Sitting of 14 June 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    National Offender Management Service
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What consultation he has had with the probation service concerning the implications for the (a) terms and conditions and (b) pensions of probation officers of the proposed establishment of the national offender management service. [178150]
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: If he will make a statement on the negotiating arrangements between unions and employers that will be put in place for the national offender management service. [178152]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With the indulgence of the House, before I answer these questions, let me say that the whole House would want to commiserate with the England team but to congratulate the England fans in Portugal on their exemplary behaviour, upholding the good name of our nation and acting as an example of how football supporters should behave. We should, however, send a very clear message to those at home in Croydon, Birmingham, Boston in Lincolnshire and elsewhere who so disgracefully misbehaved last night that we will come down on them like a ton of bricks if such behaviour continues during the rest of Euro 2004.
    We have received more than 600 representations on the establishment of the national offender management service, with 42 specifically in relation to the structure. My ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), my officials and I have had meetings with a wide range of groups, involving Martin Narey and more than 3,000 members of staff, with 18 roadshows across the country. I have personally met representatives of the TUC, the Prison Officers Association and the National Association of Probation Officers. We believe that with the extension of the consultation not only to the end of the month but over the next year, as we develop the new structures, we will be able to achieve consensus and get this right.
    Mr. Prentice: There is clearly a huge amount of consultation going on, but probation officers in my constituency tell me that there are no answers to some very basic questions, and that the Government seem determined to create an internal market, with the aim of driving costs down. Why is it necessary to reorganise the service only three years after the previous reorganisation?
    Mr. Blunkett: It is necessary if we are to put together, not only administratively but functionally, the services that are intended to reduce offending, to protect the public and to ensure that we have fewer people in prison. Putting together the policies, the activities and the delivery of the service by not only the Prison Service and the probation service but voluntary and community partners, and providing the community support that is crucial when people leave prison, means creating the new organisation to do so. We are very mindful of the fears in relation to the probation service. It is worth remembering that we have just put in another £10 million of revenue and £6 million of capital funding to ensure that in the areas affected by last year's changes there is no reduction in service levels. We have more than 800 trainees coming on stream. There were no trainee probation officers at all in 1996–97. The investment and the reorganisation are designed to provide a better service, not a lesser one.
    Mr. Hopkins: Are not present arrangements working very well, and is it not the case that there is really no evidence that change will improve services and make them more effective?
    Mr. Blunkett: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Substantial progress has been made in providing a coherent service across the country in the development of the national probation service since its establishment in 2001, and I am grateful to officials in my Department who have worked so hard with probation officers to achieve that. Everybody knows, however, that we could improve aspects of how we deal with those who are leaving the care of the service, as well as those given community sentences, including the new intensive supervision order, and it would be a very silly politician who stood at the Dispatch Box and thought that we could not substantially improve the provision for those who have offended, and above all the protection to those who seek to be protected precisely from those offenders, by putting services together.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Following a highly critical report from the chief inspector of prisons, the Secretary of State is to close the women's high-security unit at Durham prison, and last weekend there was an even more damning report on Styal prison. With the number of women who have committed suicide in prison increasing by 200 per cent. since 1999, does he recognise the urgency of the need to address the particular problems faced by women in prison, and does he think that NOMS is really the answer?
    Mr. Blunkett: I recognize—with the statistics that the hon. Lady rightly cited, I could hardly fail to—that there is a real challenge. I believe that the offender

    501
    management service has a contribution to make, although it will not resolve the problems. To do that, we need, first, early intervention to prevent those women from getting to the stage at which they are sentenced—and we have fewer women in prison this year than we had this time last year, which is welcome progress. Secondly, we can have specialist facilities. We have just opened new facilities, and will build on those in the light of the closure of the facility at Durham. When I visited Holloway a month ago, I was impressed with the work, but not by the fact that I was told that the same facilities and support were not available out of prison. That is what helps to make the revolving door such a tragedy. I hope that the national offender management service will enable us to move closer to providing for those women when they are not in jail—when they are serving community sentences or are in preventive action, for example—the kind of support that they were receiving in Holloway jail.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that such wide-ranging changes need sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. If it is the intention to abolish the probation boards, which will require legislation, when might that legislation be expected, and how else does he intend to keep the House informed of progress on that significant series of changes to the Prison Service and the probation service?
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I are both keen that we should keep the House informed, precisely because of those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), have been constructively critical, as opposed to simply critical. I welcome that, because if we are to get this right, there is no simple answer. We do not have control of all the wisdom about developing a better service that will put the different elements together in a more coherent and cohesive fashion—so yes, I would give that guarantee. Secondly, we would need legislation for the changes, particularly for structural change, such as changing the boards, and we intend to bring forward a correctional services Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows, as the usual jargon goes; that means as soon as we can.

    Organised Crime
    Mr. George Howarth: What plans he has further to tackle organised crime. [178151]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): On 29 March, the Home Secretary launched the White Paper "One Step Ahead—A 21st Century Strategy to Defeat Organised Crime", which outlines how the Government plan to tackle organised crime with new measures, including the creation of the new serious organised crime agency, more concerted use of existing powers, and the introduction of new powers against organised crime.
    Mr. Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware, as I am, that £24.5 million, which represents 7.7 per cent. of the total, is spent by Merseyside police on dealing with serious
    502
    and organised crime? Does he agree that if all Government agencies, particularly the Inland Revenue, co-operated more fully and effectively in sharing information with the police, and if the magistrates courts operated the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 more effectively, we would stand a far better chance of locking up some of the gangsters?
    Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for his question; as a former Home Office Minister, he knows only too well about the misery that organised crime causes in our communities. What is important is not only what happens nationally and internationally, but what happens locally, when the drugs and the trafficked human beings hit our streets. My hon. Friend is right: part of our endeavour in creating SOCA and considering additional powers is to make things harder for criminals and to convict more of them. To do that, we need to use every power that we have. That involves sharing intelligence and, importantly, not just locking up criminals but taking away the profits of their crimes.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: When does the Minister expect the serious organised crime agency to be up and running, how many personnel is it likely to have, and what relationship will it have with existing police forces? I hope that that relationship will be one of co-operation, and that the agency will not cream off the best of any particular police force, such as the Metropolitan police.
    Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman raises some straightforward and sensible questions. First, we are working to the timetable of 2006, and we are looking at about 5,000 personnel. He is right to say that we need to ensure that SOCA not only brings together the different groups of people who currently work against organised crime, whether those be in the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the part of the Home Office that deals with immigration crime, or Customs and Excise, but focuses on their relationship with local forces. I am pleased to say that in drawing up the White Paper we consulted extensively—but the hon. Gentleman should not forget that there is still time for him, and others, to add their contribution to making this a harder place for organised crime to flourish in.
    David Cairns: My hon. Friend rightly highlights the link between organised crime and drugs trafficking. Given that 95 per cent. of heroin on UK streets originates from one country—Afghanistan—would it not make more sense to redouble our efforts and resources in terms of dealing with this trade at source by doing what we said we would do two and a half years ago, which is to destroy the Afghan poppy trade once and for all?
    Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend has been a particular champion of raising awareness of the importing of heroin, and in particular of Afghanistan's role as a supplier; indeed, he had an Adjournment debate on this very issue just the other week. He will be aware that we have to work on this issue across government—not only with our colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but with those in the Department for International Development. We face a huge task in this

    503
    regard. What do we do with a failed state that has allowed the drugs industry to flourish? We have to tackle these issues on a number of different fronts, and I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I recently met Pakistan's Minister of the Interior to discuss some of them. There is a lot more to be done, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that we will attend to it.
    Mr. David Heath: It is not just a question of failed states abroad, of course. Many of us will welcome any attempt to streamline domestic arrangements for fighting organised crime, not least because it is a motor for crime in many of our communities, and distorts local policing priorities. But in working with the FCO, as she says, is it not key to deal with those eastern European and central Asian countries that are very often the genesis of the organised crime that is plaguing our streets? What support is she giving to the diplomatic missions in those countries in order to make that work more effective?
    Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I am pleased to say that whenever I meet my counterparts in Europeߞboth those within and beyond the European Union—organised crime is discussed regularly, along with the linked issues of drugs and people trafficking, because such issues often come together. By making sure that we are working together across Departments, and through the various projects that we are involved in, we are highlighting a number of areas in which we can give added value. That includes providing help through policing, and sometimes supplying equipment for use in airports and other places to detect drugs. I am happy to send the hon. Gentleman or any other Member a copy of the relevant documents.
    Mr. David Kidney: Does my hon. Friend agree that more work needs to be done in this country to catch, convict and send down for a very long time members of organised gangs of human traffickers? That would be very popular with, and reassuring to, the public, and it would put an end to a huge amount of human misery and suffering.
    Caroline Flint: I have mentioned the issue of human trafficking in answer to various questions. It is a particularly atrocious crime, and the work that we have done with the National Crime Squad through Operation Reflex is producing great results throughout the country. But we need to do more on this issue and to alert the public to the fact that, as my hon. Friend suggests, if they are aware of instances of human beings being used and exploited in their communities, they should pass that information on. When appropriate, we certainly should use that method to bring the attention of the public to this crime, and to the successes—hopefully—of the police.
    Mr. James Paice: Today's baseline assessment shows that all police forces have been graded "fair" or "good" in fighting level 2 crime, while nine forces are graded poor at fighting volume crime. Given that, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), the Minister confirmed that the serious and
    504
    organised crime agency will take 5,000 of our best and most experienced officers out of the system, and that it is expected that 1,500 fewer recruits will be trained this year, can she reassure the House that all our forces will retain sufficient officers to continue to contribute to the fight against organised crime, and to improve on performance in terms of all the crimes that affect our streets?
    Caroline Flint: Of course, there are 11,000 more police officers as a result of this Government's initiatives to support policing, and we rate highly local policing and its impact on our communities. I thought that I had made myself clear: the new organised crime agency brings together police officers, computing and technical experts, Customs and Excise officers and people from the immigration crime side of the Home Office. A collection of individuals who are already working well together in many respects will be brought together under one roof, so that they can have added impact. Those individuals support that measure, but there is a lot to sort out between now and the date on which it starts. The police have also welcomed it. I believe that SOCA will give clarity to how we address these issues and help local police forces to get a better result and better services—through SOCA—in addition to the good services that they already have under the four different agencies.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mrs. Helen Clark: If he will make a statement on the role of the National Asylum Support Service in housing asylum seekers, and on the factors taken into account in making decisions. [178153]
    The Minister for Citiizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): The National Asylum Support Service administers the support provided to asylum seekers. Asylum seekers requiring accommodation will normally be housed in one of the 71 dedicated dispersal areas. In deciding where to provide accommodation, NASS takes into account the availability of suitable accommodation and the offers of accommodation by private sector providers and by local authorities.
    Mrs. Clark: I am grateful for that reply, but is the Minister aware that three weeks ago there was serious violence and unrest in Peterborough between asylum seekers and Asian residents from different Muslim communities? Does he agree that NASS's housing strategy should be extremely alert and vigilant to cohesion issues? Will he go further and guarantee that, from now on, local authorities will be partners in the development of any new strategy rather than sitting on the sideline and having to pick up the pieces afterwards?
    Mr. Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and I pay tribute to her for her consistent and consistently constructive work in Parliament to address the concerns of her constituents and the local authority in respect of problems arising from the dispersal of asylum seekers to her constituency. I think that she will be pleased to hear that my information is that, although tensions remain relatively high in the Gladstone area of Peterborough, there have been no further incidents since

