant measures which are being taken to protect training for, and recruitment to, various public sector professions.
A good deal was said on this matter in Committee which I shall not repeat—I am sure that will be welcome—and I shall not repeat much that was said about how our current recruitment initiatives work for the five main groups to which I referred earlier, but I should like to say something about their effectiveness.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the noble Lord reassure us that, certainly so far as medicine and dentistry students are concerned, the money for their extended years will still be provided by the NHS?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, when I discuss the relevant group I shall be able to give a clear answer to that question.
I shall begin with teachers and discuss various professions. There are more teachers with qualified teacher status in our schools now than at any time since 1984. There are 50 per cent more teachers training than there were five years ago. As for medical and dentistry students, applications to medical schools in the United Kingdom have gone up since 1998, as has the total number of students studying medical courses.
The amendment will make no difference to the arrangements that are made with the National Health Service in respect of the finances. The NHS makes its contracts directly with institutions to deliver the

183
courses that the NHS needs at an agreed price. That operates on the basis of no tuition fees being payable by the students, so the level of fees is zero and there will be no difference from the students' point of view or in terms of the overall costs to the National Health Service. There should be no change in that regard as regards the future arrangements.
In 2003, according to UCAS, the number of accepted applicants for pre-clinical veterinary medicine was up 9.3 per cent in comparison to 2002, and places on these courses are heavily over-subscribed. I make the point because, were there to have been a significant deterrent effect, it would not be likely that such a figure would have occurred.
In architecture—another profession mentioned by noble Lords—UCAS 2003 entry figures show one of the biggest increases in applications accepted that has ever been recorded—a rise of 10.3 per cent in the past year. Even when we gross up the figures on levels of debt, which I suspect in some cases are highly speculative, we can see positive movements in all of these professions.
Nurses, who were mentioned, will not be affected by the Bill. As I said, the NHS buys these places direct and will continue to do so. Department of Health Ministers have indicated that, whatever the future levels of tuition fees, they will take measures to ensure that any increase in the cost of university courses will not have an adverse impact on the supply, retention, diversity and quality of students on health professional courses, including medicine.
So it is clear that in general the picture is a positive one and that students are being given the support they need to take courses in these areas. I can assure noble Lords that relevant departments already monitor demand for, and take-up of, places on courses in these key areas and will continue to do so after the introduction of variable fees in 2006–07.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned in Committee, the evidence from the United States also is that students are not deterred from taking longer courses, even where they pay fees for each year. As we all know, fee levels in the United States are hugely higher than in the United Kingdom. Although I do not have the relevant data in front of me, I believe that very much the same picture applies in Australia, for example, where these issues have been considered for some time.
We also described in Committee how we would commission a report next year by Sir Alan Langlands to examine gateways into the professions. We have done so precisely because we recognise the huge importance to our society of a system that provides an adequate supply of entrants to these essential areas.
I was asked to comment on the timing of the review. Sir Alan Langlands will start work on the review directly following Royal Assent, if it is achieved, with the aim of reporting to the Secretary of State by the middle of 2005. I was corrected when I made the presumptuous assertion that Royal Assent might be achieved.
The report will, of course, examine how the public sector and the professions can sustain and improve recruitment opportunities in a general sense for
184
graduates and will look at the professions, including medicine and architecture as well as teaching and veterinary medicine.
I should like, finally, to underline a much more fundamental point about the freedom of universities in all of this.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, before my noble friend comes to his final point, may I take him back to the question of the foundation year prior to a three-year degree? Will he answer specifically the question that I asked, which was about why a young person who is ill advised or simply does not have the knowledge to make the right decision should be penalised in the event that they go to university?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I certainly intend to address that, but I wanted to deal with the points about the longer courses in relation to professions first. I shall return to the noble Lord's point in a moment.
The freedom of universities is important. Throughout our debates on the Bill, we have stressed the importance of the autonomy of the higher education institutions. Our desire to avoid regulation where none is necessary is also a part of our thinking. As noble Lords know, the variable fees provisions give more freedom to institutions themselves to decide what to charge for each course, within the caps agreed by Parliament. I hope that noble Lords feel that that is a good thing. With that comes responsibility; universities must justify the fee levels. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, break that fundamental principle. Whatever universities charge for years one to three of a course, they could charge £3,000 for year four, wholly safe in the knowledge that the Government would be expected to meet the bill automatically. That could not be right.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 7 looks to universities themselves to subsidise students on longer courses. An individual university or college might conclude in exceptional circumstances that the final-year fee should be waived or reduced, but that is a matter for each institution, taking account of the demand for their courses. I would see a requirement for all universities to waive fees for the fourth year and beyond as a clear example of over-regulation; such a decision would surely be for local consideration, not central prescription.
I have always been a strong supporter of making sure that access courses and foundation years were successful. If a foundation year is a general access course—because someone has not taken A-levels, taken the wrong A-levels or whatever before wishing to apply to take a degree—those courses are in further education and are not covered. No student support is relevant, but no standard fee is relevant either. The course will probably not have been taken in the same institution as the degree. If it is an integral part of a degree—an engineering foundation year—it is in HE and will be taken in the same way as all other elements of degrees in HEIs, and will get student support.

185
It is hard to be precise about the number of students who embark on a course and then conclude that they were given the wrong advice, but I know of examples where that has happened. Potential students can be given the wrong advice in a wide variety of circumstances. I would like to think that there were far greater precision in universities and further education colleges now in making sure that guidance was appropriate, and that it is no longer the case that students—those who present themselves with a set of qualifications that might make taking a heavily oversubscribed degree a good option—find themselves persuaded to take a degree on which they should not embark because it hardly suits their capabilities. I believe that that may have happened in some instances, but such examples happen no longer.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I want to press my noble friend on that matter. The advice about which we are talking is given to young people at the age of 16 when they have completed their GCSEs, as they go into the first year of sixth form. That is the critical time. If during the following two years of A-level they find that they have taken the wrong subjects and want to move out of whatever and into engineering, they will pay for an additional year. That seems totally wrong.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, it would be extremely hard to create a system that detected whether someone had taken the wrong advice, or had embarked on something relatively willingly only to find in a relatively short time that it was not what they wanted to do. In a slightly different circumstance, I was asked whether my own children might have made rational choices at 14, 15 and 16 about their higher education. All that can be hoped is that the best possible advice is given by schools, or perhaps by further education colleges when people get to the age of 16, and that people try to establish by the widest possible discussion whether that is the right advice. One could not legislate for the possibility of someone saying that they feel in retrospect that the advice that they received was not as good as it might have been.
The Scottish Executive are reviewing the position, and I confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that we are in dialogue with them. The Scottish third-phase review of higher education has made a number of recommendations, including that the Quigley agreement be continued. We understand that the Scottish Executive are considering the outcome of that.
In the light of those arguments, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Winston: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned my name, so I would like to clarify what I think is on record. My noble friend Lady Ashton very kindly wrote to me on the matter. I did not say that I had evidence from the United States; I said that it was my anecdotal impression that having longer courses
186
was not a deterrent. I also asked whether it would be wise to conduct further research on the matter, and the noble Baroness agreed with that in her letter.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I can only confirm that continuing research on and review of that would be extremely important.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for answering the point of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on foundation years, where the situation is totally clear. Where a foundation year is part of the university course and taken at the same university, it is covered by the Bill. Where it is part of further education—for example, a third year at a sixth-form college—it is free anyway. The question simply does not arise in my mind.
I thought that we all agreed that universities should be funded through HEFCE. Once HEFCE has funded the university, that is the university's money to dispose of in any way that it sees fit. Therefore, my noble friend's argument about the Secretary of State funding the position through his amendments independently does not really wash. Anyway, the fourth year for English students at a Scottish university is paid for by the department. That is another reason why the objections to the amendments do not wash.
I am also grateful to the Minister for setting on record the future position under the Bill of the medical profession in its broadest terms, by which I include dentists, nurses and professions supplementary to medicine. However, he cleverly almost ignored the position of such core students as architects or vets. They are not in the public sector, but very much in the private sector. Although in mitigation the Minister told us that we had the highest application rates ever for students to enter professional careers, the point that he does not make is that all those figures come before the Bill becomes an Act. No one knows what will happen after the Bill becomes an Act, although many of my noble friends and I have made good guesses. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 156; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Blatch, B.

Alderdice, L.

Bowness, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Ashcroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Buscombe, B.

Attlee, E.

Caithness, E.

Avebury, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Barker, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Biffen, L.

Chadlington, L.

Blackwell, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

187

Colwyn, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Montrose, D.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Noakes, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Deedes, L.

Northover, B.

Denham, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dundee, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Parkinson, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Patten, L.

Elles, B.

Peel, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Erroll, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Feldman, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Flather, B.

Quinton, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Rawlings, B.

Fowler, L.

Razzall, L.

Freeman, L.

Reay, L.

Garden, L.

Redesdale, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Glentoran, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rix, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Roper, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henley, L.

Sandwich, E.

Higgins, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Home, E.

Selborne, E.

Hooper, B.

Selsdon, L.

Hooson, L.

Sharman, L.

Howe, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sharples, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]

Jopling, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kimball, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Stewartby, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Taverne, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Liverpool, E.

Tebbit, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Luke, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lyell, L.

Tordoff, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Trefgarne, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Trenchard, V.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Vinson, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Waddington, L.

McNally, L.

Wakeham, L.

Maddock, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mancroft, L.

Walmsley, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wilcox, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Methuen, L.

Windlesham, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Alli, L.

Bhatia, L.

Andrews, B.

Billingham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Bach, L.

Bragg, L.

188

Bridges, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brookman, L.

Listowel, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lockwood, B.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carey of Clifton, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chandos, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Chester, Bp.

Marsh, L.

Christopher, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mitchell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

David, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Dearing, L.

Palmer, L.

Desai, L.

Parekh, L.

Dixon, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Donoughue, L.

Paul, L.

Drayson, L.

Pendry, L.

Dubs, L.

Peston, L.

Elder, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Filkin, L.

Quirk, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Radice, L.

Fitt, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gavron, L.

Richard, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rogan, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rooker, L.

Golding, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sheldon, L.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Gregson, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Grenfell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Temple-Morris, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Thornton, B.

Harrison, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Haskins, L.

Triesman, L.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Uddin, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Walpole, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Warnock, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wilson of Dinton, L.

Jones, L.

Winston, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Forsyth of Drumlean moved Amendment No.8:
Page 9, ling 24, at end linsert—
"( ) A condition under this section must require the governing body of the relevant institution to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, the qualifying fees charged to a person do not exceed the basic amount if that person—

189

(a) had on or before 1st August 2005 received an offer of a place on a designated course or on a similar course which is no longer offered, in either case the first year of which begins before 1st September 2007, and whether conditional on obtaining specified qualifications or not; or

(b) had received an offer of a place on a designated course the first year of which begins before 1st September 2006. and—

(i) he was not able to take up the offer because a specified qualification or grade was not awarded to him,

(ii) he appealed against the decision not to award the qualification or grade to him,

(iii) the appeal was allowed after the last date when he could have taken up the offer, and

(iv) as a result he was offered a place on the course for a year which begins on or after 1st September 2006 and before 1st September 2007.

( ) For the purposes of this section, a course is similar to a designated course, whether or not it is at the same institution, if—

(a) it leads to a degree or other qualification which is the same as the degree or other qualification which the designated course leads to, and

(b) the governing body of the institution at which the designated course would be studied is satisfied that the subject matter of the designated course is for the most part the same as the subject matter of the other course."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 8 we return to an issue that we considered at length at a previous stage. It concerns the position of students who wish to take a gap year. I know that the amendment which was considered previously did not meet with the approval of Ministers. Therefore, on this occasion I have taken the precaution of using more or less the same wording as that which, when the Government introduced fees for the first time in 1998, provided for students who took a gap year to be treated in exactly the same way as students who applied for university places.
Therefore, the amendment aims to ensure that students who are awarded a deferred place at an institution in 2005 for the academic year starting in 2006—the same year in which the new top-up fees come into effect—and, indeed, any students who cannot accept an offer due to a failure to fill the grade requirement but who successfully appeal to be offered a place for the subsequent year will be treated as if they had been accepted in the academic year 2005.
I am very disappointed that the Government cannot see the enormity of this problem. It seems to me that several injustices will occur. The first will be that many students, faced with the prospect of paying fees of around £1,000 as opposed to £3,000 over three years, will decide not to take a gap year. I believe that that would be a great tragedy—gap years have become an institution with youngsters.
I know that the Government say that people will have had three years' notice. Ignoring Parliament's role in this matter, it is true that youngsters will have been given notice. Although my youngest daughter will just escape this measure, she, in common with her sister, planned her gap year years before she went to university and found the people with whom she intended to travel. It seems to me to be extremely unfair that the members of one cohort, who did not have any choice about when they were born or their date of birth, will be put in this disadvantaged position.
The Government have sought to argue that some students may very well take the view that the terms that are now being offered under the new scheme are so advantageous that this will not be a problem. I have to say that their parents may not take the same view. According to the sums, the students who take a gap year will be saddling themselves with considerable additional debts which will have to be paid over their working lives. Should their parents encourage them not to take a gap year on financial grounds alone, there will be another consequence—namely, the number of students applying for places at universities will be greatly exaggerated and there will be a bulge of applicants in the year that we are discussing. The effect of that will be that students who would otherwise have obtained a place on the course that they wished to study will be squeezed out of a place and, of course, consequently the following year will see a mirror image of the problem.
For a very wealthy family who do not mind paying the additional costs and who have a child who might struggle to obtain a place on a particular course, the advice is obviously to take a gap year and to fund the additional cost of the educational provision. In the following year it will be easier to get on to the course in question because there will be less competition for places as the "bulge" will not apply.
I think it is wrong for the Government to argue that this measure will somehow be neutral in effect and that it will be equally balanced. I believe that its effect will be to make it harder for children who come from families who struggle to pay the costs of higher education to take a gap year. I do not want to detain the House by rehearsing all the benefits and advantages of gap years. I can refer noble Lords to the very eloquent statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on behalf of the Government on 13 August 1997. I pay tribute to her and give her credit for having recognised the problem then.
I have no doubt that the Minister will say that this time the situation is different because people will have been given notice. I think that I have dealt with that point already. I have no doubt that the Minister will also say that there is not really a problem because the universities can do what they like. I am told that approximately 100,000 students take a gap year. That represents a substantial sum of money for the universities to find. The Government may argue that the universities can say, "Well, we will just treat gap year students in this way", but they would be giving up considerable funds. I have no doubt that my noble

191
friend Lord Renfrew, who, sadly, is not in his place, will be jumping up to point out that this will be impossible for the universities to bear.
The difficulty is of the Government's making. It arises because they are changing the system and introducing this legislation. The Government should take responsibility for that decision and they should allow students who wish to take a gap year the opportunity to do so. I could understand it if the Government came back and said, "Perhaps it would be fairer if they had the same financial package as they would otherwise have had, as opposed to the revised package" but, so far, the Government have been determined not to deal with this issue.
This is not a party political matter; it is one which is causing great concern around the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has pressed this matter as, indeed, have Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members in the other place. They are doing so because there is real concern among families with students who will be going to university at this time.
I guess that for many families the penny has not dropped that this measure will cause a problem, and far be it from me to give the Government political advice to help them. But I guess that the penny may just drop at about the time that the Prime Minister thinks that he needs to call a general election. Therefore, in the interests of helping the Government in these difficult times, I suggest to the Minister that, by accepting the amendment, she may very well prevent much grief and hardship for some of her colleagues in the other place because it is the kind of issue which causes great distress and irritation to parents and voters. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I support the amendment. The noble Lord is absolutely correct in what he says. His analysis fits precisely with the understanding that I have gained from talking to the many friends of my three sons, all of whom went to university, and from whom much of my case has been gleaned during the course of this Bill.
The problem in this debate is that there has been insufficient consideration of the position of students and far too much consideration of the position of universities. I know they have funding problems, but that is an argument that should be had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not with students. It seems to me that those who will be punished are people who should, in normal conditions, have the option of being able to take a gap year. From my own experience such people need a year off because at that stage in their lives they are not ready to go to university. They need a year in the real world before they settle down to the serious business of studying at university.
I am really worried about the social profile of those who benefit from a gap year. They will not be kids in Workington who have worked their way through the
192
system and who are frightened of debt but have to take it on if they want to go to university. The sons and daughters of the great British middle class who enjoy very fat incomes will say to their children, "It's all right, you needn't worry, we'll fund your gap year and any additional year at university". I believe that that is wrong. We are penalising the very people who sent many of us as Labour Members of Parliament to the House of Commons. I simply cannot understand the logic behind many of the positions that we have taken on this Bill. The very people who will suffer are our people in the country. If the noble Lord presses the amendment to a Division, I shall join him once again.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment. I echo the words said on both sides about the advantages of passing this amendment. It is unfair to the students who are not certain whether it is worth their while taking a gap year. I believe that taking a gap year can prove a great advantage to students. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, indicated, it would be unfortunate if they were put off taking a gap year because they did not want to afford it. It is not the wealthy students would be put off but those who are at the margins and who would benefit enormously from a gap year.
As regards universities, there is a total uncertainty about how many will apply. Will there be an extra wave of 100,000 people applying? Universities are unclear on the position. In 1998 the measure was taken and now some care has been taken to replicate in this new amendment the wording used last time. Care was taken to smooth the whole process. It poses uncertainties for parents about what advice they should give. It seems to me that the amendment is well worth passing. I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, the impact of the introduction of a new fee regime on student applications is by no means clear, but it is important that we have transitional arrangements in place for those who choose to take a gap year. I am concerned to ensure that the appropriate funding is provided from the block grant and the same fee income as is currently in place for students, but it is important that we address the issue. That is very much in line with the view taken by Universities UK on the previous occasion when the situation arose. I am happy to support the amendment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that I am sure that the Prime Minister will be delighted to have advice from him on elections. I wonder whether he gave advice in 1997 at the time of the election.
The latest figure for the number of gap-year students is 19,600 in 2002. It is worth while putting the figures on the record.
One could extrapolate two positions as regards the amendment and how we are considering the issue. In our view, we should take up neither of those positions.