    505
    16 May. Officials from the immigration and nationality directorate and the community cohesion unit have held discussions with council officials there in the last few weeks. It is, of course, our intention that local councils are fully engaged in discussions about dispersal to their areas.
    Lady Hermon: Since it is wholly inappropriate to house asylum seekers in Maghaberry prison—a high security prison—in Northern Ireland, will the Minister kindly inform the House of any recent discussions he has had with his former colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, where he is missed, to ensure that such people have proper and adequate housing? There are only a few asylum seekers in Northern Ireland, but they should not be housed in a high security prison. What is the Minister doing to address that serious problem in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and for her observations about my previous post in the Northern Ireland Office—and I must say that I greatly miss it, too. [Interruption.] It is quite possible to be perfectly happy where one is and greatly miss where one was. [Interruption] I sometimes forget that some Opposition Members cannot do two things at any one time, but let us return to the question.
    The hon. Lady asked a very important question about Northern Ireland and I am well aware of the concern among elected community representatives about the necessity of detaining a very small number of failed asylum seekers in Maghaberry prison prior to removal. It is a facility that we would rather not use, but in the absence of other facilities and in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary to detain persons, there is no alternative. I have had no recent discussions with my former colleagues—or, indeed, any of my colleagues—in the Northern Ireland Office on this matter, but I know that officials are in constant touch about the issues to ensure that asylum seekers who are not required to be detained in Northern Ireland are able to find appropriate accommodation.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the significance of the rising tide of unaccompanied refugee children that local authorities have to house, particularly in areas such as mine where there are ports of entry within the borough? Does he understand that in the period 1997 to 2002, the number of unaccompanied refugee children rose from 1,100 to 6,200 and that his Department, according to a written answer of Wednesday 9 June, has no data at all on the accompanied refugee children who came "sans papiers", without passports or identity documents? Will the Home Office get a grip on the situation, please, because it is extremely costly to the boroughs with ports of entry, such as my own of Hillingdon?
    Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for elevating me to the position of Queen's counsel, which unfortunately I do not hold. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman raises a serious and important issue and while I am happy in normal circumstances to exchange banter across the Dispatch Box, that would be inappropriate in these
    506
    circumstances. One of the most disturbing developments in the trafficking of people has been the increase in the number of unaccompanied minors who are being trafficked. My priority is to get to the root of the problem and to prevent those young people from being brought to this country and being abandoned. To achieve that, a degree of co-operation is required from carriers. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report of Operation Paladin, which revealed some of the figures to which he refers and some of the answers to the problem. He rightly identifies the need to able to respond to the requirements of those young people when they arrive in the country and that the true answer to the problem is to stop them being brought here in the first place.

    Alcohol
    Mr. Stephen Pound: To what extent his Department is working with the alcohol industry to deal with the binge drinking culture. [178154]
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): We are working closely with the alcohol industry to tackle binge drinking and the crime and antisocial behaviour it causes. That is a priority area for us and last Friday the police standards unit launched an enforcement drive across the country to try to address it.
    Mr. Pound: There may be some who doubt that I am wholly objective on this subject, but God loves a sinner who repenteth and I hope that the House will be similarly indulgent I thank my hon. Friend for a typically concise, helpful and positive response. In that Las Vegas of drinking that is central Ealing, night after night people move from being verbose to jocose to bellicose to lachrymose, and end up comatose. In the intervening period, they do great damage to themselves and the environment, especially as so many of them are young people not legally entitled to drink. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether her discussions with the industry have included discussing the appalling issue of underage drinking?
    Ms Blears: They certainly have. My hon. Friend asks his question in his usual erudite fashion and he gets his point across effectively. I am delighted to tell him that we are in discussions with the industry not only about under-age drinking. but the whole range of problems caused by binge drinking. In particular, we are concerned about the number of young people who are drinking more, and more often. We have instituted a system of test purchasing, concentrating on off-licences in particular, where there is a real problem. We now have powers to close down premises where young people are being served under age, and we are encouraging the police to use those powers. We have also issued some 13,000 fixed penalty notices for incidents of drunk and disorderly behaviour. We are determined to reclaim our cities and our town centres for the decent, law-abiding majority of citizens.
    Mr. Mark Oaten: With so many of our cities still out of control on Friday and Saturday nights, does the Minister agree that we need more police to deal with drink-related crimes? If football clubs are charged for policing, is there not a strong case for putting a levy on clubs and nightclubs to pay for the policing of city centres? People want police in rural areas, tackling crime, and they resent having to pay for the police to deal with drunks on Friday nights.
    Ms Blears: It is an interesting idea and the hon. Gentleman will know that we are presently promoting the idea of corporate social responsibility, including payments from industry towards solving the whole range of problems in our city centres, including policing costs, transport and taxis to get youngsters home. I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman's late adoption of that approach. He will know that football banning orders have been extremely successful in Portugal, yet his party opposed those orders tooth and nail, so his late conversion to proper, effective action on binge drinking comes as a revelation.
    Linda Gilroy: Will my hon. Friend seek the help of the Chancellor to address the high cost of policing? She will know that in my constituency the costs of policing Union street and the Barbican can be very high. Perhaps she could engage the Chancellor in her discussions with the drinks industry to see whether we could have 1p for a p. In case that is misinterpreted, in terms of alcohol, I mean one penny on a pint, or a dram, for a policeman.
    Ms Blears: We are very well aware of the excellent work done by my hon. Friend with a whole range of partners in her constituency, including the police and the local authority, to try to address these issues. I am sure that she will want to engage the Chancellor personally about her innovative idea. We have had significant extra resources for investment in the police in the last few years, an increase of about 30 per cent. for police services. There is always much more we can do, with police officers and community support officers, to give our communities the reassurance they need, but I have no doubt that in my hon. Friend's area the partnership is working extremely well.
    David Davis: The Minister spoke about consulting with industry, yet the early draft of the report "Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England" included a section by experts that stated explicitly that liberalisation of licensing laws would have a negative impact on society. Why was that section removed before the report was published? Why were the facts suppressed?
    Ms Blears: The facts were not suppressed to any extent at all. There was a draft consultation—the normal way of developing such things. The right hon. Gentleman should know that the changes to the Licensing Act 2003 were supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation. We have given an undertaking that we will closely monitor the effects of the changes under the Act. If there is a necessity to change those provisions we shall not hesitate to do so, but a core principle of the licensing
    508
    provisions is to try to reduce the crime and disorder that is fuelled by alcohol, so right across Government, and with our partners, we shall be looking closely at what happens. We have said that we will review the scheme early in the next Parliament, because we mean to get those issues right; they are complex, which is why it is a matter not just for the Government but for industry, local communities and individuals themselves to try to change the behaviour that is causing so much damage to our communities.
    David Davis: I agree that it is not just a matter for the Government; indeed, the reason that it was suppressed may be explained by one line: it states that relaxing availability increases general harm, whether through more outlets as in Finland, denser outlets as in California or longer hours as in western Australia. The Minister mentioned ACPO. A report from the Metropolitan police said that the 2003 Act would "lead to increased consumption", that
    "public order flash points will occur with increased frequency over a longer period,"
    and that it would
    "favour the black economy and increase disturbance for residents"
    and
    "demand an increased police presence throughout the night".
    As the Minister talked about ACPO and the other submissions made to her, can she publish all that evidence? I agree with her: it is possible to devise a strategy to control the social effects of alcohol abuse, but it will not be achieved if the Government continue their addiction to media manipulation and cover-up.
    Ms Blears: If the right hon. Gentleman had been assiduous in following the development of the alcohol harm reduction strategy that took place over the past 18 months, he would have known that we published all the interim analysis, which runs to hundreds of pages and is on the website. I should welcome his actually reading that evidence and making sure that he is fully appraised of the circumstances. I hope that he is not suggesting prohibition as part of his policy, because there is no problem for the vast majority of people in this country who go out for a drink with their friends and have a good time. As a sensible Government, we are trying to tackle the harm that is caused both through binge drinking and some of the chronic drinking that goes on. We think we have a sensible and balanced approach and I urge the same on the right hon. Gentleman.

    Forensic Science Service
    Colin Burgon: What assessment he has made of trade union proposals for an independent publicly owned forensic science company. [178156]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): Work on an outline business case has recently been completed and resulted in a detailed analysis of the current state of Forensic Science Service business and what is needed to ensure its successful long-term future. FSS trade unions have been invited to contribute details of their proposals to inform

    509
    the work on the outline business case. We understand that further work has been carried out by the trade unions and I would be happy to meet representatives to discuss their recommendations in detail. We have invited the trade unions to take part in a two-day event in July to discuss the outline business case and their alternative proposals
    Colin Burgon: I am happy to hear that reply because I am one of the Labour Members who patiently, over nearly a year, have argued that the Forensic Science Service should stay in the public sector. We were very disturbed to read press reports that Legal and General will finish up buying it for £100 million. The people who work in the Forensic Science Service are committed to the public sector ethos and many Labour Members want that to be retained. As long as the proposals from the union address the questions of the flexibility and innovation that the Government want to see, many of us will argue that the service should stay in the public sector. Although I am no great political theorist, I would have thought it sensible to develop a policy that was not electorally unpopular and did not divide Labour Members.
    Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend is also a colleague in Yorkshire and he has already met me on the train back to Yorkshire to discuss some of these issues. Over the next few months, I hope to have the opportunity to meet him again and to visit as many sites as possible.
    I have just assumed this area of responsibility and I say to my hon. Friend that there are some difficult questions to answer. For example, I understand that just six police forces account for 47 per cent. of revenues to the Forensic Science Service, so there are real issues about police force use of the service and about the implications for the service if any of those police forces go elsewhere. As he will be aware, technology is advancing day by day and we have to keep up with it. I hope that, in our discussions, we can make sure that the Forensic Science Service does not just maintain its high standard, but can respond to the changing needs that are already out there. I hope that we can discuss that and, on that basis, move forward in terms of having a good service. That involves recognising the competition out there and the needs of the customers—primarily police forces and other parts of the criminal justice system—who pay for the service and, importantly, talking to the staff and, I hope, taking them with us.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): My hon. Friend is well aware that we have one of the leading forensic services in the fight against crime and that we sell knowledge and solve crimes across the world for other police forces. Please, please, please do not put at risk an essential service that is independent and not answerable to shareholders. If selling off the service is pursued, we will know that crime is not the first priority—the shareholders will come first. The service is a 24/7 operation that we should not put at risk. While we lead the world, let us not give it up easily.
    Caroline Flint: I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to have the public interest at the heart of whatever we endeavour to do. The issue is about recognising that the Forensic Science Service is a world
    510
    leader and addressing how we sustain its position given the competition, the new demands in terms of policing and the way in which we can detect criminal activity. At the heart of all this is the public interest; it is not about maintaining but sustaining it for the future.

    Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
    Mr. John Lyons: If he will make it his policy to maintain protection for rail workers who witness suicide, as part of the review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. [178157]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided to maintain the current mechanism for compensating railway workers who are affected by suicides on the tracks. He will say more about that later this afternoon.
    Mr. Lyons: I thank my hon. Friend for his very positive response. Everyone will agree that railway workers need to be included in the scheme, as they have been since 1990. There are about 200 suicides a year on the main line network and facing one must be the most horrific physical and psychological experience for any person. I welcome the news.
    Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for his response to my answer. We have listened carefully to the representations made by employers, trade unions and, indeed, hon. Members. We all accept that the circumstances faced by train drivers who witness suicides in the course of their duties are unique. Those drivers deserve our sympathy and support. It is important, therefore, that we do not complicate the system. It will remain as it is.

    Antisocial Behaviour Orders
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on the enforcement of antisocial behaviour orders. [178159]
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): Effective enforcement is essential for antisocial behaviour orders to have any value. Communities must be reassured that the stand that they have taken to give evidence and obtain the order was worth while and antisocial individuals must know that there will be swift and meaningful consequences if they continue with their antisocial behaviour.
    Mr. Luff: After five long years, the antisocial behaviour order system is at last creaking into some kind of life. My constituents in places such as Droitwich Spa are delighted with headlines such as those that I have in my hand about the first two ASBOs that have been issued in Droitwich. However, will not the next problem with the system be that the orders will come to be held in contempt by those to whom they are issued because magistrates have insufficient powers to enforce them and, crucially, because there are not enough secure places to send the young yobs to if they breach the terms of their ASBOs?
    Ms Blears: I know that the hon. Gentleman's communities have suffered from antisocial behaviour for some time—I understand that it has occurred on the Westlands estate and around the Lido. I am delighted that, because the police and his local authority have two antisocial behaviour orders on the ringleaders, as appears on the front page of his newspaper, there was not one incident of antisocial behaviour or youth nuisance during the half-term holiday a couple of weeks ago. Our twin-track approach of tough enforcement and support for young people, including more youth facilities and mobile skate ramps is working in his community, as it is throughout the country.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in north-west industrial towns, back alleys offer an escape route for many people who commit antisocial behaviour? Does she think it wise to encourage schemes of alley gating, which make it more difficult for people to create a nuisance that causes many problems for residents?
    Ms Blears: Indeed, the alley-gating schemes in place throughout the country are some of the most popular things that we have done. We have invested £2.3 million to support communities and I have seen alley gates in Stockton, Plymouth, Preston and my own community of Salford. Once an alley is secure, it is no longer a haven for muggers, robbers and those who attack our communities. In fact, people in many communities have put their garden furniture and hanging baskets into alleys, so many places in our communities have become quite Mediterranean or riviera-like.
    Bob Russell: Does the Minister agree that the enforcement of antisocial behaviour orders is a combined effort by not only local authorities, the police, the courts and other agencies, but local communities? With that in mind, does she agree that the role of the neighbourhood watch movement is vital? Given that that is the case, why are the Government underfunding the National Neighbourhood Watch Association and frustrating its attempts to find outside funding?
    Ms Blears: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the antisocial behaviour powers—perhaps we are hearing a different view from the Liberal Democrat Benches. He is right that the system is about not only what the police and local authorities can do, but what local people can do. That is why I am happy to pay tribute to the fantastic work of local neighbourhood watch schemes and to confirm that we have funded the National Neighbourhood Watch Association over recent years and given it extra support. We are not in a position to provide further funding, but I can tell him that I am happy to meet the organisation to discuss how we may find a way forward. The contribution made by local schemes is vital to our efforts to tackle crime and disorder.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I fully support my hon. Friend's efforts to combat antisocial behaviour by issuing ASBOs. What advice would she give local authorities about cases in which antisocial behaviour involves undertakings or organisations in respect of
    512
    which there is no domestic aspect? People can be aggrieved by problems caused by activities of that sort that have nothing to do with domestic matters.
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Local authorities are increasingly finding innovative ways to use antisocial behaviour powers. Camden local authority recently issued antisocial behaviour orders against big multinational companies that promote pop concerts and put up posters throughout the neighbourhood. Such fly posting degrades the quality of the environment. Our powers can be used just as effectively against businesses as they can against individuals. Wherever there is antisocial behaviour, local authorities and the police should use the powers.
    We have also introduced pilots to deal with graffiti on property belonging to statutory undertakers and water authorities. Again, it is about thinking more creatively about how we can use those powers to be on the side of the decent law-abiding majority of citizens and saying that we mean to tackle antisocial behaviour, wherever it might be.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister accept that although ASBOs are working a bit better now than when they were first introduced—when they were almost non-existent—part of the problem, which arose in a constituency case of mine, is the difficulty of getting as far as a magistrates court? The procedure involved is difficult and complex, and many warnings have to be given. Does she have any proposals to review that procedure?
    Ms Blears: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is out of date. The procedures have been simplified quite dramatically. If he is in touch with his local authority and the police, he will know that they are increasingly using the powers. We have also appointed a team of expert antisocial behaviour prosecutors—one in every region—whose job it is to train other prosecutors how to use the powers, gather the evidence and ensure that cases get to court. The antisocial behaviour prosecutors will also ensure that magistrates are properly keyed in to all the issues. Right along the chain—from gathering the evidence, to encouraging local people to take a stand, to preparing those cases properly and getting them into court, and to making sure that breaches are taken seriously—we have revolutionised the whole of the criminal justice process to be on the side of the decent people in this country, rather than on the side of the perpetrators.

    Immigration
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: What assessment he has made of measures he has taken to control (a) illegal immigration and (b) unfounded asylum claims. [178160]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): The measures taken by the Government to control illegal immigration and unfounded asylum claims are subject to continuous and ongoing review. We have achieved a great deal of success in both those areas over the past year.

    513
    We have introduced a wide range of measures, such as the expansion of UK border controls in France, the rollout of new detection technology in France and Belgium, the expansion of the list of nationals who require direct air transit visas and the widening of the airline liaison officer network abroad. Those measures, among others, have all had a significant impact on both illegal immigration and unfounded asylum claims.
    The impact of the measures is clearly demonstrated by the 65 per cent. fall in clandestine entry in Kent in 2003 compared with 2002 and the 44 per cent. fall in asylum applications in the first quarter of 2004 compared with the same period of 2003.
    Mr. Prosser: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for those figures, which reflect the dramatic downturn in the number of people coming across the channel into my constituency where, he will be pleased to know, we held a successful multicultural festival last weekend to celebrate refugee week. Does he share my frustration that, when asylum figures are high and rising, everyone accepts that as the going rate, but when they are low and falling, as they are now, it is difficult to get that message across so the figures are disputed by everyone, including the media and the Opposition? Is there anything that we can do about that?
    Mr. Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his consistently constructive contribution on the issue, which has been difficult for him and his constituents, as those in Dover have suffered greatly from the abuse of this country's asylum system by organised criminals in particular. I am pleased that the people of Dover can celebrate national refugee week, as other people up and down the country celebrate the diversity of the community in which they now live.
    I also share my hon. Friend's frustration at the tendency not only not to accept good news, but to wallow in bad news, but the fact of the matter is that we are politicians, and that is world we live in. The problem is that other politicians, some of whom are not that far from me, glory in being able to generate such confusion. They do it in a dangerous way—[Interruption.] One of them has just said that I have missed the question, but I have not; I understood it entirely correctly. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), ought to know exactly what I am talking about because he is a perpetrator of such misinformation.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: Last week, we heard some devastating evidence from the Home Office official, Robert Owen, which was supported by many other immigration officers, to the effect that illegal immigration to this country is running at six times the official figure. Given that fact, and given that the Home Secretary himself has said that he has not a clue how many illegal immigrants there are, does the Minister understand why after seven years of this Government the general public have totally lost confidence and trust in their ability to run our asylum and immigration systems with any efficiency?
    Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to comment in a restricted way on Mr. Owen's evidence in the course of a criminal
    514
    case. The comments that I will make are as follows: the case is still ongoing; the gentleman who is sitting to the hon. Gentleman's right, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, who purports to want to be Home Secretary, disqualified himself in my view from ever aspiring to that office because of his public comments on that evidence during the currency of a criminal trial. That is an entirely inappropriate thing for a politician to do. What I will say about Mr. Owen is that my understanding was that he was giving evidence about his experience as an immigration officer when he was doing that job—and that was in 1994.
    Keith Vaz: I thank the Minister for the courtesy and efficiency with which he deals with individual cases raised by hon. Members, which is a breath of fresh air as far as the Home Office is concerned, but is he absolutely certain that the resources that are being given to the immigration and nationality directorate are sufficient to deal with the backlog that still manifests itself, which of course started under the previous Conservative Government? Do we need to allocate more resources or are there enough to deal with this very difficult problem?
    Mr. Browne: I accept my hon. Friend's compliment but not his qualification that that is not characteristic of the way in which my colleagues in the Home Office or, indeed, my predecessors dealt with these issues. I will continue to extend the levels of courtesy that I think are appropriate, to hon. Members across the House and to people outside the House, for as long as I am given the responsibility. I think that 5,000 extra people doing the work is enough, particularly since, as I have said, the number of asylum seekers has reduced significantly. However, there is a long-standing problem of a backlog, which goes back to the beginning of the 1990s when the assault on our asylum and immigration service by organised criminals first began. I am satisfied that the resources and skills are now available to enable us to work our way through that. I ask hon. Members to have patience while we train people to the relevant standard to achieve that.

    Asylum Seekers (Benefits)
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to the oral answer of 10 May 2004, Official Report, column 1, on asylum seekers (benefits), what conveniently available figures he has for the numbers of failed asylum seekers who were destitute and unable to leave the UK immediately for reasons beyond their control who have sought the provision of accommodation under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and if he will make a statement with reference to the case of the constituent of the hon. Member for Linlithgow from the town of Armadale that has been raised with him. [178162]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): Those failed asylum seekers who fit the description provided by the Father of the House in the first part of his question and who have applied for section 4 accommodation will have been offered it. Of those who have been offered section 4 accommodation and accepted it, there are currently around 500.