193
At one end of the spectrum the Bill could provide that universities have to charge all gap-year students the higher variable fees; at the other end of the spectrum the Bill could provide that universities are forbidden from charging gap-year students more than the current fixed fee, which is likely to be about £1,200 in 2006–07. The amendment seeks to do the latter of those two options.
The Bill, as it stands, does neither. Our view is that universities should have the discretion to decide what fees to charge. That is the whole point of variability. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, indicated that I would contrast that with the position in 1998—a contrast which could not be greater—when the Government decided to exempt gap-year students.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the figures, I was relying on a briefing from organisers of gap-year fairs which estimated that in anticipation of top-up fees in 2006, applications for entry to universities in 2005 will increase by about 60,000. The other figure is 100,000. The Minister may not have seen this, but there is such a difference between her figures and these, it would be helpful if she could explain why she has come to the conclusion that the figure is so much lower.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall explain where the figures come from. I do not know about the gap-year fares' figures at all, but my figures of the total accepted on a deferred basis of 18 year-olds applying to universities is 19,600.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may help. I believe that the figures of students who are accepted on a deferred basis will not cover the entire gap year student numbers. They will be those who decided to apply one year ahead for a place a year later, but many students take a gap year and apply during that gap year. That is a distinction. I think that the Government's figures are a little misleading.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed on that basis they are and I am very sorry if I have misled the House with the figures that I have been given. If we have an exact figure I shall put it in the Library. Noble Lords will understand that the figure of 19,600 relates to what my noble friend has said and I am grateful to her for clarifying that. There is a disparity and I was concerned when I read out that figure. It is important to get that figure in your Lordships' minds. I am grateful to the noble Lord as well.
Our view is that universities should have the discretion to decide, as I have said, what fees to charge. That is the point of variability. In 1998 we had an issue about timing and there was no discretion for universities in terms of the fees that they charged. Fees were fixed and all universities had to charge the same.
194
They were not allowed to make special cases if they felt they should. Exemption was provided by the Government in regulations because that was the only way an exemption could be granted.
There was also a timing issue. The committee of inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, reported in July 1997 and the Government took the decision that month to introduce the tuition fee. By that point, students had already applied for entry for 1997 and been accepted. Those who wanted to take a gap year had already agreed with their universities that they would do so. In some cases they would even have entered into financial commitment for the gap years.
So the timing issue is important in the context of the Bill, without pre-empting the wish of Parliament in terms of the Bill. We believed that that was right in 1998 because students had entered into commitments in good faith. We felt it was important for gap-year students to be recognised. However, none of that applies this time round. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, implied that those who want to take gap years may already have taken that decision, but I do not believe that that is the same as the position in 1998 when students had already agreed with the institutions to defer. I am sure that some students have already considered taking gap years, but they will not be applying until next spring for entry in autumn 2005 and will agree with their universities next summer to defer entry until 2006. One way or another that will be long after these issues are settled in Parliament.
However, not only is the timing point different; there is also the question of discretion. We are not constraining universities' actions. If they see an advantage in offering exemptions to gap year students, they are able to do so.
It is possible that taking either of the extreme positions I have outlined could lead to unmanageable surges—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is indicating—in applications in one year or another. Requiring higher fees to be charged in 2006–07 could create a surge in 2005–06. Alternatively, exempting gap year students could create a surge in 2006–07, with an incentive to take a gap year so that the students could benefit from the enhanced student support.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. Will she explain why there would be a surge if there were an exemption, because the students would not be in any worse-off position? If people want to have a gap year they could decide to do so and would be treated in exactly the same way. I do not understand that point.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, if people decide to take a gap year they could benefit from the enhanced student support arrangements that are being put in place from 2006–07. I understand the noble Lord's position, which is that one would have the current position for students in full and total. However, as I have indicated to the noble Lord, there are huge difficulties in running two systems in parallel that I would not wish to see us undertake.

195
So we think that the best way forward is to give universities flexibility and discretion in this area so that they can properly manage the ebb and flow of student numbers. That is an important and critical part of why we want the amendment withdrawn.
I recognise the importance of the issue to students who wish to undertake a gap year. In creating the Bill—we have one pot of money—we are allowing universities to make the right kinds of decisions. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does she think that, in giving the universities the flexibility to make a decision, the Government anticipate a general agreement among all universities to do the same thing? Alternatively, does she think that each university will have to decide on the issue and then somehow or other inform all the student applicants what their position is?
I have some worries about the latter position because if that were to happen large numbers of young people would be left in a position where they were not clear on what the university intended to do. Universities will have to get this provision into their prospectuses rather early. Some students may decide to go to one university rather than to another simply on that basis—that is, whether or not they will be given special treatment. I am not sure that is the best basis on which to make a decision about where to study. So I think there are some difficulties.
At the same time I entirely accept what my noble friend has said about the position being different today from that in 1997 when I made a decision to treat differently those students with deferred places. At the time it was absolutely necessary to do that because, as the Minister has said, students had made decisions on the basis of assuming one set of requirements and a totally different one was going to be brought in for the following year. So there are differences. But I still think there are some problems about this provision.
I wonder whether it would be helpful if the Minister were to take the matter away and to look at it to see whether the kind of transitional arrangement proposed by my noble friend Lady Warwick could be considered. It may be impossible, but I do think that there are some problems here.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am always grateful to my noble friend. I also want to clarify a matter so that I can get it on the record. I have a note about the 19,600 students. These are the students that would be affected by the amendment. It could not apply to the group identified by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, as the amendment states that they must have applied before 1 August 2005. So it is exactly the group that would be dealt with by the amendment. I want to make that clear.
I understand what my noble friend says, but our position is that we are working with universities to ensure that they make the decisions that they think are right for their institutions.
196
Time and again in your Lordships' House we have amendments that try and take out slices of money from this pot and give it to the control of either the Secretary of State or someone else. I have been completely consistent in trying to resist those attempts and saying that either one gives the institutions the responsibilities or that one does not. In this context we wish the institutions to make those decisions based on their best interests and in discussion with their students and applicants about what might be best for them. That may not be where some noble Lords feel we should be, but I think that it is a consistent position from that point of view.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should be grateful for her help because I am finding it difficult to follow precisely where we are going. Is the universities' position that they would like the Government to take the decision for them that they cannot raise the fees for students who take a gap year, rather than take the decision themselves? That seems to me to be the issue. Do the universities want to take the decision or are they saying to the Government, "No, take it for us. We will do without the money"?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, effectively I think that would be the position.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am really disappointed by the Minister's response. I hope that I will not in any way damage her ministerial career by saying that throughout the passage of the Bill I have found her very amenable and open to argument. There are matters of principle and policy which are central to the Government's objectives. But on issues of detail, where there were anomalies arising from what is a fundamental and major change, she has usually been quite willing to listen to argument.
Here we have something which affects—we can argue about the numbers—many tens of thousands of students. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, spoke very eloquently and, I think, with considerable justification about the effect on people from poorer families and the disadvantage that they will suffer. I mentioned the benefits that could come for wealthier people.
Those students who happen, through no fault of their own, to be in this particular year cohort who do not take gap years are still going to find it more difficult to get the places they want at universities. It seems a very small matter. It is an anomaly created by the change in the system. The fact that the Minister is not prepared to give an inch on this or to listen to the pleas from—and I was extremely grateful for the support of Universities UK—all parties and from the Cross Benches, suggests to me that perhaps some of the noble Baroness's colleagues have not given this matter the required consideration.
So on this occasion I think that I need to test the opinion of the House. Should the House decide to support the amendment, I hope that the Government

197
may look to find some accommodation for this problem. The amendment may not be perfect in every respect but the problem is there and is one that needs to be addressed.
6.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 143; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Alderdice, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Ampthill, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jopling, L.

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Attlee, E.

Laird, L.

Avebury, L.

Liverpool, E.

Barker, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lyell, L.

Blackwell, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Bowness, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Buscombe, B.

McNally, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maddock, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L.

Chadlington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Colwyn, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Crathorne, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Montrose, D.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L.

Noakes, B.

Dholakia, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Northover, B.

Dundee, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elles, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Peel, E.

Falkland, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Feldman, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Flather, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fowler, L.

Rawlings, B.

Freyberg, L.

Razzall, L.

Garden, L.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Redesdale, L.

Goodhart, L.

Renton, L.

Goschen, V.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Roper, L.

Haskins, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henley, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Higgins, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Selborne, E.

Hooper, B.

Selsdon, L.

Howe, E.

Sharman, L.

198

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Trenchard, V.

Sharples, B.

Trumpington, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]

Ullswater, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vinson, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Waddington, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wakeham, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Stewartby, L.

Walmsley, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Swinfen, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Taverne, L.

Wilcox, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Windlesham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Alli, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Andrews, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bach, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Billingham, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bragg, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bridges, L.

Jones, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Listowel, E.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Christopher, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mar, C.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Marsh, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Crawley, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Morgan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Dearing, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Dixon, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Donoughue, L.

Palmer, L.

Dubs, L.

Parekh, L.

Elder, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Erroll, E.

Paul, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Filkin, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fitt, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gale, B.

Radice, L.

Gavron, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gilbert, L.

Richard, L.

Golding, B.

Rogan, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rooker, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Goudie, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Harrison, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayman, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

199

Thornton, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Whitty, L.

Triesman, L.

Wilkins, B.

Turnberg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Uddin, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Walpole, L.

Wilson of Dinton, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Winston, L.

Warnock, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 143; the Clerks recorded 142 names.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 14 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Regulations under section 23(6) relating to basic or higher amount]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 11, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may permit through regulations a block exemption from the requirements of the Competition Act 1998 (c. 41) for institutions collectively seeking to develop proposals in relation to the higher amount within a designated geographical area where he is convinced that such proposals contribute to the purposes of widening participation."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 relates to the Competition Act implications of this Bill. There has been some discussion of the degree to which universities would fall foul of the Competition Act 1998 if they sought to collaborate in raising fees. This is a probing amendment, which I put forward at the behest of the Association of Colleges, not of Universities UK or the universities, to explore how far collaboration between higher education institutions and further education colleges would fall foul of the law if they sought to collaborate over fees for higher education courses taught in further education colleges. Specifically, while the Competition Act, in Schedule 3, allows for exemption of agreements that have been made in order to comply with a legal agreement, the Enterprise Act 2002 allows for market investigation where it appears that the structure of the market or the conduct of suppliers or customers is harming competition. Therefore, potentially there could still be an investigation.
The Association of Colleges has raised three specific scenarios: first, where a higher education institution franchises a course at a further education college and requires the college to charge the same fee as the higher education institution; secondly, where a higher education institution charges for validating a course in a further education college, but where the course is delivered through the college; thirdly, where a higher education institution needs to set a fee level for a student progressing from a foundation course to an honours degree course. In its discussions with the Department for Education and Skills, the Association of Colleges has been assured that none of these scenarios pose problems.
In the first case, where a higher education institution franchises a course to a further education college, that would be treated like any other case of franchising, with the franchiser at liberty to set the price for the product it supplies. Agreement over price between the higher education institution and the further education college would be treated as normal business practice and would not fall foul of the Act. The Association of Colleges would like an assurance that this is the case even where prices are different. When, for example, the further education college sets its price considerably lower than the higher education institution price, in order to adjust to market circumstances, superficially it might appear that the two are in competition with each other, but in practice they have de facto agreed to segment the market and serve different parts of the market at different prices.
Secondly, in relation to the validation by a higher education institution of a course offered by a further education college, the decision over what to charge is for the further education college. Negotiations over the price to charge for the validation process, if this is done by the higher education institution, is a normal business transaction between the college and the higher education institution and does not entail, and should not entail, any agreement over the price charged to students for the course.
Thirdly, in relation to a student progressing from a foundation course to an honours degree, each institution sets its own fees, and while the higher education institution might wish to consider how much the student has already paid in fees in taking decisions as to what fees to charge, this information should come from the student and not from the college, and there is therefore no suggestion of collusion. Here again the Association of Colleges is less sanguine about this advice. It points out that foundation degrees are being developed jointly by higher education institutions and further education colleges precisely to ensure an easy progression, where appropriate, to a full honours degree. In such cases, they may well want to discuss the level of fees to be charged, so as to ensure an easy progression.
Finally, the advice from the department is that where a group of further education colleges collaborates to provide a set of courses at higher education level, whether the HEFCE money comes through one lead college, which in effect then becomes the franchiser, or to the separate colleges, there is no need for discussions about fee levels, and provided this is so, there is no contravention of the Competition Act. Equally, the Association of Colleges points out that where colleges have collaborated to develop a joint set of courses, it is most unlikely that they would not wish to discuss fees and it is in the interests of students that a common fee is charged.
The Association of Colleges therefore comes back to where it began with this amendment. Would it not be easier to have a block exemption from the Competition Act written into the Bill where colleges, whether further or higher education institutions, are collaborating to

201
provide courses that widen participation and that en route inevitably involve some discussion and some collaboration over fee levels? I beg to move.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I will be quick. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press this to a vote tonight, because it is fresh and we need time to reflect on the detail. My initial reaction to any creation of what in industry is often called an orderly market, and sometimes unkindly called a cartel, is that it is a bad idea. We should be highly sceptical. We should consider it on merit, but not in a hurry.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall attempt to give some of the reassurances that the noble Baroness is looking for. If there are other specific questions that I do not address in what I say, I will be happy to facilitate discussions with the Office of Fair Trading if that would be of benefit.
I welcome the recognition of the importance of widening participation, which underpins the proposals for the reform of higher education funding. Many of the provisions in this Bill—notably the establishment of an Office of Fair Access and the introduction of variable fees—are intended to create a system that is accessible for all of those who have the ability. I do not believe that an exemption from the provisions of the Competition Act is required to enable providers of higher education to succeed in this aim. Indeed, many already take this goal very seriously and do extremely well in encouraging applications from groups that have traditionally been under-represented in higher education. The introduction of variable fees will simply provide institutions with an additional lever to encourage applications.
In many areas, partnerships and discussions between institutions can be positive and can benefit students. Generally speaking, providing that institutions do not exchange information that could lead to collusion over fee levels, it is likely that they can exchange information without falling foul of the Competition Act. For example, institutions may well discuss with each other how best to deliver the measures that they are taking to widen participation. These are examples of areas where collaboration can lead to clear benefits for the student.
However, collaboration on price is never in the best interests of the consumer. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to that in his comments. This case deals with students, and we must defend their position. Even with the best of intentions, the very fact that prices may be fixed at a level that suits a particular group of institutions in a particular area means that in some cases it will not be in the interests of the students. Of course, institutions will respond to the decisions made by others providing similar courses in gauging how to set their fee levels. Indeed, I see that as one of the real benefits of variable fees, but it would not be acceptable for fee levels to be agreed among providers in advance, in a secret deal, behind closed doors. Such an arrangement would remove the incentive for institutions to improve quality, since it would mean that they could get away with charging a particular price.
202
The noble Baroness specifically asked me about three examples. The first was about fee-setting for a higher education franchise within a further education college. Where a higher education institution takes a decision to franchise into a further education college, it can be legitimate for the higher education institution to require the further education college to charge the same fee. It is not unlike any other franchise arrangement.
On the question of validation by a higher education institution of a course delivered by a further education college, the decision on what fee to charge would rest with the further education college. Any negotiation would be between the further education college and the higher education institution over the price for the validation process, not the fee charged to the student for the course. There would be no need to exchange information on the fee levels for students.
Finally, on the progression from a foundation course to an honours degree, where a student has completed a foundation degree at a further education college, and wishes to upgrade it to an honours degree at a higher education institution, the higher education institution might want to consider how much the student has already paid in fees when taking any decision on what level of fee to charge for the honours degree. In that instance, the HEI would be using the information on fees paid by the student to inform its own decision on fee levels and, of course, could do so without discussing fee levels with the FE college.
As the noble Baroness said, there are two models of collaboration within a consortium: that is, a lead college that would receive funding from HEFCE and would pass some of it on to its members; or several colleges which would receive funding from HEFCE to deliver a jointly developed course. The first model is not materially different from the franchising arrangements that I have already discussed. The lead college would need to have a fee level in its access agreement, which would be the fee charged to the student.
In the second model, each college would need to check its own decision without discussing with other members of the consortium what level of fees to charge for the course. That ought not to present problems as they develop the course to be offered.
That addresses most of the key points. As I have indicated, I am happy to pursue any of the specific issues that the noble Baroness wishes to raise. On that basis, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. This is a probing amendment. There are a number of issues that the colleges have legitimately raised, which would be worth pursuing with the Minister. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Shutt of Greetland Lord Shutt of Greetland moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
"REPAYMENT OF STUDENT LOANS FOR THOSE ENTERING SPECIFIED AREAS OF EMPLOYMENT
The Secretary of State may use his powers under section 186 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) (student loans) to repay in whole or in part the amounts payable on loans made in respect of fees charged under sections 23 and 24 of this Act—

(a) for qualifying persons who undertake specified categories of employment within the public sector, or