    515
    My hon. Friend's constituent applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on human rights grounds on 5 February 2002. His application was refused and he lodged an appeal against that decision in August 2003. The refusal decision is being reviewed. If it is maintained, the appeal will then be forwarded to the immigration appellate authority.
    Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Home Office in Croydon for addressing the problem of the constituent referred to in the question, but are there general considerations encapsulated in the rather precise if wordy question on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the Father of the House for his thanks to the immigration and nationality directorate for helping to solve the problem experienced by his constituents, and I shall pass his thanks on to those involved. The people in the IND who work hard to help Members do not always get the thanks that they deserve, even though they sometimes work in difficult circumstances on complicated cases.
    My hon. Friend's supplementary question is, I think, designed to reveal the fact that there is a challenge in the support of people whose application for asylum has failed but who cannot for one reason or another return to their country of origin or to the third-party country from which they travelled to the United Kingdom. If they co-operate fully in arrangements for their return and removal there is an opportunity for them to be supported under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, otherwise, in my view, which is shared by the House and is in the legislation that will shortly come before us, action will be reinforced. It is not fair to ask the taxpayer to support people who, as a result of their own activities, do not return home when they can do so.

    Burglary (Wandsworth)
    Martin Linton: What research he has commissioned on the effectiveness of measures to reduce burglary in Wandsworth. [178163]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): Three projects were funded in Wandsworth as part of phase two of the reducing burglary initiative, which ran from 1999 to 2002. The initiative, including one of the Wandsworth projects, has been evaluated to identify implementation lessons and its findings are due to be published in the summer.
    Martin Linton: The Minister will know that the local police division was commended not only on the biggest reduction in burglaries—19 per cent. last year—but on meeting other targets, including getting car crime down 5 per cent. and street crime down 15 per cent. I am glad that the Home Office is conducting research on crime detection methods to see what works best. Wandsworth demonstrates that it is by targeting repeat offenders and the fast turnaround of forensics, epitomised by the story—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementary question is far too long. Could the Minister at tempt to reply?
    Fiona Mactaggart: I congratulate Wandsworth on its success in reducing burglary, which reflects a national reduction in burglary of 40 per cent. since 1997, and I congratulate the police on that. Wandsworth has received an award for its work, which shows that local police forces working with local communities can tackle the kind of crime that makes people's lives a misery. We are determined to put that at the heart of our strategy to push down crime and reduce burglary by working with the police and local people, and increase the 40 per cent. reduction that we have already achieved over the coming years.

    Guantanamo Bay
    Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on his Department's involvement with the British citizens held at Guantanamo bay. [178165]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): We have sought to maintain a balance between pursuing international terrorists and protecting and defending basic human rights. Our position on the four British nationals detained in Guantanamo bay remains that they should obtain a fair trial in accordance with international standards of justice. The detainees were interviewed by the Security Service as part of the Government's responsibility to protect national security. Those interviews were conducted on a voluntary basis and were undertaken in accordance with accepted international procedures.
    Norman Baker: I thank the Home Secretary and agree with the objective that he set out of a fair trial or release for those UK nationals. However, does he remember answering a written question from me only last week in which he appeared to accept that some detainees questioned by UK intelligence personnel
    "have complained about their treatment in detention" [Official Report, 9 June 2004; Vol. 422, c 427W.]?
    Those complaints were about treatment not dissimilar to that in Abu Ghraib, which contravenes the Geneva conventions. Does he believe that those allegations are justified and is it not time that the Government did more to stand up for British nationals instead of kowtowing to the US?
    Mr. Blunkett: The British Government have made appropriate representations to the United States authorities in relation to all those complaints. As I said a moment ago, interviews were undertaken on a voluntary basis and to the standards that we would expect of our own officials operating in this country.

    Burglary (Vale of York)
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the level of burglaries in the Vale of York in (a) January 1997, (b) January 2000 and (c) January 2004. [178166]
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): Recorded crime figures at local area level are available centrally only for domestic burglary and from the financial year 1999–2000. The Vale of York falls across both Central and Eastern North Yorkshire police force divisions. In these areas combined, there were 3,702 domestic burglaries recorded in 1999–2000, rising to 3,750 in 2001–02. I am delighted to say that in 2002–03 the number decreased to 3,690. Figures for 2003–04 will be published in July.
    Miss McIntosh: Can the Minister explain why the number of burglaries went up and why the number of
    518
    detected and reported burglaries is going up, but the number of successful prosecutions is going down, according to her own figures?
    Ms Blears: As I said in my answer, the number of burglaries went up in 2001–02 and is now coming down. That reflects the national trend, where burglary is down almost 40 per cent. since 1997. Much work is going on to bring offenders to justice and to increase detection. The hon. Lady has recently been pressing me to give her area more community support officers. I am delighted to say that in our third round of funding, more will indeed be available, but if she wants more police officers—there have been 11,000 more under this Government—and more community support officers to tackle burglary, her party will have to pay for them.

G8 Summit
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the G8 summit in the United States, which I attended last week. I thank President Bush for his chairmanship of the summit, and the people of Georgia for hosting it. I have placed copies of the Chairman's summary and summit documents in the House Libraries.
At the outset, I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our condolences to the families of the two British contractors killed in Iraq this morning.
At the G8 summit, we all agreed on the importance of transferring authority in Iraq at the end of the month to a fully sovereign Iraqi Government. We welcomed the formation of the new Iraqi interim Government. The unanimous adoption by the United Nations Security Council of the resolution on Iraq demonstrates the international consensus to support the new Government of Iraq under Prime Minister Alawi and to support the vision of a modern, democratic, federal and stable Iraq.
The new President of Iraq expressed his thanks for the sacrifices made by the coalition forces to free his country from the evils of the Saddam regime. He was absolutely clear that there was no desire among the Iraqi people to go back to the past. He entirely rejected the notion that the people of Iraq were unable to make democracy work or that the insurgents represented anything other than a small minority of Iraqis. He described the reality to us vividly. Those who carry out violent attacks, blowing up water and oil pipelines, leaving of ordinary Iraqis to go without power, are not patriots, he said. They are terrorists whose agenda is to cause chaos. They are determined to stop us succeeding, but we will succeed, with Iraq a better place not just for Iraqis, but for the wider region and the world.
This led on to a discussion of the initiative to help build reform across the broader middle east and north Africa region. We agreed a set of proposals to help bring greater democracy, freedom and stability to the whole of that region, working in support of those in the region who want to make progress towards modernisation and reform. Reform must of course come from within. The G8 responded positively to ideas from regional leaders, most notably at the Arab League summit in Tunis, where Arab leaders expressed their determination
"firmly to establish the basis for democracy"
in the middle east.
We met a number of leaders from the region—from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain,Iraq, Jordan, Yemen and Turkey. We agreed with them a comprehensive and detailed plan of support to give momentum to the initiative. We set out concrete measures to address the illiteracy, poverty and under-development of the region, to make the most of the region's entrepreneurial and cultural traditions on which it could thrive. We established what is called the Forum for the Future, which will bring together Foreign and Economic Ministers from the G8 and countries in the region. The inaugural meeting will be held in the autumn.
We also discussed the middle east peace process. We agreed that the basis for progress is still the road map, which sets out the path to the two-state solution. We
520
agreed that the Quartet should meet in the region before the end of this month, and that it should now come up with a specific set of actions to restore momentum on the road map. These should cover political reform of the Palestinian Administration, a security plan and an economic plan. Taken together, all these various initiatives amount to a vision of a middle east that is no longer a source of instability and extremism, but of increasingly more democratic states which respect different religious faiths and human rights and can live peacefully within the world community.
On the final day of the summit we concentrated on Africa, and leaders from Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Algeria and Uganda joined us. African issues are now a well-established part of the G8 agenda. We agreed a number of new measures. We have to ensure that where there is a conflict in Africa, we have the peacekeeping ability to back up and support a political settlement. So the G8 made a commitment to ensure that up to 75,000 peacekeeping troops will be trained and ready to be deployed on peacekeeping operations by 2010. The UK intends to train, directly or indirectly, some 17,000 African troops in that period.
We discussed the grave humanitarian and political crisis in Sudan, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited last week. The UK is the second largest donor to Sudan, giving £36.5 million this year alone. The G8 pledged assistance in ending the conflict and bringing humanitarian assistance to those in need, and we agreed to work together to help the UN lead the international effort to avert a major humanitarian disaster.
We also agreed a new initiative to extend AIDS vaccine research, confirmed the polio eradication target and agreed on new measures to help to break the vicious cycle of famine and food insecurity in the horn of Africa. The heavily indebted poor countries initiative has given welcome relief from the crushing burden of debt that has held back so many of the poorest countries. We have already agreed some $70 billion of debt relief for 27 countries, 23 of which are in Africa. We reaffirmed our commitment to implement and to finance that initiative fully. We agreed to work with all parties concerned to extend the initiative from the end of this year to the end of 2006. That agreement then opens the door for another 10 countries to benefit from more than $30 billion of debt relief. That will free up vital resources that can be spent on health and education and the eradication of poverty.
This series of initiatives confirms the growing importance of Africa for all of us in the G8. The UK alone will spend some £1 billion in Africa next financial year. A major part of the agenda for our G8 summit next year will be the work of the Commission for Africa that we have established. The commission will report back next spring with a series of agreed recommendations for action, and we will then work with the rest of the G8 to take them forward.
The other major part of the agenda for the UK presidency of the G8 in 2005 will be climate change. We need to make progress with the ratification of Kyoto, but we also need to look beyond Kyoto and its 2012 time frame.

521
We held an extensive discussion of the world economy. We agreed on the need for further structural reforms in our economies to accelerate growth. We discussed the current level of oil prices, notably the recent pledge by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase production.
On trade, there was broad agreement to press ahead with the Doha development round. We called on all parties to take the measures necessary to get the round moving forward. The benefits are clear: substantially reducing trade barriers could boost global income by some $500 billion a year, with most of that going to developing countries.
On non-proliferation, we adopted an action plan that builds on and enhances the existing global nonproliferation regime. We recognised the need to strengthen controls on the transfer of nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technology, and we agreed to have new measures in place before next year's summit.
The G8 was originally created to discuss economic issues. Of course we still do that, but increasingly the focus has moved towards issues of international solidarity. That is because it is clear that in an interdependent world, what blights or enhances one part of the world affects the other parts, too. It is morally right that we extend democracy, cut poverty, remove the causes of conflict and instability, and bring the hope of advancement to all nations; but it is also now clearly in our enlightened self-interest. If global terrorism and the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are the new security threat we face, we recognise that it cannot be defeated by security measures alone. Political freedom and rising prosperity, as much as force of arms, will be our ultimate shield: this year's G8 recognised that reality. We look forward to deepening it under British chairmanship next year.
Mr. Michael Howard: I join the Prime Minister in expressing my condolences and those of all Conservative Members to the families of the two British contractors who were killed in Iraq this morning.
I welcome wholeheartedly the unanimous vote of the Security Council on UN resolution 1546. The challenge now is to translate that into tangible results on the ground, so may I ask the Prime Minister about the resolution's likely practical effects? Last month, he said that, while operational control of our troops in Iraq after 30 June must remain with British commanders, final political control over their deployment will be a matter for the Iraqi Government. Does that remain the position? Is it the position for United States forces, too? What are the implications for the new international consensus on security in Iraq? Are there any prospects of other UN members, including Arab states, agreeing to provide troops? What is the latest position in respect of NATO, especially its role in training troops?
The G8 leaders pledged to "work together" on the cancellation of Iraqi debt. How is that to be taken forward in the light of the reported differences between the US and France on the matter? What is the British Government's position?
522
The G8 also focused on wider middle east questions. I welcome its recognition of the importance of Israeli-Palestinian issues, especially its endorsement of the role of the Quartet. The G8 also agreed what is now called the "Partnership with the Broader Middle East" initiative but neither Egypt nor Saudi Arabia chose to attend the discussion. What progress has been made on encouraging regional leaders to take part in that initiative?
We welcome the new action agreed against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The G8 said that it deplored Iran's behaviour over nuclear weapons and urged it to comply with its commitments. The UK has laid great emphasis on the closeness of its links with the Government of Iran. What are the Government doing, in conjunction with their European allies, to persuade the Government of Iran to do what is required of nuclear powers: co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency?
We also welcome the strengthening of co-operation on global counter-terrorism, with the specific focus on the security of international travel. Significant progress has been made on that since September 11 but is it not extraordinary that, eight years after I, as Home Secretary, attended a major G8 conference in Paris on terrorism, not all the items agreed then have yet been implemented?
We welcome the acceleration of efforts to develop a vaccine for the scourge of HIV, with more than 40 million people suffering from HIV/AIDS. More than half are in sub-Sakai an Africa.
We welcome the formal extension, however limited, of the HIPC debt relief initiative, but does the Prime Minister agree that current procedures on debt relief remain bureaucratic and slow and fail the countries and the people they were designed to help? Do we not need to target aid to reduce poverty and achieve maximum value for every pound that we spend? Is it not the case that British aid is far superior in that respect—and in almost every respect—to European Union aid? Is there not an overwhelming case—[Interruption.] It is rather important for the people who benefit from the aid. Is there not an overwhelming case for giving much more of our aid bilaterally rather than through the EU?
Is it not the case, as the G8 said, that
"trade liberalisation is key to boosting global prosperity"?
What help are the British Government giving to ensure that the Doha round gets back on track in the way that the G8 envisaged?
I wish finally to ask two specific questions about regions in Africa. First, I share the horror that is felt in all parts of the House about the recent developments in Darfur and welcome the extra £15 million in UK assistance that was announced last week. If Government bombing occurs in Darfur, should not the Security Council authorise a no-fly zone to protect the civilian population and consult those states with the capacity to enforce such a restriction to urge them to do so?
Secondly, what discussions on Zimbabwe took place at the G8? Will the Prime Minister explain why the limited sanctions that are in place do not prevent the pro-Mugabe fund-raising visit to Britain of the governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe? Does that

523
not illustrate the need for an urgent tightening of targeted EU sanctions to include, in the words of the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe,
"all individuals who play a leading role in perpetuating the illegitimate rule of Mugabe"?
Is that not an excellent illustration of the need for Britain to demonstrate clear and firm leadership, in the G8 and elsewhere, in working with the international community to help to achieve the objectives of peace and stability to which we are all committed?
The Prime Minister: On the latter two points, we work closely with the MDC on the measures that we should take in respect of Zimbabwe, although I am afraid that these measures and sanctions, although we have them in place, are of limited effect on the Mugabe regime. We must be realistic about that. It is still important that we give every chance to, and make every effort to try to help, those in south Africa—the southern part of Africa—to put pressure for change on the Mugabe regime, because there is no salvation for the people of Zimbabwe until that regime is changed.
In respect of Darfur, I shall look into the issue of the no-fly zone that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised. I cannot give him an answer on it now. UK assistance has been increased substantially, and we are also taking a leading role in political efforts to try to ensure that the nascent peace deal that has been worked out at the moment, with the agreement to suspend all hostilities, is actually carried through. It is going to be extremely important for us to keep up every pressure on the various parties to make sure that that happens. We are co-ordinating our approach very closely with the United States and the European Union.
Let me deal one by one with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier points. On the UN Security Council resolution, it is quite clear that political control and sovereign decision making are with the Iraqi Government. That is our position, it is the position of the United States and it was repeated by everyone at the G8. I think that that is necessary, quite apart from anything else, to ensure that the Iraqi people understand that they now have both the power and the responsibility to take those decisions, and that we are there in support. That will help, and indeed is helping, to settle the situation in Iraq—not in the sense that we will not then have these bombings and killings, because these people will carry on, as the Prime Minister of Iraq said today. What is obvious, however, is that people inside Iraq are increasingly seeing those people not as people who are fighting coalition forces but as people who are the enemies of Iraq and its progress.
I do not believe that we will see further troops come through NATO, but I hope that if the new Iraqi Government wish it, we will see assistance with training provided for the Iraqi security forces, including the army.
We should take the issue of Iraqi debt forward through the Paris Club. The difference between us, America and some other countries on the one hand, and France and others on the other, is to do with the percentage of debt that is to be written off. Discussion on that is still going on. We want a high proportion of
524
the debt written off, and at the moment negotiation is taking place under the umbrella that there should be a substantial reduction in debt. How substantial that will be is still a matter of discussion. However, I have no doubt that there will be significant moves forward in that direction.
In respect of the greater middle east initiative, I hope that people do not take it from the absence of Saudi Arabia and Egypt that they are against the initiative. They are not, and that was made clear by both their Governments. It is important to emphasise, however, that this initiative—the desire to bring a greater degree of democracy, human rights and political freedom to people in the middle east—arises from the discussions that those countries themselves are having. We are not seeking to impose a solution from the outside, but seeking to work with reform-minded people in the region. The idea is to get to the point where three things are happening in the middle east: where there is a stable, democratic Iraq, which will obviously be a huge force for good in that region and in the wider world; where there is momentum back in the middle east peace process; and where Governments in the middle east as a whole are moving towards political reforms that will bring about greater participation by people and a greater degree of democracy.
On Iran, we are working with our EU allies to make sure that Iran fully complies with the IAEA recommendations, and we shall continue to do so. I accept that there is more to do on proliferation, but we have come a long way in that regard.
Obviously the British Government have given a considerable lead on HIPC and debt relief over the past few years, I am pleased to say. There are always issues to do with bureaucracy, but we are trying to iron them out. We have now agreed to extend the decision point, which means that by the end of this some $100 billion of debt will have been wiped out. That is having a huge impact in Africa. Let me give just one or two examples. Tanzania has now attained gender parity in primary schools, and has increased the number of children in primary schools by more than 50 per cent. It has built more than 1,000 new schools and more than 31,000 new classrooms. If progress continues on target, it will meet the universal basic education millennium development goal by 2006, nine years early. Uganda has managed to increase its social expenditure by over 40 per cent. as a direct result of the debt relief measures that we have been leading.
I agree that our bilateral aid is very effective. That is why this Government have dramatically increased bilateral aid for the poorest countries in the world. I might point out that after years of aid falling as a proportion of GDP, it has risen under this Government. We will obviously work constructively with our European partners—as I am sure the right hon. And learned Gentleman wishes to do—to improve the workings of the European programme.
The Doha round is one of the most important issues that will face us over the next six months. It is imperative that we secure the round that we started. The G8 had a full discussion on this, and I think there is an acceptance of the huge importance of agricultural reform in the developed world if progress is to be made.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I want to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of condolence with the two British citizens who were killed in Iraq so tragically earlier today.
Still on the subject of Iraq, may I ask whether the Prime Minister acknowledges that despite the welcome progress now being achieved in both the delivery and content of the further UN resolution, it was clear from the summit's discussions that significant international decisions must still arise from the original invasion and its bloody aftermath?
The Prime Minister has confirmed that the NATO proposal floated by President Bush has effectively been shelved, and indeed that President Bush himself went on to describe it as unrealistic. Was it not perhaps a bit unrealistic of him to imagine that a suggestion that had clearly not involved much advance preparation with other countries would find favour?
Given what he has already said, will the Prime Minister give a little more detail of the current thinking on bringing into Iraq troops from other countries, particularly Muslim countries? Is planning in hand with that aim in mind?
As for the tragedy in Sudan, do the British Government consider what is taking place there to be, frankly, nothing more than ethnic cleansing? What steps does the Prime Minister think can be taken beyond the phrasing of the communiqué itself to address what is the most pressing humanitarian tragedy in the world today?
As the Prime Minister knows, many people are frustrated about the lack of progress—painstaking progress—that is being achieved on aid spending, welcome though it is. In the context of the UK and his own Government's spending review for 2005 and beyond, does he intend to set a feasible and achievable timetable for the British Government to meet the UN's 0.7 per cent. GDP target? Has the Chancellor given thought to that?
Can the Prime Minister clarify a slight ambiguity in his reference to Kyoto? He said:
"We need to make progress with the ratification of Kyoto, but we also need to look beyond Kyoto and its 2012 time frame."
Has he effectively given up on the position of the United States in the middle of all of this, or does he retain any residual hope that the Bush Administration can be made to see sense and recognise their international obligations?
Finally, on Iraq, at the European Union summit in a few days' time—I appreciate that there are certain other items on the agenda—will the Prime Minister take any opportunity to explore the EU's contribution to the work of the Quartet in respect of the middle east peace plan?
The Prime Minister: The divisions over the original decision about the conflict in Iraq remain, I imagine—of course they do—but what is important is that the international community has come together to support the new resolution. As was pointed out in a very forceful intervention by the new President of Iraq—I wish people could have heard it—the great thing is that they are discussing in Iraq how they are to hold elections. The sheer impact of their having for the first time the ability
526
to come together and discuss a democratic future for Iraq has been tremendous in its power within Iraq and for the Iraqi people. In our meeting he said that, whatever differences there have been, people should recognise that only a tiny number of people in Iraq are anything other than delighted that they have been liberated from Saddam.
It is unfair to describe the original American proposal on NATO as a proposal for NATO troops—the idea was always that they should be helping with training. There may still be disagreement about that, I do not know, but I do not think so, provided that the Iraqi Government wish it to happen.
Whether troops from Muslim countries go to Iraq is primarily a matter for the new Iraqi Government, as they will have to make any such request, but the single best thing—I hope that some proposals for this can be set out in the coming weeks—is for the Iraqis themselves to take over their own security capability. They have plans afoot in the police and the civil defence, as well as in relation to the army. Their view, again as explained by the President of Iraq, is very simple: they do not want any foreign troops on their soil; they know that they need them for the present, but they want to have their own capability to run their own country as soon as possible, and that is what we should help them to do.
On Sudan, the two things that we need are pressure for the political settlement to hold, and indeed to develop, and humanitarian co-ordination. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development went out to Sudan a short time ago.
We remain committed to the ultimate goals on the UN aid target.
We certainly need to ratify Kyoto. Again, to be fair, the problem is not simply with the Bush Administration. I think I am right in saying that the Senate voted 100 to nothing on the treaty, so there is quite a lot of work to do to get that position to change, and not just with the Administration. However, we strongly support Kyoto and I hope that we can find a way of re-engaging people in a dialogue, to ensure not only that the treaty is ratified but that there is progress on the issue of climate change.
Finally, I do not know whether we will discuss the involvement of Europe as part of the Quartet in the middle east peace process at the forthcoming European Council formally, but I have no doubt that we will do so at the margins.
Sir Stuart Bell: The House will welcome the emphasis given to African affairs at the G8 conference, as well as the emphasis that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal leader have placed on Darfur. Is he aware that Mr. Andrew Natsios, the American Government's top aid official, has predicted that 300,000 people may die in western Sudan as a result of disease and malnutrition? I welcome the Prime Minister's statement and the political effort that he will make, but can he ensure that Darfur does not fall off any radar screen and that the humanitarian tragedy that could come about will be averted?
The Prime Minister: I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The G8 issued a specific statement on