(b) for qualifying persons who undertake specified categories of employment in the not-for-profit sector of the economy."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that in Committee we were in the territory of Amendment No. 17. I hope that this amendment is written in a way that is more acceptable. It seeks to provide for student loans to be repaid by the Secretary of State using the powers that exist under Section 186 of the Education Act 2002. I am grateful for the response given by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, in Committee and for the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, which indicated that Section 186 has already been used for people who are training to be schoolteachers.
It is my belief that as the Bill stands we have dealt with courses that last for more than three years. We are now looking at courses of three years' length. We are wondering what will be the state of the human condition in terms of how people will consider debt. I can see a situation where the parents of an 18 year-old will say, "You are going off to university. Make sure you get on a course that's going to lead you to employment that's going to give you a substantial salary".
Therefore, I can see that there will be circumstances where careers that do not lead to those substantial salaries and the courses that lead to those careers will not be filled, and that there will be a problem. Of course, we do not know. I can imagine that the Minister will respond by saying, "Well, we have got Section 186 so we can deal with that in due course". That may be the case, but there is no harm in relating Section 186 to a Bill where it may be needed, so that it is absolutely clear that if those circumstances arise there is an answer. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, this amendment is very strange. As I understand it, at present, any employer—private or public—can pay off a debt. In this case, the suggestion has been made that it should be only public sector employees who could have that benefit. Why are the Liberal Democrats so keen on attacking the employment possibilities of private employees as opposed to public ones? Could the noble Baroness tell us that when she replies?
Lord Wilson of Dinton: My Lords, on reflection, could the noble Baroness not consider that this is a rather dangerous statute to have on the statute book? It would convey to the Secretary of State a degree of personal patronage that does not seem to be related to any specific public purpose. Indeed, he might be someone who wishes
204
to advance someone in a political career by giving them a necessary university background. This is an unnecessary clause and I hope that the House will not approve it.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the aim of this amendment is to exempt those working in public service jobs or the not-for-profit sector of the economy—namely, charities—where relatively low pay makes recruitment difficult. We strongly support the idea of public good and would like to highlight our unwavering admiration for those who work in jobs that achieve that. We certainly recognise the problems of pay within that sector. We pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who took note of our concerns in Committee and has now incorporated the not-for-profit sector as well as the public sector within the amendment.
However, we still have concerns about distinguishing between individuals because of the jobs that they do when public good can be achieved in so many ways in so many professions. We will listen with interest to what the Government have to say on the matter.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Many decades ago, as a child my mother sat me on her knee and told me that the greatest contribution one could make in life was through work in the public sector. As time passed, I began to realise that very often people in the public sector are grossly underpaid for the contribution that they make. I would include university and further education lecturers in that sector, about which we had a debate earlier today. Of course, they are grossly underpaid. If we cannot deal with that matter directly through the Exchequer in order to give a reasonable settlement to the problem of university and further education lecturers' employment costs, it may be that that is the group who should be incentivised.
I support the amendment because there are groups in society who are underpaid. It seems wrong for a Labour Government to want to develop a regime that entices people to go into higher paid areas of employment if only so that they can afford the costs of higher education. We must have a system that allows people freely to consider whether they are prepared to take a low income in life because they are making a contribution to the charitable or public sector. Surely, people should be free to choose that. The regime that we are setting out has considerable costs—the question of the scale of debt—that are the subject of much dispute, which we have not dealt with today. That group, who potentially will face substantial debt, should not be placed in a position where they may wish not to take on the responsibilities that otherwise they would want to take on.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, this amendment seeks to encourage and safeguard applications to public and voluntary sector professions. It proposes that the Government would have the power to meet the cost of fee loan repayments for graduates entering those careers. The motivation for the amendment is obviously

205
commendable. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, made exactly the point that these are all professions for which we have a high regard, which was also the underpinning of the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. It was discussed to some extent in Committee, but I hope that I can give some reassurances on the key issues.
I said in Committee that we are committed to the employment of the highest possible calibre of staff in our public services, including those who work in the voluntary sector. However, I did not believe then and I do not believe now that primary legislation is the right way to achieve it.
I repeat my reassurance that across the whole public sector, departments will be seeking to ensure that the new arrangements for student funding do not discourage graduates from all backgrounds from entering training for, or taking jobs in, the public sector. As noble Lords are aware after my earlier reference, we will be commissioning a report next year to examine gateways into the professions, including how the public sector and the professions can sustain and improve recruitment opportunities for graduates.
That does not mean that employers in the public sector, any more than in the private sector, should be deterred from implementing strategies now to sustain recruitment and retention. It is open to them to do so, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, pointed out. The review is not intended to be prescriptive in its recommendations, rather it will examine and highlight the effectiveness of various interventions that employers have in place.
However, we already have measures to provide for some of the groups that I envisage are intended to benefit from this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, mentioned one of them. I outlined the groups in detail in Committee: the teaching professions, nurses and other medical staff. I should also say, as my noble friend Lady Ashton made clear in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, following our debate in Committee—and as has been said in another place—that we already have the powers to write off loans, and we are now doing that for teachers in certain priority subjects. The powers are contained in Section 186 of the Education Act 2002.
But it is fundamentally for employers, whether private or public, to decide for themselves what steps they should take to recruit and retain the right staff. They will need continually to review and update those matters by looking at their circumstances and making judgments. They can do that in a way that we are not in anything like the same position to do. Departments will seek to ensure that the new arrangements for student funding do not discourage graduates from all backgrounds entering the public sector.
On a technical point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, pointed out in our last debate on this subject, it is now difficult to define what constitutes a public sector worker. The list of professions would be arbitrary and, I suspect, rather wide-ranging.
206
Turning to the repayment of student loans in the not-for-profit sector, I understand that this is aimed at encouraging graduates into this area. Graduates who choose to work in the voluntary sector may well be on low pay or none for a time, and it is precisely these graduates who should benefit most from our student support provisions. Individuals who want to dedicate themselves to voluntary service need not worry that their student loan is going to become unmanageable. In response to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I do not believe that people will be discouraged from entering an area for which they feel great vocational passion if they know that they are not going to have to repay the debt in a way that would be difficult to manage. The debt will simply retain its value in real terms and, while it might prolong the time taken to repay, there is a benefit in knowing that in any event it will be cancelled after 25 years. The terms of repayment are non-commercial, linked to income at a zero real rate of interest.
However, the main point must be this: it is unlikely that we can make judgments about the best opportunities for employment compared with employers who have to make those decisions in the real world. We have thought about this hard and sympathetically and I hope that the noble Lord will feel it appropriate to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. As he indicated, there was some difficulty about how the public sector could be defined. The terms "public sector" and "not for profit" seemed to cover the point. I know that there is a question whether universities are themselves in the public sector, but I am certain that they are not-for-profit bodies because I do not believe that they pay dividends. Therefore I suspect that universities would be included in the not-for-profit sector.
However, the main aim of the amendment was to ensure that this debate is on the public record. It makes it clear that Section 186 of the Education Act 2002 exists and that the Government, if they are minded and there is a problem, have one way to address any shortage of opportunity by suggesting that people may well be able to take on courses and other related work. The opportunity is there. In withdrawing the amendment, I am glad that the debate has been recorded for the future.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Shutt of Greetland Lord Shutt of Greetland moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
"REPAYMENT OF FEES VIA VOLUNTARY SERVICE
(1) The Secretary of State shall use his powers under section 186 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) (student loans) to develop a scheme whereby fees charged under sections 23 and 24 of this Act may be repaid in whole or in part through the performance of voluntary service.
(2) Regulations under section 186 of the 2002 Act shall specify both the types of voluntary service eligible and the minimum period of service necessary to qualify for such repayments."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns voluntary service. Previously, we had a helpful response from the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. This is perhaps more serious in that we can see a real problem arising here. Is it conceivable that youngsters will undertake a significant period of voluntary service if, at the end of it, they have to embark late on a career, take on a mortgage and so forth, and face debt repayment? That is a hill too steep to climb. Although the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has indicated that there are powers under Section 186 of the 2002 Act to develop a scheme, this amendment would ensure it by stating:
"The Secretary of State shall use his powers"
to put together such a scheme.
In moving this simple new clause to ensure that there will be a scheme, there is no plan to introduce it for a frivolous period of voluntary activity lasting perhaps only three months. I refer to significant periods of voluntary service. This kind of scheme would be very worthwhile for those taking on significant voluntary service. That is why I seek to add to the legislation a provision that the Secretary of State "shall" use powers to develop a scheme so that people know where they stand. They will then know that it is possible to undertake significant periods of voluntary service without feeling that, when they embark on a career later on, they will face too much debt. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, this is an excellent amendment with much for the Government in it. I can imagine a scheme being set up which Gordon Brown would rather like. I can think of a certain organisation that he would particularly want to foster: Voluntary Service Overseas.
Let us imagine a student coming out of university with a degree in development studies. He wants to go out and change the world and to make a contribution; and he wants to volunteer. He decides to go to a community in need in Africa. Alternatively, someone may want to develop the skills they have acquired in engineering. That person, too, may well decide to join Voluntary Service Overseas.
The question is whether, in deciding to make such a contribution, those students will be worried about the amount of debt outstanding in their names. We are talking about debt here. Predictions at this stage about the scale of that debt are not very precise. All sorts of predictions have been made, some from the Government which we have not gone into this evening, as well as from the National Union of Students and independent think tanks which believe that the level of debt presumed by the Government is far lower than is otherwise being forecast. The point is that the debt will be substantial, whatever the figure may be.
I am concerned to ensure that a critically important group of people willing to make a contribution overseas should not be put off in any way. My noble friend would be doing us a great service if her civil servants were to write to the Treasury and draw the attention of its Ministers to this amendment. I can imagine a scheme being set up that would lead the world in methods of repayment to incentivise our whole approach to overseas voluntary service.
7 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am interested in the amendment, but who do its proposers imagine will foot the bill? I support the amendment as long as it is not the universities. I was not happy with the two amendments that have been carried today because it seems to me that the universities will foot the bill and not the Treasury.
However, I welcome the amendment—or I think I do—because I take it that the implication of the Secretary of State using his powers is that the Treasury will foot the bill. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, nodding their heads. I have not seen my noble friend Lord Forsyth nodding his head, but he is nodding it now. I am delighted that my Front Bench is now endorsing the principle that the Treasury rather than the universities should pay for this welcome amendment, which I am happy to support.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was critical of the previous amendment, but I think this one is excellent; it has huge possibilities. I reiterate what my noble friend has just said.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I support the amendment, to which my noble friend Lord Forsyth has added his name. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to use his powers to encourage young people to undertake voluntary service by making it a form of student loan repayment.
The debate on the pros and cons of top-up fees is not new to the House. It is well known that while we recognise the need to address the funding crisis in universities, the level of student debt that the Bill will effect is of great concern to us. Our concerns range from anxiety about debt acting as a deterrent to the young people we are trying to encourage to enter university, to the fact that it would saddle students with a significant financial burden at a time when they would be encountering the pressures that everyone faces at the start of adult life.
We also reiterate our admiration for those who work in, or offer their services to, the voluntary sector. We recognise the valuable work done in so many sectors where there never seem to be enough volunteers. Voluntary work benefits everyone and can be a life-forming experience.
We welcome the changes made to the amendment following the concerns expressed in Committee and are very happy to support it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may seek clarification as to what the amendment really means. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, referred to the "voluntary sector". The voluntary sector forms an enormous part of the public and private provision of all kinds of services in this country. Most people in the voluntary sector are paid for the work they do. It would not make any sense for the amendment to apply to anyone working in the voluntary sector, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, implied.

209
If I am right and the Liberal Democrat amendment concerns unpaid voluntary service, either overseas or in this country, I wonder whether there will be a problem with defining it. Will it be full-time or part-time? A great deal of volunteering is done not on a full-time basis but on a part-time basis.
Although I can see what lies behind the amendment, were it to be agreed to, the practicalities of implementing it would be enormous. For those reasons alone I suggest that this piece of legislation could not and should not take the amendment on board.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in supporting the amendment in principle I should declare an interest: one of my granddaughters and her husband run a small company called www.workingabroad.com, which arranges attachments overseas for a large number of people, both young and old. Many people work in the Third World—where they themselves have worked—and I think that is greatly to the advantage of those individuals. They are not often remunerated for the voluntary service they give.
Who will evaluate the voluntary service given by such individuals in order to justify the repayment of their loans by order of the Secretary of State? It will require a certain amount of accountancy expertise to carry out that evaluation. However, having raised that query, I support the amendment in principle.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I have just been wished good luck. Perhaps I will need it. If good luck fails me, I shall ask the noble Lord, Lord Walton, to tell me what followed the "www dot" so that I can make a suitable application for one of those jobs.
The amendment seeks to encourage graduates into voluntary service and calls upon the Government to meet the cost of the fee loan repayments for graduates entering these careers. It is, to be candid, another top-slicing amendment. The appeal—which I understand completely—is made once again for the Treasury to provide the money rather than the universities. I am forced to repeat—as my noble friend has done on a number of occasions today—that there is one pot of money; that is the reality. And if there is only one pot of money, accepting the amendment would amount to a top-slicing arrangement.
The Government have already taken a number of initiatives to encourage voluntary work through various volunteering initiatives. Indeed, it has been a passion of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so. For example, the Russell commission, launched by the Home Secretary and the Chancellor on 17 May, will work towards a national youth volunteering strategy which will lead to more young people developing their skills and serving their communities. The commission will build on the wide range of programmes that the Government currently support. Ian Russell will be speaking to the department to ensure that the experience and lessons from existing programmes influence the commission's plans.
We want to put in place a set of flexible opportunities which match young people's lifestyles and aspirations. We believe that the Russell commission will ensure that
210
volunteering by young people flourishes, bringing with it benefits not only for the individuals concerned but for the communities in which they volunteer. By promoting active citizenship, we can contribute to stronger and more cohesive communities.
Much of the volunteering involved will be part-time. It will call on people to provide their skills and abilities when they can, not in some predetermined way as may have appeared to be the case in the past.
The Department for Education and Skills is involved in this work. I shall make sure that its officials work closely with the commission and that they are aware that this amendment was discussed during the course of the passage of the Bill. This will ensure that any lessons in this element of the Bill are learnt. I am sure that noble Lords will share my interest in the outcome of the work of the commission. These are important steps in encouraging people to volunteer their time and their services for the benefit of the broader community.
As I said in Committee, we also have the Millennium Volunteer programme, to which more than 130,000 young people up to the age of 24 have pledged their time. They are not all full-time; they are not easy to compute; nevertheless they have pledged their time. There is also the Higher Education Active Community Fund, which enables the development of new volunteering opportunities by funding the administrative costs associated with arranging them.
The people who will take part, particularly young people, are precisely those who will benefit from the income-contingent repayment element of student loans. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours are very important, but the fact remains that if people do not earn more than £15,000 per annum they will not pay; if they earn more than £15,000,they pay only in relation to income over the threshold; and after 25 years the debt is cancelled. So those who wish to pursue these kinds of activities—and we greatly encourage them—most certainly would benefit from such arrangements. In summary, we are doing a great deal of work in support of the voluntary sector and encouraging graduates into this area, which your Lordships' House has applauded in the course of this discussion.
I am also sure that one of the major factors on which noble Lords will agree is that the great value of voluntary service is precisely that it is voluntary. I have been very struck by a number of the debates in your Lordships' House. There can be no more than a few places where so many people with such extraordinary experience of voluntary activity have been collected in one place, bringing the benefit of that experience to your Lordships' House.
I am also pleased to say that, asking about these matters in the community in which I live. I found that a significant number of younger people, those who are sometimes thought to be rather cynical about the values of community and politics, are involved in running children's playgrounds, visiting hospices and a wide range of other activities. Whether we reflect on