527
Darfur and the crisis in Sudan. We and the United States—and, I believe, the European Union—will keep a very strong focus on this indeed.
Sir Peter Tapsell: At the G8 summit in Georgia, did the Prime Minister apologise to the other Heads of Government for giving them false information to justify the original attack on Iraq?
The Prime Minister: No, I did not.
Joyce Quin: My right hon. Friend mentioned non-proliferation. How seriously is the G8 taking that issue, and will he give us details of the action plan that was referred to?
The Prime Minister: The main part of the action is to ensure that in respect of civil nuclear power we are not exporting equipment, or allowing equipment to be traded, to countries where we think there may be a risk of its being used to create a nuclear weapons capability. We have also agreed certain measures to ensure that we can interdict properly the supply of materials that could, for example, be used in the enrichment process. We have learned quite a lot from trying to re-engage Libya and Iran with the international community on this issue.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Did the Prime Minister have a chance to talk with the President about the original intelligence information that he received before advising the House to go to war? Will he tell us a little about the intelligence information that he had about the way in which Saddam Hussein abused human rights in his own country, and the number of people whose death that led to?
The Prime Minister: The answer to the first question is that no, we did not have a discussion about that. In respect of the second question, we have already found the mass graves of some 300,000 people in Iraq—although most people regard that as only a fraction of the number of people who died. There were several million refugees from Iraq, and the new Prime Minister of Iraq fled to this country, where he was subject to an assassination attempt by Saddam's Government. The single best way of dealing with the issue is if the people of Iraq are allowed to speak about exactly what life was like, and what it is like to have their freedom now.
Claire Ward: I welcome the Quartet's continued commitment to the road map. What assistance does my right hon. Friend expect the Government to be able to give to the Palestinian Administration to ensure that they can take part effectively in the negotiations, with more resources and strength?
The Prime Minister: Although it is too early to tell, I think that there is a possibility of making progress in the middle east again. I know that it sounds very much like a matter of process that the Quartet is to hold a further meeting, but after that meeting it is to produce an action plan to tie in with the disengagement from the Gaza strip and part of the west bank that the Israeli
528
Government are proposing. We shall help with those proposals on the political, the economic and the security side. Although, as I say, at present things still look very bleak in the middle east, none the less an awful lot of work is going on underneath the surface, and I hope within the next few weeks to have more to say about that, perhaps of a more optimistic nature.
Mr. John Redwood: Did the Prime Minister take advantage of the opportunity to tell our partners in the European Union that are also in the G8 that in view of the well-forecast outburst of majority Eurosceptic opinion, Britain will not be able to sign the draft constitution?
The Prime Minister: I have to say no to that question as well.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In Question 9 to the Foreign Secretary tomorrow, I shall ask about the position of Tariq Aziz. Some very wicked people were put on trial at Nuremberg, and whatever anybody may think, surely there is a right to trial. What is the position in relation to the International Red Cross, which is apparently saying that unless certain individuals are charged before 30 June, they should go free? What do the British Government think about that?
The Prime Minister: Our thinking is that in the end it has to be for the Iraqis to decide what process they want to adhere to. We are working closely with them in the formation of the Iraqi tribunal to ensure that it respects the rights of any of those people. It is important that if any of them goes on trial in Iraq, that is done in a way that the international community accepts is a valid constitutional and legal process.
Mr. Dalyell: It is a legal limbo.
The Prime Minister: It is necessarily, I am afraid, a somewhat anomalous situation at the moment, but following 30 June it will be important to recognise that the Iraqi Government will have control of that process. I think that there is a clear view among the Iraqi leadership that it is important to demonstrate to the world, in a sense, how different the legal and constitutional process will be under them than it would have been under Saddam.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Is not the G8 an increasingly incongruous group that excludes the world's second biggest economy—China—and the world's fifth biggest economy and largest democracy, which is India? Are there plans to review membership under British chairmanship?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right, in the sense that that is anomalous, which is why there are attempts to involve China and India—and, indeed, others—in how we draw up the agenda for our discussion. The difficulty, which is a bit like that with the United Nations Security Council, is that although everyone can agree in principle to reform, the question then is agreeing in practice which countries will come in and which will not. On that point, we do not yet have consensus, let us say.
David Winnick: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to tell President Bush that while terrorism is undoubtedly the greatest danger facing us all, it is important that when prisoners are held—in Baghdad or particularly in Guantanamo—they are not subject to torture or to the other forms of abuse that were apparently authorised at the most senior levels of the US Administration, not only because it is wrong in itself and in conflict with our principles, but, no less, because it is a tremendous propaganda weapon for the terrorist?
The Prime Minister: I cannot comment on the level of authorisation, and my hon. Friend will know that there is a dispute about that. But I can say absolutely and unequivocally that so far as this country is concerned—I believe that this is the position of the United States Administration—the Geneva conventions should apply in full to any situation such as this, and that we have to make sure that anybody who is in our custody is treated properly and fairly and in accordance with basic human decency.
Tony Baldry: Everything that the Prime Minister said about Africa is very welcome, but the crux is whether there will be sufficient development aid to enable Africa to meet the millennium development goals by 2015. During the G8 discussions, was he able to persuade any other G8 Heads to sign up to the UK's proposals for the international financing facility?
The Prime Minister: We did have a discussion on the international financing facility. There is no agreement on it as yet, but I hope that during the year we can take forward such proposals, because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly implies, that would help in reaching the millennium development goals. There is another thing that is important to add. The African leaders made the point very forcefully that alongside the narrow question of development assistance, they want to see conflict prevention, better governance and action on HIV/AIDS and other health issues.
Kali Mountford: My right hon. Friend has put on the record in the House today the shared consensus view of a modern, democratic and federal Iraq. In his discussions, did he also consider the evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) of emerging secular governance at a local level? Is it not true that the growth of such local democracy can give us confidence that the Iraqi people are themselves able to choose their own Government, and do we not need a clear timetable for them to do so?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is worth pointing out that there have been some 40 local elections in Iraq up to now, although they have not received much publicity. It is interesting to note that the parties elected have almost always been secular parties, so the fear that people would want some form of religious fundamentalism seems to have been deeply misplaced. The Iraqi President said most forcefully—indeed, other Arab leaders around the table echoed this point—that sometimes there is a sense in parts of the western debate that the Arab world is unable to cope
530
with the responsibility of democracy. He simply pointed out how wrong that was, as did the President of Afghanistan, who said that more than 3 million people have registered to vote in the Afghan elections since September. Obviously, it is hoped that that figure can be increased to the 10 million required.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the importance that he attaches to extending the rule of law and the principles of good government elsewhere in the middle east and in Africa. Did he suggest to President Bush that he might set a good example by extending to the detainees in Guantanamo bay the protection and privileges afforded by United States domestic law?
The Prime Minister: It is important that we ensure that those who are detained in Guantanamo bay are detained properly and in accordance with proper conditions. That is one of the reasons why we are in discussion with the American Government about how we resolve not merely the position of those British citizens who are still detained, but that of others, too. I hope that, in the not too distant future, it will be resolved satisfactorily
Alan Howarth: In discussions about Darfur, was there acceptance that international law needs to be reformed in order better to reflect contemporary realities and to enable early intervention to avert humanitarian—and, indeed, security—disasters? Will the Government pursue that vigorously within the United Nations?
The Prime Minister: Both points are well taken and I think that one of the major discussions that we must have in the international community—we can help to stimulate it with the G8 chairmanship next year—is how to ensure that we spot the problems sooner, co-ordinate the action better and ensure that the politics and the humanitarian aid are put on the same path. Sudan is another classic example of where the international community could see the problem building, but did not have the necessary r machinery to take action swiftly enough.
Norman Baker: On climate change, when the UK has the presidency of the G8, what strategy will the Prime Minister adopt to deal with fast-rising carbon emissions—resulting from fossil fuel generation—from China and, indeed, with emissions stemming from the international aviation sector?
The Prime Minister: We need to pursue both issues by trying to make sure that we encourage greater fuel efficiency, greater energy efficiency and emissions trading. We must build on what is in the Kyoto protocol. Even if it is ratified, it will amount only to keeping emissions more or less steady—perhaps with a 1 or 2 per cent. reduction—whereas it is estimated that by the year 2050 we need a 60 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That is why I say that we have to take this further. One area where we are able to work with countries such as China and with America is in the development of science and technology as a means of trying to deal with this issue.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend told us that democratic reform in the middle east must come from within. With that very important qualification, will he tell us when he expects to see a democratic Saudi Arabia?
The Prime Minister: I do not know is the answer, and it is the answer that my hon. Friend would expect me to give. What I do know is that there is recognition by the Saudi Government and the House of Saud of the need for reform, but the reform process must be managed in such a way that it leads to the betterment of Saudi Arabia, its people and the region, and there are obvious pitfalls that have to be avoided.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In rightly paying tribute to the two British contractors so tragically killed earlier today in Iraq, will the Prime Minister also reflect on the personnel of Médecins sans Frontières in Afghanistan, who also lost their lives not so long ago, and the serious security situation there in the run-up to the critically important elections in September? In discussions with the Afghan leadership and others in Savannah, did the NATO countries produce any proposals to increase NATO forces in Afghanistan and enhance the training of Afghan personnel?
The Prime Minister: Yes, and I hope that, at the NATO summit next month, we will be able to set those plans out. As the President of Afghanistan said, huge progress has been made in the country—there is no doubt about that with 2.5 million people returning, 30 per cent. economic growth last year and 20 per cent. this year—but there is a continuing problem with remnants of the Taliban or al-Qaeda who carry out attacks on aid workers and others who are trying to help the country. The security situation is less serious but is not totally dissimilar in its nature to what is happening in Iraq. I believe that NATO has to do more and that we need to extend the provincial reconstruction teams throughout the whole of the country to make sure that good security exists not just in Kabul, but outside it as well. I hope that we will be able to make significant progress on that at the NATO summit and that I will be able to report back to the House accordingly.
Mr. George Howarth: I thank my right hon. Friend for the positive tone of his report of the G8 summit. Does he agree that terrorism masked as religious zealotry, whether in the middle east or elsewhere, or thinly veiled xenophobia here or elsewhere in Europe will, far from providing solutions to many of these problems, combine to create further problems?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. A clear link exists between the terrorism that we see in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It is terrorism whose purpose is to produce chaos that denies political progress. That is why we must be resolute in dealing with it, wherever it takes place. In the end, the people who are engaged in those terrorist acts are determined to try to make real some theory about a clash of religious cultures
532
or civilisations, whereas it is obvious that the vast majority of people—whether in the middle east or in this country—want to live side by side in peace.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Prime Minister agree that the road map to peace in the middle east is a somewhat dog-eared document? In fact, the dog appears to have eaten part of it after Israel's unilateral and brutal action in Gaza. Will the Prime Minister tell us why he will not consider a suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement until progress is made, as recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee?
The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Lady why. I do not agree with her about the road map. It is not that it is dog-eared because it has been pored over too much: it has been pored over too little. Before the road map can work, the precondition for it—the first phase—is that security measures be taken on the Palestinian side and mirrored on the Israeli side. We have not reached that point yet, because the Palestinian side does not, unfortunately, have the capability to take those measures. That is why it is important that the Quartet is able to help to build the infrastructure on the Palestinian side to make sure that it can do—and be seen to do—its level best to prevent terrorism.
I also say to the hon. Lady that I always think that it is wrong if people mention only one side of the pain in the conflict. We have made our criticisms of Israeli policy in relation to the reprisals that have occurred, but she could also have mentioned, for example, the shooting dead by terrorists of a pregnant woman and her three children for no other reason than that they were Israelis. We must understand that pain is caused on both sides and we should not start threatening suspension of association agreements but help to get a viable security and political plan in place that can make a difference.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend accept that he has widespread support in the House on two issues with regard to Africa—not only for what the Government have said but for what they have done? For example, the statement on Darfur last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development was seen as excellent and proactive.
Given what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the press conference on debt, is he committed to the debt write-offs for Africa that we have rightly been considering for some time? Will he continue to take that view as he chairs the G8 and at the next meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank?
The Prime Minister: Yes, we will do our best to make progress on the debt write-offs, which we obviously support. It is important to see that progress in the context of the Commission for Africa, and we hope that it will also deal with the other issues. I should have said earlier that the issue on which the African leaders expressed the strongest views was trade and access to markets. The aid and assistance they receive is fine, but they feel that they could do so much more if they had