211
the experience of those of us in this House or those younger people to whom I have just referred, one thing they have in common is that almost the last thing they think about is finance. Volunteering is about something very much more profound.
I do not for a moment believe that there is not benefit to the individual in the development of skills, compassion and commitment to community, but I am not sure that the motivation to pay off student debt will be high on the list of what makes people volunteer. In that light, it is extremely hard—almost impossible—to think about what voluntary work would mean and where the boundaries would lie.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, mentioned, we already have the power under Section 186 of the Education Act 2002 to pay off student loans for prescribed categories of students. Interestingly, that is a "may" power, which sounds more voluntary than a "shall" power, which sounds rather more prescriptive. However, we believe that it would be right to use that power in appropriate circumstances, but not to make it a compulsory element—to move from encouraging volunteering to the kind of arrangement suggested. The great value of volunteering is, as I said, that it is altruistic.
On these grounds, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. I believe that the Government have a good record on volunteering and, with the greatest respect, this amendment may not be the way to carry it further forward.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, before I continue, I thank the House authorities for disabling the pigeons, budgerigars or whatever, which have been an impediment to our activities this last hour or so.
I thank all noble Lords who have supported the amendment in principle. I understand that there are one or two reservations, but nevertheless, we have had thorough support in principle.
It was indeed the intention that the Secretary of State should use his powers. Obviously, in doing so, the Secretary of State would have to talk to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, believed that this was a full toss for this particular Chancellor.
I believe that voluntary is voluntary. There is a case for "voluntary" covering people who are at least given a few bob to feed themselves. In no way does "voluntary" mean people who are paid a significant salary from which they are able to save and start a career, having done so-called voluntary service. No, indeed—the amendment is about voluntary meaning voluntary.
The amendment comprises two simple proposed subsections. One suggests that the Secretary of State develop a scheme, the second sets out the types of voluntary service eligible and also indicates the minimum period of service necessary. All sorts of other matters would be included in a scheme, but it would be a scheme that people understood; if they decided to participate, they would know where things were going.
212
We must put ourselves into the position of 18 year-olds. They consider the debt future that life holds and whether they can stomach the idea of undertaking voluntary service when they will incur another debt if they go to university, and so forth.
I would like "may" to become "shall". However, I shall consider the comments of the Minister, who said that he will send a note to the Bill team. We may well return to this matter on another occasion, but in the mean time I thank the Minister for his comments and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Sections 22 to 26: supplementary provisions]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) Student fees paid to relevant institutions pursuant to this Act shall in principle be additional to and not in replacement of state funding provided for and in respect of the teaching of undergraduate students at such institutions which funding will be at an annual real level per student not less than the average provided over the previous three years."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to ask the indulgence of the House in degrouping this amendment from the succeeding one. I have spoken to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bengarve, who accepts this proposition. I have also mentioned this to the other Front Benches, so I propose, if I may, to deal just with Amendment No. 21, which stands in four names. None the less, I entirely support Amendment No. 22 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, and others.
On 17 May, there was a full debate in Committee on this amendment, or one very like it, which was tabled in the same four names, representing the four corners of the House. In a debate lasting nearly an hour, 11 people spoke and, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, everyone was strongly in favour of the amendment. After all, it did no more than put into the Bill the Government's oft-repeated undertaking not to reduce state funding for university education, thus ensuring that the fees charged to students would be new, additional funding for universities.
Those of your Lordships who were present then will remember the striking contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. When Home Secretary, he introduced the national lottery. He gave the same sort of unqualified undertakings then as are being given now. As he remarked, those undertakings were forgotten as Ministers—even in his own government—and governments changed. As he put it,
"such pledges are written in sand … So pledges are not sufficient—[Official Report, 17/5/04; col. 525.]
In very generously responding to that debate, the main argument adduced by the Minister against the amendment was that,
"we do not believe that it is right to tie the hands of governments present and future for an unspecified time, which would be the impact of this amendment".—[Official Report, 17/5/04; cols. 525–28.]
That carries the clear implication that the unqualified undertakings of additionality which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary of State for Education and the noble Baroness have all repeatedly made are subject to one very leaky qualification. Exactly what circumstances would justify the Government in untying their own hands? The moment the Government answer that is the moment when the rationale for this highly contested Bill slides into incomprehension, verging on farce. What, then, has the legislative equivalent of the battle of the Somme been all about? Is it right that the Government can slide off the hook while, in the same circumstances, the poor students will continue to be impaled on their fee obligations?
The other riposte to the Government's case is that this is an exceptional Bill dealing with an exceptional impost on students. If, for reasons of economic crisis or whatever, the Government wish to abandon additionality, then they can come back to Parliament, as they do when they amend every other taxation measure.
Amendment No. 21 is a truly partnership amendment. It has been greatly helped by those who spoke on 17 May, and others, so as to be recast in the form in which it appears tonight. It would remove the reference to the provision of funding "directly and indirectly", which was felt to be too vague. It also eliminates the EU additionality formula; namely, that the Government are committed,
"subject to exceptional macro-economic circumstances".—[Official Report, 17/5/04; col. 517.].
I suggested in Committee that many of your Lordships would find that a pretty unappealing way of dealing with the problem, and so it proved. Therefore, in order to deal better with the same issue, I have included in the amendment reference to a three-year rolling average of real government spending on universities and have made it clear that that relates only to the teaching of undergraduates and not, for example, to research. That allows flexibility and does not discourage a government from being generous in one year for fear of setting a binding precedent for future years.
I end by urging the Government to accept what is clearly the will of the vast majority of those most engaged with the university sector in this House. The circumstances of the amendment seem genuinely to be the exception that proves the rule and I hope that the Government, however reluctantly, will accept the desirability, if not the necessity, of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He has made the case eloquently. I have only one point to add: we have been here before. An amendment on additionality was passed by this House on the previous occasion when fees were introduced. It went to another place and Ministers said, "Don't worry. It isn't necessary. Don't bind our
214
hands", or words to that effect. They said that fees would be additional income. We do not need to look in the crystal ball; we can read the book. The assurances were given previously, with the effect that the money was clawed back. I know that the Minister will say that that was because the Tories were planning their reviews, but the money was clawed back. The assurances that were given were not honoured. I hope that the Minister has listened to the detailed words spoken in debates in the House and will accept the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name is not attached to the amendment, but I make it clear that that was because we felt, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, that it was an advantage to reflect the views of the four corners of the House. The amendment is tabled with the full blessing of the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, during the debate, we have, with some compassion, reflected on the financial obligations that we are asking young graduates to accept at a time when they will be entering the world with a hugely inflated level of house prices. We owe it to them to give them complete assurance that the money that they are being asked to provide will go for the benefit of higher education. We must owe that to them and see them right.
I shall refer briefly to both amendments. I welcome the changes that have been made to the drafting of Amendment No. 21 since it was first tabled. I shall add just one comment, which applies also to Amendment No. 22. Unless we have a precise definition of "teaching", we have nothing against which we can hold the Government to account. I hope that in its further refinement it might be explicitly related to teaching.
I am prepared to accept and support either amendment. If there were any indication from the Government that one had a basis for acceptance, I would rapidly move towards it.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, as I said in Committee, this issue brings us to the very heart of the Bill. If the additional funding for which the Bill provides through variable fees is offset by reductions in public funding, we shall be no closer to solving the financial crisis in university funding.
As other noble Lords have said, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, deserves great credit for his perseverance on this issue. At each stage of the Bill, he has brought forward a proposal for ensuring that fees are truly additional and he has overcome each obstacle placed in his path.
Like my noble friend Lord Dearing, I argued in Committee that it was essential to find an agreed definition of the unit of public funding per student. The various definitions of that unit have led to disputes every year about the level of funding. I am pleased to tell your Lordships that, since then, discussions have

215
begun between Universities UK and the Government on a common definition, which will be published annually. I hope that this will underpin the debate on university finance in the future. If public funding is reduced, there will be no statistical arguments for the Government to hide behind.
The Minister, the right honourable Alan Johnson, wrote to me yesterday outlining how this might be taken forward by his department and the Higher Education Funding Council. However, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, binds the Government even tighter and I will therefore support it should he choose to press it to a vote.
Perhaps, like the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, I may comment on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill. It has the same merit in that it seeks to ensure that fees are truly additional and that student places are fully funded. However, I have a major concern in that in suggesting cuts in student numbers the amendment does not state exactly how they may be determined or managed. Obviously, universities would have great concerns about that. It is a complex issue and I am not sure it could be solved through primary legislation. I would therefore have difficulty supporting the amendment, but it raises issues that the Government must address.
Lord Rix: My Lords, as Chancellor of the University of East London, I trust that the additional funds which students will be providing for their own education are used to enable vice-chancellors to support general student experience and not to enable the other chancellor—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to support general state expenditure.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I rise only to support most warmly the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I have checked that there is no pre-emption, but I shall not speak to my amendments as they have been degrouped.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, sadly, I did not have the opportunity of hearing what everyone said in Committee because I was out of the country, but I have of course read it. I support both amendments and have added my name to that tabled by my noble friend Lady O'Neill.
Those of us who support the Bill, despite some grave reservations, do so in the full realisation that the proposed top-up variable fees will not immediately bring in sufficient resources to provide the equipment and salaries discussed earlier today which will enable UK universities once again to compete at world-class level. However, it will be a start in giving universities far greater independence and freedom in how they raise and spend their own resources. But clearly that belief would be gravely undermined if the Government—any government, and we have heard of previous scenarios—reduce their current share of university funding in real terms year on year.
216
As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, the Government have committed themselves to doing no such thing. Therefore, what possible objection could there be to putting this important provision on the face of the Bill?
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on the subtlety of the amendment. It is important that an amendment of this kind—I would happily support this one or that tabled by my noble friend Lady O'Neill—is included in the Bill. The reason is that the Bill is significantly drafted to provide additional funds to universities and the record is clear; the money can begin to be sidelined. The fear is that without a guarantee of this kind it would be.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I wish to raise one issue. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is having a conversation, but my point relates to what he said earlier when. We have had this little spat before. He still refuses to accept what I said, but I am going to repeat it.
It is not true that the Government clawed back the additional funding that came from fee income last time round, when the scheme was introduced. The Government provided substantial additional public funding from the taxpayer to go to universities, in addition to the money that was earned by the universities from the introduction of fees. Indeed, the Government were able to reduce the efficiency savings required by the Treasury from 6.5 per cent, which was the position when the noble Lord's party was in government, to the 2 per cent recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in his report. That represented a substantial amount of additional public funding. Moreover, for a short period, the Government were able to provide an increase in the unit of resource. Regrettably, that did not last. However, it is not accurate to say that the previous Labour Government clawed back the money provided from the additional fee income.
I would not want anyone to decide how they voted on this amendment on the basis of what the noble Lord said, because it was not entirely accurate. I hope that he and the House will accept that.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, in the light of the honesty expressed in the statement made by my noble friend, I see every reason why the Government would want this amendment to be included in the Bill. Therefore, if there is a Division, I shall certainly support it.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I, too, shall listen extremely carefully to what the Minister says. However, like so many noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading. I feel that it is very important that the Government maintain the commitment. The universities, as we have heard constantly throughout the day, are very short of money, and this is a minimum requirement to ensure that the legislation is acceptable.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we debated these issues at great length in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said. We considered the extent to which it was appropriate for legislation to tie the hands of future governments and prevent them determining their spending priorities in the light of circumstances. I argued then, as I shall argue again this evening, that primary legislation is not the right place for a financial commitment of this nature.
I appreciate the strength of feeling in your Lordships' House. However, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as I think he would recognise, his position in support of the amendment is given in light of the fact that the Bill would not be a way in which a Conservative government would pursue education policy in future. Noble Lords may believe that all my words about the track record of this Government in trying to support the sector are true, and that somehow by voting for the amendment they would tie the hands of a future Conservative government. However, I do not believe that would be the case, as I do not believe that a Conservative government would go in this direction on education policy.
When the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, described the amendment in Committee, he compared it to the provisions of a Finance Bill. It is of course true that a Finance Bill binds the hands of successor governments, but they are an annual event and can therefore readily be changed to reflect the priorities of the government at the time. This amendment would inevitably tie the hands of a government for an indefinite period. Of course, that is precisely the point of what the noble Lord is trying to achieve. However, I question whether that is a reasonable objective.
The amendment goes further than looking at the funding for higher education, by ensuring that the new fee income is additional and guaranteeing that public funding for higher education cannot decrease in future. The previous amendment, which we discussed in Committee, included a phrase about exceptional macroeconomic circumstances. I expressed some concern about what that might mean in practice for higher education. I note that the phrase has now disappeared. While that eliminates some of the definitional uncertainty, it leaves the amendment even harder to implement. Even if there were some major and significant financial pressures on a government, the effect of the amendment would be that higher education above all other priorities would be protected.
Our debates in Committee also touched on some of the other practical difficulties inherent in the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, highlighted some unintended consequences that might arise. For example, although the current version of the amendment talks of the average funding over the previous three years, a government might still be very reluctant to provide a one-off injection of funding to meet someperceived need: that would increase
218
the average and could therefore be unsustainable in the future. The result could be that the funding might be kept at the lowest level permissible under the Act, irrespective of whether additional funding might have been available in any one year. That cannot be in the interests of the sector.
I also raised the issue of whether the amendment would apply at the level of the whole sector or whether it would need to apply at an institutional level. If it is the latter, then noble Lords may readily see that there would be significant practical difficulties, not least in the fact that funding could not be amended if the pattern of provision at an institution changed.
There are also issues about the flexibility that the sector might enjoy. At present, HEFCE allows institutions to change their student numbers and pattern of provision within tolerance bands. If the amendment were passed, and we were bound to ensure that the unit of funding remained at a certain level, we would need much more stringent control over student numbers, and indeed student numbers within specific funding categories. Otherwise, we could find ourselves in breach of the Act if, in good faith, we set our funding at a level which would ensure that the requirement was met, but the sector subsequently over-recruited or recruited into more expensive courses than anticipated.
We need to bear it in mind in thinking this through that universities make offers to students for places based on their predicted rather than actual grades and institutions are obliged to meet those offers. Even with the best intentions, therefore, it would be difficult for an institution to hit exactly a target for student numbers. The complexity and unfairness that the proposal would introduce would be unmanageable.
I want to pick up another couple of points from Committee that I did not deal with. I can confirm for my noble friend Lady Warwick that the Chancellor's Budget Statement about how the funding per student will increase over the spending review period did not include the student support provided to those students. This is good news for the sector. We are committed both to increasing the unit funding paid to institutions and to increasing student support, where the new package of grants and the payment of loans for variable fees will be of significant benefit to students. In other words, they are not at the expense of one another.
I can also confirm that, following my discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for which I am grateful, and further discussions with Universities UK, my right honourable friend the Minister for Higher Education has written to Universities UK proposing the establishment of a working group to produce a new definition of unit costs. That would, of course, be published in the annual departmental report in the usual way. That may go some way to considering the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, would have raised if she had spoken to her amendment. It would provide a clear means of

219
demonstrating the additional funding being put by the Government into the sector over and above tuition fees. In other words, it deals with the issue of transparency, which noble Lords have been concerned about.
The Government's commitment to the future funding of higher education is clear. I cannot accept the amendment or offer to bring back an amendment of my own, but I can confirm again that income from tuition fees will be additional and that with Universities UK we shall develop more transparent accounting and reporting arrangements, which would enable your Lordships' House to see how we have delivered against those commitments. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister as always for her politeness, clarity and attempt to bridge the unbridgeable. It is pretty obvious that this is a whole-sector amendment and not an institution-by-institution one, so that query on her part can be laid to rest. Also, I fail to understand why the annual Finance Bill could not have a clause in it amending this formula if the particular circumstances prevailing required it. Therefore, it is simply not the case that the amendment, if brought in, would be there forever.
The Minister talked of complexity and unfairness. There will be unfairness if the Government or any future government resile on the undertakings given or otherwise wheedle their way out of them because they have other fish to fry and other priorities to pursue. It may be a factor in our low level of GNP funding of higher education that we do not have something like this amendment in our legislation. I believe that the provision, while not perfect, would work and could be refined over time. It should be in the Bill, for all the reasons that noble Lords have given. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 88.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alderdice, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Colwyn, L.

Arran, E.

Courtown, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Craigavon, V.

Attlee, E.

Crathorne, L.

Avebury, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Barker, B.

Dearing, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Dholakia, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dundee, E.

Bridges, L.

Falkland, V.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Garden, L.

Buscombe, B.

Goodhart, L.

Butler of Brockwell, L.

Greengross, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hamwee, B.

220

Harris of Richmond, B.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Higgins, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Peel, E.

Hooper, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L. [Teller]

Inge, L.

Puttnam, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rawlings, B.

Jopling, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kimball, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Rix, L.

Laird, L.

Roper, L.

Layard, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Selborne, E.

Lyell, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McNally, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Maddock, B.

Stewartby, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mancroft, L.

Vinson, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Walpole, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Monson, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Montrose, D.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Noakes, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Northover, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Wilson of Dinton, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Alli, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Hayman, B.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bach, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hoyle, L.

Brennan, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Brookman, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Burlison, L.

Jones, L.

Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Chandos, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Crawley, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dixon, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Elder, L.

Paul, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Filkin, L.

Radice, L.

Gale, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gavron, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rooker, L.

Gilbert, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Golding, B.

Simon, V.

Goldsmith, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goudie, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

221

Thornton, B.

Wilkins, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Triesman, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Whitty, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
7.51 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we start the next debate, perhaps I may make a few comments that I hope are for the convenience of the House. Several noble Lords have asked me how long the debate will last. My answer to that, like my answer to most questions, is that I am not sure. Although it is not, as we know, a timed debate, we try to put business into the dinner adjournment that we think will last roughly an hour. As I have been asked, however, all I can say is that about seven noble Lords have indicated that they are likely to speak. The arithmetic is that if those seven were to speak for about five minutes, and allowing for the usual openings and closings, we would finish roughly within the hour.
I have to re-emphasise that I do not make the rules here. I am simply trying to give noble Lords the best information I have at present.

Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and Guidance to Police Officers on the Operation of Closure Powers in Part 8 of the Licensing Act 2003
7.52 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft guidance laid before the House on 23 March be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee and 2nd Report from the Merits Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the guidance before the House is almost 200 pages long and contains more than 2,000 paragraphs. I suspect that the House will not want me to go into detail, but I shall do my best to explain its thrust and effect.
Under subsection (2) of Section 182 of the 2003 Act, the Secretary of State may not issue the licensing guidance unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament. Noble Lords will recall that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers proposed that the Licensing Bill be amended to provide a mechanism for scrutiny. We responded to that following the persuasive case put by
222
some noble Lords present today. The procedure provides no mechanism for tabling amendments to the draft guidance. The draft must be either approved or rejected. I should also emphasise that the guidance cannot change the primary legislation that was so thoroughly scrutinised by both Houses. I make that point not least because some who have commented on the draft guidance seem to believe that it can override or modify the Act. It cannot.
A draft of the guidance was first made available during the parliamentary stages of the Licensing Bill to inform the debates in both Houses. Following Royal Assent in July last year, a further draft was prepared which reflected amendments made to the legislation and many of the points made in Parliament. It was published for consultation in August 2003. A prolonged and detailed consultation followed publication in August.
I should like to express my gratitude to the expert bodies and organisations listed at page 12 of the draft guidance which have provided an enormous amount of advice that enabled us to produce the draft being considered today. In addition to those who formed our advisory group, many other organisations provided comments and views, including residents' associations, individual local authorities, trade unions, industry trade bodies, individuals and members of the legal profession.
We have also consulted very closely with musicians and performers' groups to ensure that the draft guidance properly reflects their concerns which were much debated during the passage of the Bill. We also turned to a specialist group involving children's organisations such as the Children's Society and the NSPCC and the police for advice about the sections of the draft that deal with the protection of children from harm. And of course, because of the range of issues with which it deals, we have also consulted closely with a range of other government departments, agencies and public bodies. Inevitably, across such a great range of issues and the breadth of the consultation, there has been conflict between some of the views expressed. Where there has been conflict, we have sought to find a balanced position that represents best practice and the broadest possible consensus in the area concerned.
If the draft guidance is approved by both Houses, under subsection (3) of Section 4 of the 2003 Act any licensing authority will be required to have regard to it when carrying out any licensing function. The first licensing function to be carried out by any licensing authority will be to make its local statement of licensing policy. The process cannot formally begin until Parliament has made its decision about the draft guidance. The phrase "have regard to" does not mean that licensing authorities must slavishly follow its terms to the letter. In effect, the guidance will set a national policy framework which we expect local statements of licensing policy to complement and reflect. When carrying out its licensing functions, a licensing authority may depart from the guidance where it is justified by individual or local circumstances. But the authority will need to set out good reasons for doing so.
The purpose of the guidance is to promote consistency and good practice, but not at a cost of eroding local discretion. The Act creates a local system under the control of locally elected representatives for the benefit of local communities. Our concern has therefore been to achieve balance between providing sufficient detail and advice and not being tempted into excessive prescription.
The draft is primarily directed at the professional and technical advisers of licensing authorities to enable them to assist licensing authorities and their committees in carrying out their role as Parliament intended. It is therefore complex and technical in parts. As a valuable by-product, we hope that it will also assist applicants, the police, other responsible authorities, performers and the general public to understand better the processes involved. But I must stress that it is not a substitute for a proper understanding of the Act itself and must always be read in conjunction with the primary legislation and secondary legislation to be made under the Act.
I now intend to touch on three connected issues that have received a good deal of attention in recent weeks: alcohol harm, the position of the police and the cumulative impact of a concentration of licensed premises.
It has been asserted by some that the 2003 Act and the draft guidance are incompatible with the alcohol harm reduction strategy and its focus on binge drinking and irresponsible trading of alcohol. However, there is nothing contradictory between the documents. They were developed together. We deliberately delayed the finalisation of the draft guidance until the terms of the strategy were agreed. Both documents were then published in March this year.
The 2003 Act and its guidance and the strategy aim to help curb irresponsible trading, alcohol-related violence, public nuisance and to protect children from harm. The 2003 Act provides expanded, more flexible and tougher powers to deal with premises that engage in trading that damages our communities and provokes drunkenness and disorder. The strategy, of course, goes much wider, to cover issues including public health education and so on. However, we have to recognise that while we need to act to reduce binge drinking and alcohol-related violence—and I think that anyone who saw the "Panorama" programme on Sunday night needs no convincing on that point—we also need to ensure that the development of the night-time economy can help to regenerate many areas through investment and the opening up of employment opportunities.
I also want to make clear that there is no dispute between the Government and the police about the value of the changes to be implemented through the 2003 Act. On 29 April of this year, Rick Naylor of the Police Superintendents' Association told Radio Four's "PM" programme:
"The Superintendents' Association have always been in favour of relaxing licensing laws and bringing them into the twenty-first century, and it is slightly disappointing we can't get this piece of legislation enacted sooner, because I think it will have an effect on violence in the streets".
Chris Fox, President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said on the "Today" programme on 11 May 2004:
"However, for the vast majority of people the licensing laws will bring a welcome and civilised sort of approach to the world. They can get a drink and they can go and relax and socialise when they want".
The police have been constantly and closely involved in the development of the draft guidance. It was said in another place that we are just citing a few policemen when others hold misgivings. Chris Fox speaks for all chief officers as president of ACPO and is not just another policeman, and Rick Naylor speaks for superintendents. Within all organisations there will be dissenting voices—indeed, we heard them from Nottingham on Sunday night—but the president of ACPO represents the consensus, as does Mr Naylor.
I turn to the issue of saturation and cumulative impact. During the parliamentary stages of the Licensing Bill, there was much discussion of the need to address the cumulative impact on crime and disorder where there is a concentration of licensed premises. I know that this was a matter of concern in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but of course, many others shared that concern.
We have therefore set out in paragraphs 3.13 to 3.28 of the draft detailed advice for licensing authorities about how these issues should be addressed where they arise. The Act does provide the necessary power to assist local communities in dealing with such matters due to impacts on the licensing objectives. However, the draft guidance also sensibly recognises that it can be only one part of a solution that requires a partnership approach.
We have seen briefing issued by the Local Government Association which says that the draft guidance applies the special policy described only to new applications and not to applications for variation or to provisional statements. If noble Lords will look at paragraph 3.19, they will see that the Local Government Association has failed to note that it says:
"The effect of adopting a special policy of this kind—
that is, a policy about saturation—
"is to create a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences or club premises certificates or material variations will normally be refused".
Applications to vary licences are therefore included. As for provisional statements, the Local Government Association appears to have forgotten that there is no provision in the 2003 Act for refusing to make a provisional statement, and the guidance cannot, of course, amend the primary legislation as approved by Parliament. I have to say that its points on cumulative impact are therefore not well made.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will today argue that it would have been better to consider the draft guidance only after the fee levels have been made by the Secretary of State. I say with great respect to the noble Lord, as he played a most valuable part in the progress of the Bill, that I must oppose this Motion. For completeness, I should also mention that Section 178 of the Act is also relevant in addition to those he has cited.
I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is attempting to have it both ways. Among others, he argued persuasively during the passage of the Licensing Bill that we should respect the view of the Select Committee and provide a mechanism allowing Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the guidance before it is issued. We accepted the points that he and others made and we made the necessary amendment to the Bill. That is why we are here tonight.
We cannot presume that such scrutiny will lead automatically to the approval of the draft guidance today, or, indeed, in any revised form if we were obliged to take it away and return to Parliament. We would certainly be criticised for being arrogant if we sought to do so—if we proceeded with regulations before Parliament had approved the guidance that is related to them. The guidance is central to the processes and activity in which licensing authorities will engage, and indeed particular parts of local authorities. Any changes to the draft guidance can therefore impact on costs and costs in turn impact on fee levels.
Fee levels must be set at a level that allows licensing authorities to recover fully their costs of administration, inspection and enforcement. Until Parliament has finalised its scrutiny of the guidance, the Secretary of State cannot finalise the fee levels. I am sure that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will agree that he cannot expect us to put the cart before the horse.
I wholly appreciate why licensing authorities and industry are keen to know the final terms of the fees. It is important for planning purposes. I can assure the House that we intend to make the fee levels known to the licensing authorities and other stakeholders as soon as possible following the approval of the guidance. The regulations, which, of course, have to be consulted on, will be in place in good time for the beginning of the transitional period.
The minimum time for the beginning of the transitional period after the passage of the guidance is six months. Representations have been made to us that a longer time is necessary. I assure the House that the Secretary of State is considering those representations carefully.
The Licensing Act 2003 is important legislation that will provide: radical reform of an essentially 19th century system; greater freedom and flexibility for the responsible parts of industry; greater choice for consumers; opportunities for regeneration, increased investment and new employment; a more democratically accountable system; and tougher and more comprehensive powers to deal with irresponsible licensed traders who cause problems within our communities.
The draft guidance that we are scrutinising will provide a national policy framework which will inform and guide the key decisions that licensing authorities will be required to take. I am satisfied that the provisions of the draft guidance are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft guidance laid before the House on 23 March be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee and 2nd Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I wish to speak to this Motion. For the convenience of the House, and for the elucidation of the process for other noble Lords as I had to seek a degree of guidance from the Clerks on this issue, I should perhaps set out the position that we shall take on the two Motions.
It is not the intention of these Benches to oppose the Motion on the guidance. However, I intend to speak in this debate to the Motion of regret in my name. I ask and hope that all noble Lords speak to that Motion in the first debate. Depending on the Minister's reply, when we move to the second Motion I may then be able to withdraw it hastily due to this debate.
I thank the Minister for his comments about the second Motion, particularly for correcting us about failing to include Section 178. That was most helpful. If I were to table the Motion again, I would include it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was a cheap shot.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I would never accuse the Minister of anything quite so underhand.
We support the guidance, with major caveats. One problem that we faced throughout the progress of the then Bill was the late publication of the guidance. The Act itself is the skeleton of the legislation, with all the meat having been left off. It seems unfortunate that we were left without draft guidance to look at throughout the process. It was very late in the process—after Committee and into Report—before we could read the draft guidance. The Minister talked about putting the cart before the horse, but it seems unfortunate that while we had the horse we did not know what was the shape of the cart.
The Minister answered on one of the major issues that we raised, and I ask him to make some further points about the first appointed day. As I understood the legislation, the first appointed day was six months from the end of the debate today, from which it could be extended. The Minister said that that was the minimum period in which the Secretary of State could put forward the first appointed day. Considering the major problems that the Act faces, I very much hope that the Minister will, before finalising any set day for the first appointed day, take into account when the fee structure is published.
That becomes the nub of our disagreement with the way in which the Government have put forward the process. We still have no clear indication of the extent of the fee structure. If the legislation had no further consequences outside the House or in the legal framework, that obviously would not matter. However, there are great consequences for many councils, which have already had to set their council tax levels to take account of a fee structure when they still do not have any real basis on which to know the level set. Obviously there is a difference between the £100 and £500 for every

227
licence. Although that is within the guidance, it is not exactly set altogether as staying within the £100 to £500 levels. From the first discussions that we had with the Bill team, it was clear that those were only the parameters to which the Secretary of State was working at that point.
That leaves the councils in the dark. I understand that a number of councils have already raised council tax to meet their expected costs. Although the Minister can speak with a degree of firmness and in a way that is almost irrefutable—only he has that way of putting forward such cases—many councillors are extremely worried that the Government have vastly underestimated the cost of administering the scheme.
There will be added costs. The justices' courts are being moved to the councils, which will place costs outside the licence fee. The magistrates will face costs, because I strongly believe that the Government have underestimated the number of appeals that will go to magistrates. We are not talking about a simple change from one side to another. One side is the industry. I must declare an interest as the owner of an extremely fine pub in Northumberland, the "Redesdale Arms". I can give a map to anyone interested, as I have done before.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, besides giving us a map, will my noble friend give us a free drink?
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, that goes beyond the call of this debate.
The industry has the right to put forward variations. However, large numbers of residents' associations are also becoming extremely concerned; a large number of them have written to me. They will incur costs in considering whether they can oppose the variation. Anyone who has earned easy money from the licensing area—I have talked to a number of noble Lords from the legal profession who said that they had—will say that the legal profession will get involved in it to a great extent.
The Minister has said that it is the Government's intention that the fees structure should lead to a neutral scheme, so that there will be no further costs. There were issues that were raised earlier in which the DCMS said that councils made a profit of £7.1 million out of the licensing regime. However, that has since been refuted, and it turns out that councils have made a loss of £7.1 million. So councils are already making a loss on the fee structure. If this is a cost-neutral scheme, under the present system they will probably make a further loss. I have a particular question for the Minister on that issue. If a council creates a deficit for dealing with these fees, how will that affect those local authorities which have been capped in their spending? Will central government have to meet that added burden?
Of course, there are other costs, as the Minster stated. Policing is one and having not seen the "Panorama" programme—although I have been told about it by many people—I think that it is extremely unfortunate that the Association of Chief Police Officers' report on
228
the negative impact of the licensing regime was not brought forward and made more readily available at an earlier stage in the proceedings on the Licensing Bill. Everyone should realise that there has been an increased level of violence associated with alcohol—the Prime Minister talked about the misuse of alcohol as "the British disease". We are taking a leap in the dark into an area where it is not just a question of a quiet drink on a Sunday night at the local that might be extended for an hour, there is a real risk that a large number of violent incidents will take place.
8.15 p.m.
I was going to speak only for four or five minutes, and I have overshot that target considerably. However, I have two further questions. I know that many other noble Lords will raise other issues. I hope that the Minister can give me an answer about circuses, which are unfortunate casualties of the Act. They were given certain assurances by the Home Office when the Bill moved from the Home Office to the DCMS, and those assurances turned out not to be the case. Circuses have been brought within the ambit of the Act to a degree in which it seems that many of them face closure, in the worst case.
The Minister will say that the Act has now been passed, so there is nothing that can be done. However, as the Government drafted the Act, I hope that the Minister will not use that let-out and will say that the Secretary of State, through guidance, will point out to local authorities the wide remit that they have to make it as easy as possible for circuses to carry on a great profession. It seems strange that while money from the Arts Council is being pumped into teaching people circus skills, the very circuses that they will work in might be closed down by this Act.
I could not finish without mentioning live music. I must thank the Minister for the magnificent amendment that the Government brought forward about morris men at the tail end of the Licensing Bill. The Minister is a hero among morris men. In November of last year 600 morris men gathered in Trafalgar Square just to sing and dance the praises of the Minister. It is unfortunate that he was not there that day—it was quite a day—but I thought that I should bring that to his attention.
I have a specific question about live music, about which I have asked many questions during proceedings on the Act. When an entertainment authorisation is required, is it the case that a licensing authority must grant the authorisation without conditions, unless specific shortcomings can be identified in existing legislation covering public safety, noise, nuisance, crime and disorder that relates to the entertainment being proposed?
I look forward to the Minister's answers and the points that will be raised by many noble Lords who have spoken throughout our deliberations on this Act.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it is extraordinary to think that almost a year following Royal Assent, we are now debating the draft licensing guidelines; and

229
still there is little confidence that local authorities will be able to cope with the new regime—a regime which will, it is feared, have an enormous and often detrimental effect on our communities. Those fears have already been exacerbated by the Government allowing elected Members in the other place precisely an hour an a half to consider 190 pages of draft guidance.
I have been inundated with complaints from many stakeholders in the past few weeks, who were all deeply concerned about the implementation of the Act, with the guidance as drafted. Unfortunately, there is insufficient time to articulate them all. The key is to know how local authorities, the breweries, the police and other emergency services will cope within the guidelines, especially without any firm sense of the fee levels that will be set by regulation. Will the regime be fully funded, we wonder?
Only yesterday in a Written Answer in another place, the Minister, Mr Caborn MP, stated:
"Fee levels under the Licensing Act 2003 will be set centrally at a level that allows the full recovery of the costs of administration, inspection and enforcement associated with the new system".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/04; col. 47W.]
That sounds terrific, but what does it actually mean? Does it mean the internal costs of administering the regime, such as serving enforcement notices and dealing with appeals and complaints, or does it include policing our streets, cleaning our streets and providing sufficient transport to see our young home throughout the night—costs of managing the night-time economy? Is that why we are hearing that councils, such as Camden, are already allowing for an additional £800,000 in their next year's budget from council tax payers' money to pay for the knock-on effects of all-night drinking?
The Prime Minister recently stated that the industry must pick up the true costs of binge drinking. Will the Minister confirm that tonight? I think that the industry should be told.
The Local Government Association has made it clear that the conceptual framework of the guidance document is flawed in that there is insufficient distinction in it between interpretation of the statute and guidance for local authorities on the process and local authority good practice, bearing in mind that the purpose of the guidance is to promote consistency and good practice.
Good practice is solely a matter for local discretion, and the inclusion and wording of these suggestions creates an expectation of local authority activity that would be very costly. The Local Government Association understands that that extends to activities that would not be covered by the licensing fees—hence, councils are now considering huge council tax increases to cover what the Government might call "best practice" but what the public would regard as essential services. In essence, the local authorities believe that they cannot realistically develop licensing policies without knowledge of the fee structure.
Now that we have the Act, which I think everyone must accept was seriously ill-thought-through, the Government are concerned with damage limitation. They have
230
published their Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy. It is a shame that, in the words of Professor Ian Gilmore of the Royal College of Physicians, the strategy is,
"stronger on cleaning up the streets than on preventing physical harm".
Even the Prime Minister, at this late stage, decided to turn up to a brewery a couple of weeks ago to give the brewing industry a hard time about the need to confront the culture of binge drinking. I am afraid that that is rather typical of this Government. They create an impending nightmare situation—many will have had the opportunity to witness on "Panorama" on Sunday the kind of scenario that we can expect to be exacerbated in our cities and also an article written by the "Panorama" reporter, Andy Davies, entitled "The booze ruse killing our cities"—and then they blame others, which, in this case, are the drinks industry and the advertising industry. The Prime Minister said that binge drinking could become the new British disease. My Lords, it already has.
Surely, therefore, it cannot make sense to allow some of these enormous city bars to be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, before tackling the culture of binge drinking. As the Institute of Alcohol Studies stated, it is wrong to emphasise the value of extending opening hours without adequately taking into account the context within which such a premises offering longer hours operates. It cites the lack of late-night public transport as an example—an issue which we believe is given insufficient weight in the draft guidance.
The Government state in the guidance that they strongly believe that disorder is linked to artificially early closing and so they urge late hours under certain paragraphs in the guidance. In addition, the cumulative impact clauses have caused considerable concern. The residents of Bath believe that their city is already saturated with licensed premises and have asked me to convey the fact that, according to the draft guidance, saturation policies will extend only to new premises. That said, I am very grateful to the Minister for providing us with some reassurances tonight on this issue. Indeed, they are reassurances that I shall want to read again in Hansard. But that is the kind of reassurance that we need from the Minister.
While liberating drinking hours, the Government chose to regulate live music to the nth degree and have now, rather weakly, stuck something in the guidelines under paragraph 3.47 about a duty to promote participation in the arts. How on earth would anyone have any trust in this Government's commitment to the arts when it will be illegal to play a piano in a bar without a licence?
Live music is a great antidote to anti-social behaviour and should be encouraged much more, not discouraged by petty regulation. Music is a positive force for social, economic, psychosomatic and cultural reasons for all ages. Evidence has verified this and shortly Carling is due to publish its commissioned research which has found that 79 per cent of the population like hearing music in public places. That figure rises to 90 per cent among 16 to 24 year-olds; 100 per cent of 16 to 24 year-olds say music helps them relax and feel better about their day; and 90 per cent of

231
the entire base agree. Live music has the greatest positive emotional impact and power to make people feel good; that is felt by 32 per cent compared with the next favourite way to relax, which is eating out, at 30 per cent. In essence more live music would mean less trouble.
The Minister in another place referred to points raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and in particular the delegation of functions, believing that paragraphs 3.61 to 3.63 lack clarity. I seem to recall there was considerable debate regarding the delegation of powers to the executive within local authorities as the Act was requiring an entirely impractical number of council members to sit on a licensing committee. In some instances this would require the whole membership of the council to sit on the committee. I think that our debates in your Lordships' House on this matter and the amendments that we proposed on this point more readily explain the lack of clarity.
In addition, the transitional arrangements are entirely unsatisfactory, a point amplified by my honourable friend Malcolm Moss MP. He also raised an issue in another place regarding the position of golf clubs. He asked the Minister how golf clubs with large numbers of visiting players who are guests of members will cope with the illegality of selling alcoholic drinks to them. A meeting was due to take place today between the Minister, the English Golf Union and the National Golf Clubs' Advisory Association. Can the Minister confirm whether that meeting took place and say how the issue was resolved?
In addition, the gaming industry remains deeply concerned that it must endure the prohibitive costs of responding to this legislation while awaiting the gambling Bill which will no doubt alter the licensing structure and statutory criteria again. I could go on with so many more issues and suggested amendments submitted to me, if time allowed. While there may have been many consultations between Ministers, officials and stakeholders, the Government must accept that there is, above all else, a strong suspicion in different quarters that the new regime will not work for the benefit of all and that, for example, even where musicians and other live performers may he exempted from licensing requirements, there is insufficient reassurance in the guidance to counter those suspicions. Perhaps some illustrative examples in the guidance could make a difference.
There is also a strong sense of unfairness. Residents will be funding the increased costs of objecting to variation orders, policing and clearing up after extended drinking hours and, further, unlike live performers, broadcast entertainment will be a free for all. Where is the justice in that?
I wish that tonight we were giving our support to legislation that would genuinely encourage a café society, which many of us have experienced across Europe, whereby drink and entertainment go hand in hand, without unnecessary legislation and without turning our cities, towns and villages into living nightmares, but that is not the case. Indeed tonight in
232
my own village of Goring, an application will be considered by the parish council which could, if adopted by the district, make my life and that of my family and neighbours intolerable, all because of our culture of binge drinking, particularly among the young. This draft guidance does not begin to address that; it will probably only make it worse and that is deeply depressing.
I shall support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, tonight and if procedurally I had been allowed to add my name to the Motion as a member of the Conservative Front Bench I would have done so.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, the debate tonight on the guidance to police officers and my noble friend Lord Redesdale's Motion puts me in a very unusual position. I think that some of your Lordships will know that I am usually a Euro-enthusiast and believe that the greater integration that we have with Europe, the better for all of us.
However, I am moved tonight to make a somewhat Euro-sceptic speech. I simply do not believe that emulating the more lax licensing laws of continental Europe will transform the hard-drinking culture of England into a café society of open air sipping of the odd glass of Sancerre from dusk to dawn. Sadly, as Sunday's "Panorama" vividly demonstrated, the evidence points the other way. It is a pity, as that programme showed, that the DCMS did not take more account of that evidence.
I should like to refer to the borough of Richmond because it illustrates the problem with which we are confronted: idyllic riverside, the matchless Vale of Thames and Arcadian beauty, but, in the past 10 years, the number of bars and restaurants serving alcohol on the Richmond riverside has doubled to over 100 with a capacity for nearly 10,000 people, against the local population of 8,000. The result has been increased rowdyism, litter and drunken excess, necessitating an increased and costly police presence, which, despite greater resources—and we are grateful for that—is very hard pressed.
It is thus paradoxical—is it not?—that the Government urge the greater control of anti-social behaviour and measures against binge drinking and at the same time are relaxing the licensing regime and limiting the rights of objection.
For the Government the paradox is resolved by optimism that, somehow, despite the evidence from elsewhere from Ireland to Finland, our drinking manners will change and that binge drinking will progressively become a thing of the past. What is the evidence; and how is it that "Panorama" was able to demonstrate how much evidence had been ignored or set aside?
One aspect on which I am particularly fearful is that a great burden will now be placed on councils having to contend with the high-paid lawyers of brewers and

233
drinking establishments pressing, very actively, for massive relaxation in licensing, without in any way being able to match the resources ranged against them.
Lastly, there is one key factor. Paragraph 3.29 in the guidance states:
"With regard to licensing hours, the statement of policy should generally emphasise the consideration which will be given to the individual merits in an application. The Government strongly recommends that statements of policy should recognise that longer licensing hours with regard to the sale of alcohol are important to ensure that the concentrations of customers leaving premises simultaneously are avoided. This is necessary to reduce the friction at late night fast food outlets, taxi ranks and other sources of transport which lead to disorder and disturbance".
I have referred to Richmond. After midnight there is one Tube train. The remaining buses between midnight and dawn have a total capacity to carry 600 people. Thousands of people will be seeking to leave Richmond during these hours in this new situation. How are they to leave in the early hours of the morning? Taxis will not stop. Minicabs will not respond to calls. Why should they? They are vulnerable to violence and to people being sick in the back of cabs. God forbid that people will seek to drive themselves.
So, what is the solution? Why was the evidence of so great and so many risks, as "Panorama" argued, apparently set aside? How will councils be enabled to contend with high-powered, well paid—with great respect—batteries of lawyers arguing for abolishing or relaxing licensing hours? How are residents to cope, and how is the quality of life and the safety of our town centres to be assured? These guidelines do not reassure.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I wish to raise a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lady Buscombe: the fees that local authorities will be authorised to charge for performing their duties under the Act. I declare an interest as a joint president of the Association of London Government and vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Government have repeatedly asserted, and indeed emphasised, that no local authority will be out of pocket because of the new duties put on them. Last November, Nick Raynsford said:
"I can confirm the commitment already given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that we will ensure that the costs of the licensing system are fully covered by the fees".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/03; col. 787.]
Richard Caborn said much the same in a Written Answer last December.
Last year the Government indicated the level of fees that were likely to be authorised. There can be no doubt that, if those fees are what ultimately emerge, many local authorities will be substantially out of pocket.
I shall quote some figures, concentrating on the situation in London. From the surveys carried out, it is clear that all London local authorities will face deficits as a result of their new duties under this Act. Nineteen of the
234
22 authorities that responded to an LGA survey estimated minimum deficits of £100,000. The average anticipated deficit from the 22 boroughs was just under £9 million. As an indication, Hammersmith and Fulham faces a deficit of £375,000, Kensington and Chelsea faces one of over half a million pounds and Barnet faces a deficit of almost half a million pounds.
The City corporation, which one might not have thought likely to be affected, receives at present around £280,000 per annum in night refreshment licences. In the first full year of operation, it expects that to fall to £210,000. The proposed reduced annual continuation fee will mean that in following years income will be around half that figure. While the licensing workload that the City corporation faces will increase significantly, the total income that it will be allowed to charge will fall considerably.
The difficulties are even more pronounced in Westminster. Its income projections fall far short of the expenditure that the council anticipates having to make to service the licensing function. At the moment, Westminster's net expenditure on licensing amounts to around £700,000. Westminster estimates that, once the new regime is up and running, that figure will rise by £2 million. It feels, not unreasonably, that without revision of the proposed fee levels, the deficits faced by authorities are bound to add to the strain being placed on the council tax. Although that evidence relates to London, I am advised that urban authorities elsewhere in the country are likely to face similar results.
What has really got under the local authorities' skin was a remark last month in another place by Mr Caborn. He said during DCMS Questions:
"We are in discussion with the Local Government Association and others in the industry. I hope to be able to announce the fees in the not too distant future. We have already given an indication and I do not believe that it will prove to be far from the mark".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/04; col. 1294.]
If the fees that the Government are minded to authorise do not increase substantially above the levels that they have already indicated, there will be very serious consequences for local authorities. If they cannot recover their costs there will be huge problems in carrying out their responsibilities, particularly in enforcement and inspection. Inadequate enforcement of licensed premises and inadequate consultation in administering licences are likely to be a major source of concern for residents. They will have to look to other sources of income, and yet once more it will be the unfortunate council tax payer who will have to find the difference.
There has been much reference to binge drinking. If there is inadequate enforcement of the licences, binge drinking can only get worse. Although the intentions of the Act may be excellent, that would be a disaster for all. I have gone on long enough, but I have some questions to put to the Minister. Do the Government still stand by their promise that local authorities will not be out of pocket, and that the fees that they will be allowed to charge will cover their costs, not just as an average figure, but for each local authority? As the figures so far given do not comply with that promise, will the Government now listen to the local authorities, go through their own

235
estimates of that cost, and adjust the figures accordingly? Will they consider the alternative basis of charge that some local authorities have been putting forward, which would give a rather fairer measure of the costs that they will incur? I know that the 2003 Act has many supporters, but it will be a tragedy if implementation of the Act is frustrated because the local authorities lack the resources to do it properly.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, a very few words from these empty Cross Benches. I am not alone in wishing to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his characteristically clear and well-constructed introduction to these debates. I also remember with gratitude the help that he gave us in the passage of the Bill over the permission to have music in churches, which was important to me and to many other noble Lords.
It appears that the Government have two objectives: opening up the night-time economy and ending binge drinking at closing time. I am all in favour of ending binge drinking at closing time, but it seems to me that the opening up of the night-time economy casts a different appearance on the whole thing. It is possible that in the remaining hours after normal closing time that a pub stays open it will sell a great deal more alcohol. Therefore, we will end up with higher alcohol consumption spread over a longer period, which is not what we want. I notice that in the document before us there is reference to an alcohol harm reduction strategy. I have not yet been able to obtain a copy, but it seems to me that this should be the overall objective of this Bill; to reduce the excessive consumption of alcohol. Could we have a debate in this House about the strategy for the reduction of alcohol consumption before the Bill comes into force? Your Lordships' experience would be invaluable on this subject. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me some reassurance about that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in her introduction to the guidance the Secretary of State says that the £20 billion cost of alcohol misuse, including £7.5 billion of crime and disorder costs, must be tackled by local authorities under the licensing regime, which she tells us must be applied proactively to tackle all levels of alcohol misuse. She does not explain how local authorities will deal with the phenomenon of binge drinking, which has occupied so much of your Lordships' attention this evening, as on previous occasions when we debated the Licensing Bill.
The Secretary of State undertakes to monitor the impact of the Act on crime and disorder and, if necessary, to introduce further legislation to strengthen or modify its provisions, which does not indicate a great level of confidence that it will work. So far, with 15 months to go from now until the appointed day when the new licensing system comes fully into operation, the Government have yet to decide what statistics they will use to monitor the effects of the Act. I have suggested using accident and emergency attendances, on the lines of those collected as a one-off exercise by Professor Colin Drummond and others; offences of violence against a person committed on or in the vicinity of licensed premises and similarly for
236
ambulance call-outs. Another possibility would be to use the powers in Sections 25 and 44 of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill to keep records of the role of alcohol in fire-related deaths, 39 per cent of which, according to Alcohol Concern, are associated with heavy drinking.
The Minister, Melanie Johnson, said that a full year's baseline data would be necessary and that any preparatory work that needs to be done to collect the data must therefore be carried out in the next three months. Unless we have an effective monitoring system in place, we will have no idea whether the objective of the Bill to reduce crime and disorder is being realised.
The system has to allow comparisons to be made between local authority areas so that any changes in the parameters that are measured can be compared with the corresponding number of on licences or, better still, with the total capacity of on licences in each area to see whether there is a relationship between them. If Ministers think that that is not the way the impact of the new regime should be evaluated, they should explain the alternative and let us get expert statistical advice on the exercise. Is it because the Department of Health, the DCMS and the Home Office all have a finger in the pie that it is apparently so difficult to reach a decision on how the assessment is to be conducted or is there some other reason for the delay in announcing how it will be done? Are the Government paying lip service to the idea of monitoring, while trying to avoid an objective test that would demonstrate a link between the Act and a greater level of alcohol harm?
Complaints have already been made in another place about the inordinate delay in producing this final version of the guidance. From Third Reading in this House, it took them 12 months to make a number of amendments. I suspect that at least part of the dawdling was intended to see that the second appointed day would not be until after the next general election. Any ill effects of the Act would not be felt until after the Government were safely back in office, as they would see it. It could not have been that they were waiting for the alcohol harm reduction strategy, to which the Minister referred, because that was not published until after the guidance. Nor could it be that the paragraphs on cumulative impact, which the Minister also mentioned and a problem much discussed in both Houses, took all that time to formulate.
I am glad to see that local residents are now to be consulted on whether a concentration of licensed premises in any area is nearing the point at which it would have an impact on one or other of the licensing objectives and that local authorities are to be given the freedom to consult anyone they choose in coming to a decision on cumulative impact. In paragraph 3.18, which lists the steps to be followed in deciding to adopt a special policy on cumulative impact, it is now "concern about crime and disorder" without the adjective "significant" that has to be identified.
As the Minister explained, if there is a special policy, under paragraph 3.19, it is now open to responsible authorities, including the police and other interested parties, to make written representations maintaining that

237
it is necessary to refuse applications for the prevention of crime and disorder and referring to information that had been before the licensing authority when it developed its statement of licensing policy.
That appears to imply that if more up-to-date information becomes available, it cannot be cited in the representations. As the Minister explained, in the area to which the special policy applies, there is a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences will normally be refused unless the applicant can demonstrate that the operation of the premises to which the application refers will not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced. It would be absurd if the interested party making the representation was denied the opportunity of presenting current evidence on crime and disorder and had to rely on figures that may relate to events long ago when the original statement was made.
The guidance states that extended licensing hours can be expected to reduce conflict, disorder and antisocial behaviour. Again, we heard that from the Minister in his introductory speech. That is a statement of opinion with which most people strenuously disagree, and it flies in the face of common-sense. In the old days when everyone left the pubs at the same time, anti-social behaviour tended to be concentrated in the hour immediately after closing time. But now that people can drink until 2 a.m. in most cities, there are drunks on the streets for hours on end, creating mayhem and tying up enormous resources of police, ambulance and accident and emergency manpower.
What will happen if the licensees of vertical drink factories decide to open until 4 a.m. or 6 a.m.? Disorder will be extended for another two or four hours, as the police fully expect and have warned will happen. For local authorities faced with the additional costs of restoring the streets after the nightly deluge of vomit and urine in an ever-diminishing time slot before the daytime economy kicks in, and with no chance of recovering those costs, that will be one more headache on which the guidance is completely silent.
For the country at large, this will be a catastrophe. Future generations will look back on our failure to stop the epidemic of alcohol harm as another example to be added to those in Barbara Tuchman's March of Folly of the impotence of reason in the face of greed, selfish ambition and moral cowardice.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I rise to support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. In the light of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I am reluctant to declare an interest as a non-executive director of Britain's largest regional brewer and an operator of 1,500 pubs, of which 1,000 are tenanted and 500 are managed.
The Minister will recall our debates in Committee about the costs of the scheme. They were lengthy, detailed, and it was obvious that there was a great deal of concern both among local authorities and in the industry about what those charges would be. I find it extraordinary and
238
ingenuous even—not a word that I would normally apply to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—that he thinks he could come as far as this in the process of implementing the new licensing strategy without having provided fresh guidance on what the fees are likely to be, where they are to fall and how they are to be paid.
There is now a clear view that the fees should be cost neutral so far as local authorities are concerned. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding is concerned about whether they will be cost neutral, but that has been stated, and therefore they will fall on the industry. My own brewery is on record as saying that the costs of introduction will be £1 million this year—in our budget that amounts to £600 to £700 per pub; and covers only the introduction, not the cost of running the scheme—and we have yet to be given a clear indication of what the running costs and final implementation costs will be.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that while it is easy to look at the industry as if this is the only charge it bears, the pub industry is a huge tax contributor, in billions charged by the Chancellor. Therefore simply to isolate this element is, I think, unfair and inaccurate.
When the charges fall, they will fall on the industry, the customers, the staff and the shareholders or, in the case of tenanted pubs, the tenant, who is the owner of the pub. It is often forgotten that half the pubs in this country are tenanted, being run by self-employed entrepreneurs, a class that the Government profess they are keen to encourage, but given that it is submerged in red tape, one wonders how deep that commitment is. The tenants are running small businesses which are not always very profitable. Remarks around the House during the debate have concentrated on city centre pubs with high volumes, but there are valuable social outlets in marginally profitable pubs in many communities. They have been affected by the take-home trade and as such have not remained as profitable as they once were.
These people are struggling to build up their businesses. What they want to know is: how much will it cost to be licensed; what forms have to be filled in and how does one get those forms? So far, in neither case is there a sensible answer. To be frank, for the Government to argue that neither of those questions can be addressed until this piece of legislation is passed is, I am afraid, ingenuous.
We must add to that the third element: the appointed day. If we are to have the appointed day in the pre-Christmas period, that coincides with the period of maximum stress and strain for local authorities, as it is for the operators of pubs. That may not have occurred to those in the ivory towers of Whitehall, which only goes to show how out of touch they are with the commercial reality of operating in the leisure industry. The run-up to Christmas is one of the most important periods of the year.
There is too the issue of the interval, the time to complete the so-far unknown processes as that interval becomes increasingly short, especially given that the period the Minister envisages will include the holiday