533
access to our markets. That is the other issue on which we must concentrate strongly. I also agree with my right hon. Friend in respect of the Sudan.
Mr. John Randall: What discussions did the Prime Minister have about the present situation in Kosovo"
The Prime Minister: We did not specifically discuss Kosovo, although I discussed it in the margins of the G8. We continue to work to ensure that there is some forward plan for Kosovo that has some chance of acceptance. We watch what is happening there at present with some concern, but the European Union in particular is focused on ensuring that our efforts are successful. Although the issue was not discussed round the table, it was certainly discussed in the margins.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I very much welcome efforts to revive the road map, but what steps will be taken to prevent them from being undermined by Iran and Syria through their continued practical support for terrorist groups dedicated to the destruction not just of the peace initiative but of the state of Israel?
The Prime Minister: That, of course, is one very important part of the road map. One of the important things is that people actually read the road map; it is a lot spoken about but often not much studied. The road map makes it clear that a vital precondition of getting into the right security dialogue, which is what phase 1 of the road map is about, is that all support for terrorist groups from countries in the region stops. We have to make that very, very clear to them and I hope that part of the Quartet plan will be specifically to put pressure on countries surrounding Israel and in the middle east to ensure that that happens; otherwise it will be very difficult to build confidence in Israel that the plan has a chance of success.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is not democracy stronger when it grows from inside a nation? If the G8 feel that they need to give a nudge to the middle east to develop it, what will they do to build up the infrastructure and the democratic will that are required? Democracy, as the Prime Minister will be pleased to hear, is not just about elections; it is about the whole running of civil society.
The Prime Minister: It is, of course, about those things, but the greater middle east initiative is not simply about democracy; it is also about fostering business investment and proper commercial and legal systems in the countries concerned. It is true that, ultimately, it is for people within to decide that they want democracy, but occasionally that can be helped from the outside and that is what we seek to do.
Mr. Clive Soley: In relation to all those matters, but especially to the environment and world trade, which is now negotiated between trading blocs and large nations, did my right hon. Friend give any thought to how
534
desperately seriously our influence would be undermined if we were no longer seen to be a committed member of the European Union?
The Prime Minister: I always give thought to that proposition and I believe that it is obviously right—the stronger and more influential we are in Europe, the easier it is to ensure that Europe speaks with one voice on those issues. Of course, the change in EU policy in relation to the trade round is a very important part of getting the trade round started again; it does not stop with Europe but it certainly must include Europe.
Keith Vaz: I welcome the presence at the summit of the seven Arab leaders, in particular with respect to Yemen; I know that the Prime Minister met the President of Yemen. The country has fought against terrorism but is still desperately poor. What financial support are the G8 proposing to give countries such as Yemen, and will my right hon. Friend ensure that that important initiative is continued and enhanced under the British chairmanship.
The Prime Minister: We will continue it and, I hope, build on it. A meeting of the Forum for the Future will take place in the middle east in the autumn. The idea will be that specific requests are made to us for help and assistance, some of which may be financial and some may be practical and political. It is worth pointing out that the one thing that is clear in the middle east today is that countries, whatever their background and history, recognise that extremist fanaticism based on a perversion of the true faith of Islam is the threat that they face in common and that they need to tackle it by a mixture of political and democratic reform, as well as economic reform. We should be prepared to help them in that, as the one thing I am sure of is that, whatever security measures we take, we will not be able to deal with the problem unless we also deal with its root causes.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: On the problems of Africa, was there any discussion at the G8 about increasing commitments to the global health fund and about specific assistance to the World Health Organisation, to ensure that its target of having 3 million people on a antiretroviral drugs by 2005, which is only next year, is met?
The Prime Minister: Yes, there was a discussion about that and we have recommitted ourselves to ensuring it. There was also recognition that we need better co-ordination of the global effort on HIV/AIDS, as many of the countries facing that crisis often have a range of different donors and the aid is not co-ordinated as it should be. We have agreed to take that forward in our chairmanship.
Mr. Michael Clapham: On the question of world stability and the connection with nuclear non-proliferation, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need for those countries in the G8 group that have nuclear weapons to reduce their arsenals? If there is failure in this respect, it could encourage those countries that have not yet got nuclear weapons to strive further to obtain nuclear weaponry. Will he say whether the discussions were

535
extended to include a call for a bail on further nuclear testing and whether that would extend to the American testing of nuclear bunker-busting weapons?
The Prime Minister: This country is certainly a signatory to the relevant conventions, and we abide by them. There is a sense in which all of us want to see multilateral reductions in nuclear weapons, but I do not think that it is the existence of those nuclear weapons in the hands of the developed world that is the primary driver of this issue. I think that it has more to do with the regional position of particular countries, but it is a very serious question. It is important that we look particularly at how we can strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency and the work that it does.
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about Iraqi debt relief, but will he impress as strongly as he can on both the French and Russian Governments the need to ensure that the level of debt relief is significant? At the moment, Iraq is burdened by about £120 billion worth of debt so, if the relief is significant, it will make a real difference to normal men, women and children in Iraq.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Everyone understands that it is important that we make progress, as the debts run up by Iraq were enormous and tragic. With its oil production, it is potentially a wealthy country. However, we are working hard on this issue with the other countries in the Paris Club.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that the only way he can hand out money to Sudan—some £36 million—to Tanzania and to many other African countries and the 27 that he referred to is if we are running the economy and are not skint? That is the opposite of what it was many years ago when the Tory party was in power.
On the road map to peace, however, when the Prime Minister bumped into Chirac and Schröder at the G8, did he happen to talk about the road map to peace inside the European Union? First it was a constitution, then it went missing and then they brought it back again. Can I suggest that when he goes across there in the next couple of days, one of things that could be got out of the way—some things are difficult to shift—is that constitution? Tell them to bury it in the long grass—chuck it in the political dustbin. It is causing embarrassment. If they cannot get a road map to peace in the European Union, how can these big-wigs talk about peace in the middle east?
The Prime Minister: I will certainly bear that in mind.

Orders of the Day

  Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant documents: The Third Report, HC 252, and the Fourth Report, HC 303, of Session 2003–04 from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on the Committee's continuing scrutiny of Bills.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.28 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  There has been a degree of unanimity and consensus around the proposals in the Bill which I strongly welcome and intend to foster this afternoon. I thank Members in all parties in the House and beyond for their support and co-operation and pay tribute to my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office team and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for the tremendous work that they have done and will continue to do in a cross-party, no-party approach to the issue.
  This debate follows the consultation paper and the statement earlier this year and the debate in the House of Lords. I am in a privileged position to be able to bring forward long overdue changes to put in place the biggest overhaul of domestic violence legislation in several decades and to be able to bring forward proposals and support for victims which, again, I think all of us agree are both justifiable and long overdue. That is part of a careful balance that we wish to develop to respond to major challenges and the unacceptable nature of past social norms. Such behaviour was tolerated in years gone by, often condoned, and certainly pushed under the carpet. At the same time, we must demand that people take responsibility for their actions and that peer groups, families and neighbourhoods are not tolerant of the intolerable.
  Our Criminal Justice Acts, sentencing legislation and the Sexual Offences Act 2003 endeavour to put the victim first, thus changing the balance of the system in favour of those who are most affected and putting law-abiding citizens at the forefront of what we are attempting to do. They also aim to change culture, so, as we said at the time of the consultation, young men should no longer think it acceptable to commit violence against women. As can be seen from recent surveys, women no longer think that it is tolerable to have the intolerable inflicted on them, yet they can be afraid to come forward, bear witness, and get something done about it.
  Lynne Jones: I welcome the Government's determination to ensure that victims of domestic violence get the support and protection that they need, as is exemplified by the Bill. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether improvements could be made by adopting recommendations proposed by the Women's National Commission? May I especially highlight the plight of victims of domestic violence who are subject to immigration control? Will the Government consider