239
months of July, August and September. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the first appointed day will be put back to 2005, first to allow the smooth introduction of the new legislation—which is in everyone's interest, whatever their views may be and, secondly, to minimise commercial distraction and disruption. The Government have only themselves to blame. The guidance was issued last August with a tight response date of the end of September; they then sat on the guidance for six months. The Government made no effort to re-run the revised guidance past the interested parties and therefore some six months were lost.
My final remarks follow those of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and concern circuses—about which I have no interest to declare. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the noble Lord's questions. The position of circuses and the temporary event licence is important and a number of serious issues have been raised in correspondence that I have received. What will happen, for example, if the venue of the circus has to be changed at the last minute because the farmer does not want his field to be used or the ground has become waterlogged? Would another temporary event licence have to be applied for?
What we feared in Committee and predicted would happen has happened. The Government have got themselves into a terrible muddle; they have failed to understand the practical applications of their legislation. There needs to be a fee structure now; there need to be plans and forms now; and we need enough time to assimilate and complete them calmly. In short, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is right.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I wish to make two points in two minutes. I declare an interest as the chairman of a small hotel company in East Anglia. As we are talking about circuses, I hope that I am wrong in expecting this Act to become one of the greatest legislative circuses of modern times.
Chapter 3, which is the crucial chapter of the draft guidance, deals with statements of licensing policy. Paragraph 3.29, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Watson, deals only with city centre pubs; it refers only to fast food outlets, taxi ranks, and thriving and safe evening and night-time local economies attractive to domestic and international tourism. It is quite bizarre that there is no mention in this crucial chapter of guidance about rural pubs—and there are still, thank the Lord, thousands of rural pubs.
Given that the guidance is still in draft form, will the Minister make up for that and draw into this section the statement which appears only in Annex G relating to the prevention of public nuisance? Under the heading "General", the second paragraph states that the options in relation to the prevention of public nuisance must take account of a range of factors,
"including the nature and style of the venue, the activities being conducted there, the location of the premises and the anticipated clientele".
240
Those are crucial matters. If we have to rely on local authorities operating under paragraph 3.29, which refers to the Government "strongly recommending" the extension of licensing hours, we shall be in a terrible mess.
Secondly, my noble friend Lord Watson said several times that this will provide a field day for lawyers. He is absolutely right. The guidance contains 200 pages; the Act contains 250. It is phenomenally complicated, interlocking with common law rules, statutory rules and definitions galore. There are endless complications. Will the Government undertake to help ordinary citizens? They will be lined up against the big battalions of the breweries which backed the Bill; it will not be an equal combat. Will the Minister contemplate what the Government can reasonably do to help support small groups of local residents? Quite frankly, they will be out of their depth unless they have that support.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, in her foreword the Secretary of State lists areas of vital importance and principal aims. They include:
"the further development within communities of our rich culture of live music, dancing and theatre, both in rural areas and in our towns and cities".
But surely the licensing of public entertainment has wider application than the licensing of alcohol.
The public performance of plays and music by children or public performances where alcohol is not sold are illegal unless licensed. A wide range of private events are now also illegal unless licensed when arranged to raise money for charity.
Could it be that the focus on alcohol has caused these illogical provisions? The Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, for whom I have the greatest respect, says that licensing is necessary for public safety and to protect children. So why should a children's public concert in a school be illegal unless licensed, but exempt if performed in a church?
If licensing is to prevent noise nuisance or disorder, why should a piano in a bar used for an occasional sing-song be illegal unless licensed, but a jukebox or a big match broadcast on big screens with powerful amplification be exempt? Why should a public performance of unamplified music accompanying Morris dancers be exempt, but illegal if there are no dancers?
As we have already heard, another issue of concern is the lack of information about the licence fee schedule. It is a fundamental issue for many licensees and should have been published prior to the guidance, which is full of references to regulations and schedules that do not seem to exist.
9 p.m.
The Musicians Union has had discussions with many local authorities and it is clear that those who recognise that there is a full requirement to encourage live music are not sure how they will fulfil this obligation. It would have been helpful if the guidance could have given examples of the different types of live

241
performance and how they might be promoted, although I am pleased to see that in paragraph 3.47, the impact of licensing on the,
"provision of regulated entertainment, and particularly live music and dancing",
will be carefully monitored.
Despite assurances during discussion on the Bill, there is a feeling, particularly among small venues that benefited from the PEL two-in-a-bar exemption, that they will have to submit to onerous licensing requirements under the new regime and that the guidance does not go far enough in reassuring them that this is not the case.
Finally, I have heard from the City of Westminster, which says that,
"our view remains that the Guidance would be liable to be quashed by a Court if published in its present form",
and that it,
"will leave local authorities ill equipped to manage the escalating problems of drunken crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour that blight our town centres".
I look forward to the Minister's answers. There are so many unanswered questions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am a sentimental chap, and I love to hear these arguments all over again. It brings back those happy days of the passage of the Licensing Bill. We have not had very many Committee or Report stage speeches, but we have had Second Reading speeches for the original Licensing Bill. Occasionally—and I am grateful for this—flashes of sun came through the clouds and we had a discussion about the guidance before the House tonight. I shall try to respond to the points which have been made about the guidance but I will, I hope, be forgiven if I do not respond to all the points made about the original Bill, which cannot—such is the power of Parliament—be amended by statutory guidance.
I shall deal in order with the issues raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, raised a matter which was echoed by a number of other noble Lords about the first appointed day. The first appointed day—the beginning of the transition period—is not a statutory requirement and never has been. We have suggested that the minimum period should be six months, but we have never suggested that the maximum period should be six months.
We have listened very carefully, and I have been listening very carefully this evening, to the representations made. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said about the dangers of the beginning of a transition period, with applications due in, being in the course of the busy Christmas period. I sympathise with that and understand. As I said in my opening remarks, the Secretary of State will take all these representations into account, and I am sure that she will be sympathetic, in the light of what has been said.
Regarding the period before the first appointed day, I have been asked when we are to publish the fee structure. The answer is that given by Richard Caborn
242
in the Commons—in the not-too-distant future. However, that has to be in the form of draft regulations and draft regulations have to be the subject of consultation, for which a sufficient period has to be allowed. All we can usefully say in response to the question is what I said earlier: we shall publish the draft regulations, including the fee structure; we will conduct the consultation, respond to it and make final decisions in good time before the appointed day. There is no reason why anyone should suffer from that. If that puts back the appointed day, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and others will no doubt he happy.
The noble Lords, Lord Redesdale, Lord Jenkin and Lord Hodgson, and others asked about fees and our undertaking that local authorities will not be out of pocket. I repeat the reassurance given by Nick Raynsford that they will not be. I perfectly understand that local authorities are incurring up-front costs, because they are acting before the fee structure has been settled and before they are able to charge fees. However, it follows from that, given our undertaking that they will not be out of pocket, that they will recoup those up-front costs when the transition period starts. I give that undertaking as well.
I was asked what would happen if a council had a deficit and how it would be affected by capping. The whole process of setting licensing fees is intended to be without cost to the local authority. Therefore, the authority cannot be affected by any capping on its other expenditure which it has to meet from its own resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me about circuses. I had already indicated that because circuses were not included in the original Bill, there was no exemption for them. It is not possible to introduce an exemption which would amend the original Bill in guidance of this kind, but I shall make two points to the noble Lord about that. First, the likely fee to circuses for obtaining licences for the sites at which they are going to perform is, at our best estimate, 2.5p per ticket. It is not a large amount. I admit that there are administrative costs on top of that. Secondly, the noble Lord asked for a wide remit for local authorities to make it as easy as possible for circuses and I can certainly assure him of that. Local authorities that like to accommodate circuses—and there are many—are already starting to make provision for licences to be available for circuses in advance, so that some of the inevitable costs of licensing are met.
However, even if it were legally possible, it would not be right for us to exempt circuses. Imagine what would happen if there were a fire in the circus tent and children were killed. Imagine what would happen if there were a collapse of stands in a tent or if a performer fell. Those are public safety issues and licences are entirely appropriate for that purpose.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of live music. I am very sympathetic to their views. I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said about the social and cultural value of live music.
If we look closely at the guidance, we will see changes which I would have wished to make to the Bill if it been entirely up to me. I invite noble Lords to look

243
at paragraph 5.18 and other paragraphs about the definitions of live and incidental music. For the first time, the issue of the volume of the music is introduced into the guidance. I wish that we had done that in the Bill, but we did not. But it is right that for the protection both of musicians and those living near the place where the music is performed there should be reference to the decibel count, as well as to the issue of whether the music is live, recorded, incidental or central—if that is the opposite of incidental. These are steps forward from the provisions of the Bill and are well worth while.
I move to the other points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I ought not to respond to her central point, as it relates to the fundamental point of the Bill—her assumption that we shall be promoting 24-hour drinking, which itself will encourage disorder. I simply cannot accept that assumption. The view of those who advised the Government in introducing the Bill—and the view of the police in particular—was that artificial licensing hours, particularly with a crunch time of eleven o'clock and another crunch time in city centres of two o'clock, encourage rather than discourage binge drinking.
I have heard a lot about the "Panorama" programme and I saw it, but I must remind the House that it was about existing licensing laws, not about the regime that will be brought in by this Bill. I simply cannot accept the assumptions that have been made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who made a very dramatic speech. When I hear words such as "greed", "selfish", "ambition" and "moral cowardice", I am prepared to take it on the chin. However, I do think that he should examine his evidence more carefully. When all-day drinking was introduced into this country in 1988, exactly the same things that the noble Lord is now saying were said about what would happen as a result. What actually happened was that, in each of the five years following 1988, alcohol consumption fell. Let us see what happens as a result of the provisions—but it cannot be taken for granted that the noble Lord's judgment about the effect of the Bill is based on a sound observation of society as I understand it.
The point was raised about golf clubs. I thought we had got rid of that point—it really is a nonsense, although I enjoyed the Conservative research department's piece of paper on it. Guests in those clubs will be allowed to drink, provided that the club frames it rules so that they can be allowed to drink. Guests are not the same as associate members, who are members of other golf clubs. They are not the same as guests introduced by members; one does not have to be signed in by a member to be a guest. If the rules of the golf club say so, a club can accept guests who pay for a round of golf and have a drink afterwards. It is as simple as that—and that is what we shall say to the associations of golf clubs when we meet them tomorrow.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, will not like what I have said, but he is making the same error as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He is assuming that all sorts of dreadful things will happen as a result of what are—let us face it—local decisions about what licensing hours and licensing conditions could be. We have come a long way from the Liberal Party of my
244
youth, which used to be in favour of local decisions about these things—local democratic decisions by local authorities. The noble Lord is now saying that government should lay down the law to local authorities and forbid authorities such as his Richmond Borough Council from making the kind of decisions that they will be called on to make.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, with great respect to the Minister, I was not saying that. I was saying that councils are going to find themselves in a David and Goliath situation. The Minister would do well to be realistic about that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, who is the David and who is the Goliath? Is the council the David and are the breweries the Goliath? Tell that to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson!
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I think he knows.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I enjoyed the "Panorama" programme, but it was not exactly to that effect.
I believe that I have responded to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and given him the assurance that he seeks that the councils will not be out of pocket. We understand that they are out of pocket now, but that they will recover the money for transition periods. The noble Lord made a particular point about what might happen with each individual local authority, which he may want to raise with me. Or perhaps he does not.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I do not. I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said about recouping the costs that local authorities have already incurred, but that has not actually been the burden of their complaint, although it is part of it. Their complaint is that the level of charges that have so far been indicated will not cover, on a continuing basis, the costs that they are going to incur. I hope that the Minister can give an undertaking that these will be reviewed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have just done so. It is our intention that the charges that we set will recover the costs. If necessary and at whatever interval, they will be reviewed. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for intervening and allowing me to turn off my pager. The noble Lord asked me to look at an alternative basis of charges produced by some local authorities. If he will give me further details of that, I shall be glad to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in a very constructive contribution, asked for a debate on the alcohol harm strategy together with, I would have thought, the wider implications of this legislation, although we cannot go back on the provisions of the Bill. That is, of course, a matter for the usual channels, but I would be very happy to see Cross-Bench time found for such a debate.

245
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made other points from those to which I have responded. His main point was about the nature of the assessment that will be made. He made some useful suggestions about accident and emergency attendances, statistics on offences of violence near premises, fire deaths and so on. I am grateful for them. In DCMS, we are talking actively with the Home Office, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of Health about assessment. We are planning to use the British Crime Survey and the General Household Survey, which give some of the answers for which he is looking, but we are also concerned with the cultural impact. Issues like the cultural impact of live music, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, are part of the assessment that we will be making.
I hope that I have responded to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. His points were about the introduction costs and the running costs. They are legitimate points and will be taken into account in the assessment of the fee structure. When he called me ingenuous, I rather think that he meant to accuse me of being disingenuous. There you are, you cannot have everything.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred to paragraph 3.29 on public nuisance. I must say that he ought to have read a bit further because, in addition to that, in the definition of public nuisance in paragraph 7.40, he will find wise words describing the criterion of,
"The reduction of the living and working amenity and environment of interested parties (as defined in the 2003 Act) in the vicinity of licensed premises".
Why are they wise? They are wise because they are the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, which have found their way into the guidance.
I am sorry that I cannot respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. I enjoyed hearing them again. I love the Musicians' Union's representations. I shall write to him about it, why not?
Finally, I want to come back to the issue of fee levels and the issue of the prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. We are considering the material that has been provided by the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government. We prolonged the period of consultation to allow everybody time to build their case, and we are grateful for the assistance that we have been given. I have repeated many times now the public assurance that the fee levels we will set will allow licensing authorities to cover their costs. We have said that at the end of the transition period there will be not just a review but an independent review of the fee levels, and they can be revised upwards or downwards, as necessary. We are not neglecting any of this material.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, on the question that I raised with the Minister about giving assistance
246
to individual parties that are interested in these decisions, will he say whether the Government would contemplate trying to help?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure to what type of party the noble Lord is referring. I think that I had better read carefully what he said on that.
I have tried hard not to miss any significant points made in debate. I hope that I have addressed in particular the issues raised in the prayer. I commend the draft guidance to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and Guidance to Police Officers on the Operation of Closure Powers in Part 8 of the Licensing Act 2003
9.19 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale rose to move, That this House regrets Her Majesty's Government's decision to lay the draft guidance on 23 March, before they have laid orders under Sections 55, 92, 100, 110 and 133 of and Schedule 8 to the Licensing Act 2003, which set out the level of fees which applicants for licences will be required to pay licensing authorities.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, much as I am tempted to launch into what the noble Lord would describe as a Second Reading speech, raising many of the points he raised, I feel that there are certain Members of the House who are not as interested in these debates as others and believe that I might suffer some displeasure. So I can only say that although the Minister's arguments were, as always, extremely emollient and persuasive, he still could not make a silken purse out of a pig's ear, an analogy which we believe is reflected in some aspects of this legislation.
In speaking to the very issue of the fee structure the Minister used the phrase, "the not-too-distant future". That leads me to press the Motion standing in my name. I should therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
9.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 71.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Colwyn, L.

Alderdice, L.

Dholakia, L.

Avebury, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Barker, B.

Garden, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Geddes, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hamwee, B.

Buscombe, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

247

Hooper, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Jopling, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Kingsland, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Lindsay, E.

Redesdale, L. [Teller]

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Seccombe, B.

McNally, L.

Selborne, E.

Maddock, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Marlesford, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Tordoff, L.

Monson, L.

Vinson, L.

Montrose, D.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Noakes, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Northbrook, L.

Wilcox, B.

Northover, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Andrews, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bach, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brennan, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bridges, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brookman, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jones, L.

Burlison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Layard, L.

Carter, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Chan, L.

Lipsey, L.

Chandos, V.

Lockwood, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Crawley, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Pitkeathley, B.

Desai, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dixon, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dubs, L.

Rooker, L.

Elder, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Simon, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Filkin, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Triesman, L.

Gale, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gavron, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Whitty, L.

Golding, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Higher Education Bill
9.32 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 27.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, Amendment No. 22 has been spoken to already with Amendment No. 21.
Noble Lords: De-grouped!
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert—
"(4) In order to ensure that student fees paid to relevant institutions are additional to, and not in replacement of, public funding—

(a) the Higher Education Funding Council for England ("HEFCE") shall annually determine and make public the amount of direct public funding made available per home or EU undergraduate admitted to courses in each category at Higher Education Institution ("HEI") in England;

(b) in the event of a decline in the real value of any of these amounts, as measured by an index of HEI costs, HEFCE shall take steps to reduce the total number of publicly funded home and EU undergraduates on courses in the relevant category, in order to maintain the unit of resource per home or EU undergraduate for courses in each category;

(c) the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales ("HEFCW") shall annually determine and make public the amount of direct public funding made available per home or EU undergraduate admitted to courses in each category at HEIs in England;

(d) in the event of a decline in the real value of any of these amounts, as measured by an index of HEI costs, HEFCW shall take steps to reduce the total number of publicly funded home and EU undergraduates on courses in the relevant category in order to maintain the unit of resource per home or EU undergraduate for courses in each category."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have not spoken to the amendment already. I spoke to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. As other noble Lords were already, by anticipation, speaking to Amendment No. 22, I indicated that I was not then speaking to it, but I shall do so now. The amendment has an error in the printed version, for which I apologise. In its proposed new paragraph (c), the last word should not be "England" but "Wales"; Wales should have the last word.
The point of Amendment No. 22 is quite straightforward. It is designed to achieve a good part of the aims of Amendment No. 21, without the difficulty of setting a commitment to additionality in the Bill. Unfortunately, that straightforward aim requires a certain complexity of drafting, and I am not sure that I have everything technically right. However, I shall outline the proposal.
At present, the funding for teaching costs at universities in England and Wales is set at four levels depending on the category of the course. Medical courses receive the highest funding; courses with heavy amounts of laboratory work are then funded at a higher rate than courses with a small amount of it; those in turn receive more than those with no laboratory work. The basic unit of resource for teaching is set at those four levels.
The amendment requires that, in the event that the real value of those funding levels, as measured by an index of higher education institution costs, cannot be

249
maintained, the number of places rather than the support per student would be reduced. This would maintain the real value of funding per student on each category of course, but without committing the present or any future government to additionality.
It is only realistic to accept that we must cut our coat according to our cloth. In the event that public funding per student on a given category of course cannot be maintained, there is only one choice—cutting the unit of resource for students on that category of course, or cutting the number of funded places. The universities have been through long years in which the former salami slicing policy has been followed.
We owe it to future students, who will be paying substantially for their degrees, to make sure that they are not short-changed by further salami slicing. We owe it to universities not to encroach on their autonomy, and the amendment leaves it open to them to accept additional home or EU students for whom they receive no public funding—as is the case at present. Realistically, it will seldom be possible for universities to admit unfunded home or EU students. Nevertheless, their autonomy to do so is not reduced by the amendment.
The amendment is couched in terms of the unit of resource for each category of course in order to remove any incentives for universities to compensate for a declining average unit of resource by shifting their intake away from more expensive laboratory-based courses to other cheaper courses.
The only argument that I can identify against the amendment is that it might take longer to raise the level of participation at first degree level to some notional figure—I pluck it out of the air—say, 50 per cent of the age group. If we want the real thing—serious undergraduate education—we should prefer a sober and, it is to be hoped, temporary reduction in student numbers on specific categories of course at times of economic difficulty. That would be preferable to an unfunded race towards a mesmerising target. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, if only we had had the effects of the amendment five, 10 or 15 years ago, we would certainly not be in the disastrous situation that we are in now. This is a clear-sighted and well-conceived amendment, like its predecessor. All or, certainly, most of us favour an increase in the numbers of students in higher education, but not if that means that the provision for higher education declines significantly in quality and declines significantly in resource, as has happened in recent years.
Therefore, I warmly support the amendment, which powerfully gets to the heart of the issues that we are addressing and would make the Government, if it was accepted or, more likely, voted for by the House, recognise that if one sets a high target that is fine, but one has to meet the commitments that will underwrite
250
such a high target. If we had the chance to re-write the amendment, in line 4 of paragraph (b), where it says that we would,
"take steps to reduce the total number of publicly funded home and EU undergraduates on courses"—
that is, if the ratio is not met—I would be careful to say,
"admitted to courses".
That relates to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. We would not wish to see students who are already embarked on their university courses excluded as a result of the amendment.
The way to proceed, clearly, if the verdict was that unit costs had declined so that the amendment came into effect, would be to reduce the admissions to such courses in a future year. No one would wish to see students who had already embarked on their university careers suddenly excluded by a procrustean application of the amendment. I am sure that that is the intention of the noble Baroness; it certainly was my intention when I put my name to the amendment. I am sure that that is the light in which the amendment should be read, so I commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, on her ingenuity. Earlier, I did not move Amendment No. 4, which concerned the issue that we discussed at length in Committee. In order to make progress, I felt that perhaps we should not take time over it again, particularly in view of the amendment that we are discussing now. This amendment provides an ingenious way of ensuring that governments will the resources for the rhetoric of their policy statements.
I am very disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is not in her place. I resisted the temptation to respond to her comments about additionality because I was conscious that we wanted to move to a vote. But it is a fact that, since 1997, funding per student provided by the Government has fallen by approximately 10 per cent. It is also a fact that the total amount of money each year has been increasing, but that has been the case since 1979 and not only since 1997. However, funding per student has been lower than in any of the 18 years under the previous government.
I raise those matters not to make a party political point but to highlight the fact that it is not enough to say that participation should go up without willing the funds. I believe that this amendment is devilishly clever and it should be supported. It may give the Treasury less cause for concern than the previous amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
I believe that, with the two amendments, should the House decide to approve this one, we have been really helpful to the Minister in pressing this case. She will be able to talk to her colleagues in the Treasury, and I imagine that any Secretary of State would be delighted to have an amendment of this kind included in legislation because it would be a guarantee that the declared policy of the Government to meet their target would be followed by appropriate funding and, were

251
the funding not there, it would be transparent for all to see. Therefore, I very much support the amendment and, should the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, decide to press it at any stage in our proceedings, I shall certainly join her in the Lobbies.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I am also very happy warmly to support the amendment. Two or three key words that have echoed around the Chamber in our debates are what underwrite the amendment. One is additionality; one is transparency; and the other is the connection between means and ends. Each of those is included in this very subtle and clever amendment.
I support the amendment because, if funding for teaching is reduced and this amendment is agreed to, it will be clear that there will be consequences for public policy and for government statement. The Government will understand fully the implications of what they do, and that is good for good government. Taxpayers will understand why universities must be supported: they are not a bottomless pit of energy and talent that can be milked and milked. Students, their parents and sponsors will understand why, in the current situation, fees are necessary and they will see what they get for those fees. Finally, also in terms of transparency, universities will know what is expected of them, they will know what the resource is and they will be able to make proper plans over a foreseeable future.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I spoke to the previous amendment and shall speak to this one very briefly. I definitely support this amendment. Everything has already been said about its clarity, the fact that there is a clear agenda to follow and the very detailed way in which the unit of resource and the other methods by which it is to be measured have been spelt out. Therefore, I hope that these two amendments will be taken very seriously, and no doubt we shall return to them.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches have some reservations about the amendment. In particular, while we recognise how clever it is, we have reservations about the degree to which it picks up what at one time was Conservative policy on these issues—that is, that one should hold the funding and cut the number of students. We on these Benches are with the Government in believing that we need more students. We obviously need more money and more resources. I recognise that the amendment refers to unit funding per student, and we are trying to use that as a lever. I cannot put my finger on precisely why I have difficulties with it, but I have difficulties about that issue. Therefore, I am unhappy about it as it stands.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I entirely support the thrust and the object of the amendment. I admire very much the careful wording of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill. My reservation is slightly different. I am not entirely sure what steps HEFCE
252
and HEFCW could take to reduce the number of home or EU undergraduate students. If universities choose to take in more students unfunded, thereby reducing the unit of resource for each student, I do not see how HEFCE can stop them. In the past we have had many examples of universities continuing to admit students despite the fact that the funding has already been capped. Although I would love to see this amendment succeed, it could be extremely difficult to lay such a duty on HEFCE because the number of students in higher education is the result of a host of individual decisions taken by universities, departments and students.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, when debating the previous amendment I said that I would be willing to support this amendment as an alternative. I want to make a few points. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, spoke with knowledge and feeling about days gone by when universities were encouraged to expand at marginal cost and the former polytechnics did so with a will. I am not sure how one can constrain the enthusiasm of various universities to do what they believe best for their communities. That needs further thought. The noble Baroness said that she would wish to give it some further thought. She thought about the possibility of making explicit the fact that this relates to funding for teaching rather than to funding in general.
We have already heard that work is being undertaken on a definition of user funding, which would be relevant. There may be five categories, as I believe that it has been decided that for foundation courses, in whatever subject, there is a 10 per cent premium. As the Government plan that most of the expansion should be in foundation courses, it may be relevant for the noble Baroness to consider that. I believe that this is worth further consideration by this House.
Lord Winston: My Lords, one problem that. I have with this excellent and thoughtful amendment is the consideration to which I referred at Second Reading: by that kind of approach, those universities that can may increase the amount of overseas students who come from outside the EU. I believe that our universities should primarily educate our own community. It worries me to think that there may be increasing pressure not to do that, and in the long term that would be to the detriment of our society. It is very good to have overseas students from far-flung parts of the world, as we do in my university, Imperial College, but that is not ideal for Britain as a whole.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I too agree with the words used about the amendment of the noble Baroness: the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said "ingenious" and "devilishly clever" and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said "clever". I hope she does not mind me pouring more accolades on her. However, she will not be surprised that I am not able to support the amendment.
I have two general points to make. When I reflect on the different stages of any debate in your Lordships' House, I am interested to see how themes return and how tremors carry throughout the House. I have

253
noticed two themes: top-slicing and constraining the freedom of universities. At various points today I have tried to position myself and the Government by saying, "I think it is wrong to keep top slicing and I think it is wrong to constrain universities". That has not always done me a lot of good today, but I say to those in the university sector that that is what I am seeking in what I do. In later amendments—not for today's debate—I hope that noble Lords will see further evidence of that.
It is very important, at least for me, that we look at all our evidence in that context. That is really where I start with the amendment. A number of noble Lords have said that the amendment would require HEFCE to behave in a very centralist way. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said how difficult it would be and how one would in effect constrain universities in terms of numbers. The only way that that would be conceivable would be by reducing flexibility around individual institutions.
Another theme that I have not used today but one which those representing universities will know well is the increase of bureaucracy, which is something that certainly the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, would not wish to see. The funding allocation for teaching students would have to change. It would have to become less flexible. Higher education institutions would lose the scope to vary student numbers within their tolerance bands, which we described earlier.
So I can very straightforwardly say to the noble Baroness that on that basis, although I can understand the sentiments behind the amendment—and I do and have always appreciated what noble Lords are seeking to achieve—I do not believe that it is appropriate for us to accept it. It would change the way in which the relationship between HEFCE and the institutions is formed and founded in a way that would be negative for the institutions. I understand, as I say, why the noble Baroness raises this issue.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that I very deliberately, as I think he appreciates, have not got into the banter of it—I have left it to my noble friend Lady Blackstone. We could spend all day on this. I am quite clear on the position the Government hold. What I will say is that the unit funding will rise by 7 per cent in real terms—I can say that categorically—between 2002–03 and 2005–06. It is the measure of commitment of this Government.
I understand that noble Lords seek as much commitment as they can possibly get. I completely appreciate that. But the Government's commitment is in a sense to put our money where my talk is. That commitment is absolute. So we can go on over the past. I am trying to think of a fishing analogy for the noble
254
Lord. I cannot think of one because I do not know anything about fishing. None the less, I think I can be very clear about the commitment.
For me today's scenes have been very important. The particular scene about the rights of institutions and the desire of institutions, both academically and in other ways, to operate in that way would not be achieved by the amendment. On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I thank the Minister for some very clarifying remarks, and other noble Lords who have commented on this amendment. The amendment is less ambitious than the noble Baroness suggested.
We have to remember that at present undergraduate numbers are set for universities. Many noble Lords will know of the interesting acronym BUNs—basic undergraduate numbers—and that universities are fined both for under-recruiting and over-recruiting. In this situation it is hardly an advance in red tape to propose that numbers be cut by HEFCE or HEFCW in order to maintain unit levels of funding. The context in which one must look at this is that these matters are controlled.
There was a time, to which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, referred, when there was a great deal of incentivising of recruiting students who were at marginal cost—the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, also referred to them—for whom no funding was provided. One always hoped that in the following year numbers would be made up and suddenly the students whom one had admitted on an unfunded basis would turn out to be funded students. Those days have passed. We do not have that expectation now. That seems to be the context in which one might look at the Bill. Those things are already controlled.
So, for me, it is simply a matter of means-ends reasoning. If we will the ends, we will the means. I am with noble Lords who think that we should not reduce the number we take into universities. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that that is not the intention; it is that each student whom we admit should be properly funded. Universities, should they find some source of funding, should have the autonomy to admit additional students, but that is not the most likely future.
I shall study very closely what noble Lords have said, reflect upon it and perhaps table an amendment at Third Reading. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before ten o'clock.

  Palestinian Aid
  Palestinian Aid
  Former Diplomats (Open Letter)
  Former Diplomats (Open Letter)
  Sentencing: Licence Period
  Sentencing: Licence Period
  Fire and Rescue Service: Charging
  Fire and Rescue Service: Charging
  Iraq: Prisoners
  Iraq: Prisoners
  Iraq: Ministerial Accountability
  Iraq: Ministerial Accountability
  Royal Navy: MK251 Active Decoy Round
  Royal Navy: MK251 Active Decoy Round
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Airfield Support Services Project
  Airfield Support Services Project
  Defence Equipment: UK and US Trade
  Defence Equipment: UK and US Trade
  British Grand Prix
  British Grand Prix
  EU Duty Rates
  EU Duty Rates
  NHS Efficiency Figures
  NHS Efficiency Figures
  Osteoporosis
  Osteoporosis
  Broadband: Rural Access
  Broadband: Rural Access

  Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates Agency: Quinquennial Review
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  Stage two of the Quinquennial Review for the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates Agency has been completed. The report has been made available in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Northern Ireland Assembly's Libraries and on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's website.

  The conclusion of the stage one report, published on 4 June 2003, was that the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates Agency should remain in being as an agency.

  Stage two examined how the agency operated and looked at the potential for improving the agency's future performance. The consultants invited views from a range of respondents, including the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA), HPSS boards trusts and agencies and departmental staff. Their report makes recommendations to improve the agency's effectiveness and efficiency.

  The report's overall conclusion is that much has already been done to address areas for improvement identified in the stage one report. The report recommends, however, more: monitoring of compliance with policy standards; consultation engagement in formulating and monitoring standards; practically oriented advice to the department which can influence capital plans; early engagement with the department on estate—related policy issues with wider implications for capital planning; early involvement of the agency in the development and approval of capital plans and business cases; involvement in the development of policy which may have capital implications; communication and integration across all parts of the agency.

  Implementation of the report recommendations will improve the effectiveness of the agency and will enhance the agency's ability to contribute to improvements in the quality of care to patients.

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland: Business Plan 2004–05
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.
  WS 4
  I have today published the Probation Board for Northern Ireland's business plan for 2004–05. The plan sets out the board's key objectives and performance targets for the year. Copies of the plan have today been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

  Courts Agency
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
  The Queen has agreed that the new courts agency will be named Her Majesty's Courts Service when it is established in April 2005. The Courts Act 2003 allows the Lord Chancellor to create a new executive agency responsible for the administration of the magistrates' courts and the higher courts.

  D-Day: 60th Anniversary Commemoration
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  I am pleased to update the House on the events planned, both in France and in the United Kingdom, to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of
  D-Day.

  The main events in Normandy on 5 June are the Normandy Veterans' Association Parade and Homage to Field Marshal Montgomery in Colleville-Montgomery; a service held by the 3rd Parachute Brigade at Bavent-le-Mesnil; a tree-planting ceremony at the Royal Naval and Royal Marine Memorial in Ouistreham organised by the RN/RM Landing Craft Association; the inauguration by HRH the Prince of Wales at the Pegasus Museum of a HORSA replica glider; a parachute drop by soldiers of 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment; the inauguration of the British Garden of Remembrance at Caen; a poppy drop to the Royal British Legion's chartered vessel the MV "Van Gogh"; and a symbolic crossing of ships from Portsmouth to Ouistreham. Also travelling with veterans will be the winning school from our nationwide competition who will be collecting experiences from veterans before and after the events.

  On 6 June, there will be a service at Bayeux Cathedral organised by the Calvados Branch of the Royal British Legion; a bi-national ceremony at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery in Bayeux, attended by HM The Queen and President Chirac, a landing craft exhibition on GOLD Beach at Asnelles; the international event on the cliff-top above Arromanches, attended by 17 Heads of State, including a naval review, march past and fly past; the Normandy Veterans' Association Final Parade and March Past in Arromanches, attended by HM The Queen, the Duke of Gloucester, the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and myself, and a commemorative concert at the Abbaye Aux Hommes in Caen.

  Several commemorative events will take place in the United Kingdom, including a full programme organised by the City of Portsmouth during the weekend, and on 6 June a service at the National

  WS 5
  Memorial Arboretum near Lichfield reflecting the event being held at Bayeux Cemetery.

  The Government recognise the huge significance of this anniversary to the D-Day veterans, around 8,000 of whom plan to travel to Normandy to play their part once again. We have experienced very constructive co-operation with the French authorities and the Normandy Veterans' Association. There is an extremely high level of interest in these events and limited space, especially in Arromanches town centre and Bayeux. We are working with the French authorities to alleviate any problems that may occur. Veterans, of course, will be given first priority.

  There are several schemes in place to assist those veterans who wish to return to the areas where they saw active service during the Second World War. As I announced to the House on 9 February, the New Opportunities Fund has made available £10 million of National Lottery funding to help with travel costs. The Home Office has provided free one-year passports to veterans travelling for the 60th anniversary commemorations scheme. P&O Ferries has generously offered a 50 per cent reduction in ferry fares to Normandy.

  The role of other government departments, the Imperial War Museum and the National Lottery means that this important commemoration offers a real opportunity to pass on the baton of remembrance to future generations. A commemorative booklet (the third in a series) is being produced and will be sent to all Members of the House early next week.

  Despite heavy commitments in Iraq and elsewhere, around 1,000 troops will be in Normandy. Our Armed Forces today are proud to be able to offer support to the veterans and their associations of yesterday as they commemorate this important anniversary.

  Department of Defence Mental Health
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  As part of the Ministry of Defence strategy to modernise and improve defence mental health services, I can announce today that the Ministry of Defence has awarded a contract to King's College London, widely recognised as a leader in this field, to establish, in partnership with Defence Medical Services, a Department of Defence Mental Health.
  WS 6
  This department, which will come under the auspices of the Royal College of Defence Medicine, will be based in London as part of the King's College Centre for Military Health Research. It will have a small permanent staff, consisting of a senior lecturer in Military Health Studies, who will be appointed by King's, and a clinical senior lecturer and nurse senior lecturer, who will be Defence Medical Services staff. Administrative support and accommodation will be provided by King's.

  This department will become a centre of excellence for the study of service mental health conditions, enabling us to develop a better understanding of their causes, treatment and prevention. It will greatly enhance the level of training available to our mental health specialists, and provide invaluable support to our newly enhanced community-based teams of mental health specialists.

  Pay and Personnel Agency: Key Targets 2004–05
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The key targets that I have set the chief executive of the Pay and Personnel Agency for 2004–05 are as follows:

  Customer Service and Satisfaction

  Key Target 1: Achieve 99.0 per cent average timeliness and 96.8 per cent average accuracy for salary payments, expenses payments and pension awards.

  Key Target 2: Achieve 90 per cent average responsiveness against key service standards.

  Key Target 3: Improve customer satisfaction index score from 72.6 per cent in 2002–03 to 75 per cent.

  Key Target 4: Achieve Charter Mark accreditation by December 2004.

  Processes

  Key Target 5: Achieve Main Gate approval for the future pay system by September 2004.

  Efficiency

  Key Target 6: Achieve unit costs of no more than: salary payments £10.60; expenses payments £4.50; pension awards £125.00.