  537
  making an exemption to the no-recourse-to-publicfunds rule in such cases so that people may receive the support that they need with housing and living costs in women's refuges, and so that eventually, hopefully, money may be recovered from the victims' sponsors?
  Mr. Blunkett: I said when I made my statement that we are deeply aware of, and sympathetic to, those who suffer domestic violence and are captured due to the way in which they were brought into the country or because they acted as a sponsor. Although we are mindful of the need for robust controls so that we do not create a loophole that could be opened by those who may cleverly exploit even sensible alterations to the system, we need to support such individuals. We must do that by increasing resources for refuges and the availability of funding for people at the time they try to get help. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), will address that matter over the next few weeks and months. He will be able to say more in Committee about how we may help individuals without helping exploiters to find new routes by which they may cause other people misery.
  It is important to understand the extent of domestic violence in terms of overall violence. When we talk about domestic violence, we are not talking about the low-level violent activity that constitutes the bulk of violence recorded in the statistics. Domestic violence accounts for almost one in five of the total incidents of violence. Much of it is deep-seated and born of aggression, and it leads to considerable emotional and physical damage to individuals. That is why the consensus behind the need to recognise and respond to that problem has been welcome, although we must support the victims of all crime, of course. The Bill will support victims of domestic violence by building on measures that have already been implemented. We have created rights that did not exist and put in place resources that were not available seven years ago, which meant that the infinitesimal contribution for victims in general was substantially expanded. I shall say more about the victims' fund later and how we can develop it so that it makes a worthwhile contribution to linking what we are doing on a number of things. For instance, alcohol was mentioned in Home Office questions. There is no question whatsoever but that a very high proportion of domestic violence is not necessarily caused, but is fostered and accelerated, by the misuse of alcohol. What we do in relation to that part of our agenda on education and moderation will make an important contribution.
  The preparation for parenting in schools and colleges is a critical element, with 30 per cent. of domestic violence victims experiencing the start of that violence during pregnancy. An understanding by men of parenting issues—a basic understanding of their responsibilities—is therefore crucial to reducing domestic violence at that stage when love and care are desired and needed more than ever. That is also part of changing a wider culture of sheer selfishness. It plays into, and is crucial to, the equality agenda, not simply in
  538
  terms of structures, but in terms of changing equality in practice, so that people accept both responsibility and duty with respect to how they address each other.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: Does my right hon. Friend intend to instruct the crime reduction partnerships to draw up a strategy on how they intend to tackle domestic violence so that it covers all those things that he just mentioned?
  Mr. Blunkett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the part he has played as chairman of his crime reduction partnership and on his involvement in a prolonged effort to get joined-up thinking on local action. As one in five violent acts take place in the home and the domestic situation, when we ask crime reduction partnerships to adopt a programme on violence as a whole—developed nationally but implemented and adapted locally—we will expect them to accept that fundamental to the joined-up programme is the recognition that domestic violence has a prominent place in the strategy.
  We have outlined three parts to that strategy. Obviously, one of them is prevention, and the way in which the education information campaign and a change in culture can play their part. Another is the protection and justice elements, which mean protecting people by intervening and by changing the law. We want to change the perception of what is acceptable and people's willingness to come forward when affected by domestic violence.
  The third part of the strategy is the support element, which affects the ability to bring people to justice and to gain justice generally, in terms of both protecting people and of enabling people to escape, rather than feeling captured, as they so often were from an economic and a social and family perspective. Deterring, tackling root causes wherever we can, sending the right signals and ensuring that enforcement is in place all form part of the programme.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: In rightly pursuing the cultural change that would make all forms of violence unacceptable in our society, does my right hon. Friend think it important for the Government to support changes that outlaw the ancient defence of reasonable chastisement and give children the same protection from violence under the law as is enjoyed by adults?
  Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children is, of course, in a dialogue on that issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) is assiduous in making his views known and in pressing on the problem. He has undoubtedly achieved much in drawing people's attention to it, including that of my light hon. Friend.
  My own view is that of course we must protect, but we must build in responsibility in the family, to engineer and direct the relationships rather than allowing responsibility to lie solely with the Government. In relation to domestic violence and familial homicide and actions around that, which touch on the most obvious and terrible end of violence to children, we want to ensure that where we need to intervene—we certainly need to do so in such cases—we do so from the point of

  539
  view of the three elements of prevention, protection and support, and by engaging with the legislation in order to provide proper enforcement, which I shall come to in a moment.
  I want to stress, because it is really important, that the Government cannot do this alone. It is not the responsibility solely of Government. Whether considering the abuse of children or their chastisement, the matter should not rest with legislation or direction. It has to rest with the acceptable teaching of parenting—how to bring order and discipline into the family to create a framework for life that does not involve us constantly having to intervene in family relationships.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend look at the funding for services for children and particularly those who have been traumatised by domestic violence? Cambridge Women's Aid, which runs some excellent groups to deal with the problem, has told me that it feels that such services are very underfunded. I would be grateful if he investigated that.
  Mr. Blunkett: There is a considerable problem over funding the right services with the right kind of urgent response. That is true—we are endeavouring to address it jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—in respect of the emotional needs of children who are affected by trauma. That obviously relates to domestic violence cases, as it does to murder or considerable abuse in the family more broadly. Early intervention and the quick and effective provision of services can make the most enormous difference to the life chances of children—rather than their returning to the trauma throughout the rest of their lives. There is a cross-Government, cross-departmental and agency issue that needs to be addressed not simply in my hon. Friend's constituency but across the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is addressing it urgently.
  The pilot scheme "No Witness, No Justice" is working well. The £36 million provided over three years is money well spent, and it is linked to ensuring that, as with the 44,000 more offences brought to justice over the past year, people have greater confidence in the services and are prepared to use them. The £70 million going this year into delivering the domestic violence strategy is a start in ensuring that there are services not simply for those affected by domestic violence but for victims of rape and sexual assault. I have been to a number of centres recently where a joined-up service is being provided, and I hope that we shall see that across the country in due course.
  Let me say where we are on the victim's fund, which takes us into the broader issue of how to assist victims. My hon. Friend inadvertently led me into that; I did not plan that with her. We need desperately to add to the £650 million plus that goes into broader services for victims. We have the £30 million going into Victim Support, which of course celebrates its 30th anniversary this year. That compares with the £11.7 million that went into the organisation seven years ago. I think that the start that we are making by establishing a new victim's fund in addition to those contributions will be welcomed by everyone. A sum of £4 million from asset recovery will be made available immediately to kick-
  540
  start the new fund. A great deal more can be done to recover criminal assets and invest them in the community, not least in victim and witness support. The consultation ended on 12 January, and I want to set out the way in which we will proceed.
  We will, of course, press ahead with administrative efficiencies and the streamlining of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. We could save money by operating the fund more efficiently, then invest it more effectively. It would make sense to combine lower-level awards. At the moment, it costs as much to administer some awards as to deliver them. We intend to legislate to empower the authority to recover money from offenders, and seek to link that to new powers in the legislation that we shall shortly introduce to set up the serious organised crime agency. We will improve the enforcement of compensation orders which, at present, are not linked to fines, so we cannot use powers in the Courts Act 2003 to enforce collection. That does not make sense, so we want to introduce corrections legislation, and intend to press ahead with surcharges on both criminal convictions and fixed-penalty notices.
  We expect people who are committed to custody to pay a minimum of £30 in a levy or surcharge, but that depends on whether we can use the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We will change the regulations on earnings of people in prison to make that possible. In addition, we will levy a contribution from people who are subject to fines. Substantial fines of more than £1,000 will be subject to a £30 surcharge, and fines under £1,000 to a £15 surcharge. There would be a £10 surcharge on fixed penalty notices. There has been considerable lobbying in relation to criminal, as opposed to civil, fixed penalty notices for drivers. There is no proposed surcharge for parking offences, which are a civil offence.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan rose—
  Mr. David Heath rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to take questions, but things will be clearer if I can finish my point first.
  Following the consultation, we accept that it would be wrong for low-level first-time offences to be subject to a surcharge. Helpfully, the Department for Transport will shortly consult on changes in the points system for fixed penalty notices. The new system will be introduced in 2006, which is when we will consider introducing a levy of £10 on fixed penalty notices for serious repeat offenders, as opposed to general fixed penalty notices. We will link the levy to the higher number of points added to people's licences, so the system will be fair to everybody. We should bear in mind the fact that 10 people are killed on the road every day and more than 40,000 are injured every year. Driving is a perfectly reasonable activity, but vehicles can become deadly weapons in the hands of those who misuse them, taking lives and harming the well-being of others. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) now, and then to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
  Mrs. Gillan: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman—I was trying to wait until he got to the end
  of the passage. He is introducing major changes to the Bill at the eleventh hour, and that in itself is a difficult matter. As he envisages that the victims' support fund will rely on fines, can he explain to the House how that will work? I believe that in 2002–03 only 55 per cent. of fines were paid on time, and many fines were not paid at all.
  Mr. Blunkett: That is correct. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), has joined us. He is welcome, not least because he reminded me—I have extraordinarily good hearing on the left side—that we have now reached a figure of 75 per cent., and there is a major programme in place to enhance that still further. I welcome the substantial progress that he and his colleagues have made in this important area. We would all agree that the previous situation was unacceptable. If we are to make fines work—there are substantial recommendations from all quarters that we should—enforcement is critical. Along with the other measures that I have described, it will help us to reach a total of £25 million initially for the victims fund, which will be widely welcomed.
  I promise that there will be proper time for the Standing Committee to examine the amendments. We will make sure that Opposition parties have the details to enable that to be done. Obviously, questions may be asked. We can introduce some of the measures without legislation, but it is only fair to spell out on Second Reading what we intend to do, rather than leave that to the Committee stage. In view of the interest shown these days in the Committee stage, particularly of noncontroversial Bills, that would have been an abuse of Parliament. I am doing my best.
  Mr. Heath: I welcome the fact that we will have good notice. The Committee stage will soon be upon us, so I hope we will have almost immediate notice of the Government's intentions.
  I welcome the Home Secretary's remarks. He has listened to some of the reservations that were expressed when he first announced the proposals—that those who pay for the support of victims of muggings should be muggers, not motorists. He has listened to that and I pay tribute to him for having done so.
  Mr. Blunkett: I hope that this is the beginning of an entirely new approach by the Liberal Democrats. I welcome that, having given them a good kicking—but, as the polls last Thursday suggest, not a good enough kicking—as regards their attitude to antisocial behaviour. [Interruption.] I am not afraid to mention that. As the hon. Gentleman said, we all need to listen and learn.
  Let me deal with some of the consultation items that we do not intend to proceed with, so that we have everything nice and clear for the Committee stage. For example, with reference to making employers liable for compensating employees criminally injured in the course of duty, we were approached by the TUC, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and many others with a request that we did not pursue that. They pointed out that good work was being undertaken to secure a better way forward.
  542
  I pay tribute to both sides of industry, including the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, for their good work in that regard. I also pay tribute to those who have been working with us to see how they can contribute to prevention in the wider sense by releasing staff to become special constables. A number of retail outlets are now doing that, working with the police on training. That can help in the workplace and in the wider community. Therefore, we have decided not to proceed with the original proposal.
  As my right hon. Friend, or rather, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East—I promoted him—indicated during Home Office questions, we do not intend to proceed with the withdrawal of payments for emotional damage and trauma suffered by railway staff as a result of suicides on the railways. Neither do we intend to remove from the scheme those who are accidentally injured while taking exceptional risk. We decided that we needed to discourage the current trend towards greater caution and instead reward those who are prepared to set that aside in the interests of helping others. I believe that that, too, will be welcome.
  I shall move fairly quickly through the clauses because hon. Members are familiar with them and may intervene if they feel that we have erred. I shall deal first with the clauses on domestic violence, which it is sensible to take together. Clauses 1 to 4 deal with the civil law, which we discussed at considerable length throughout the consultation and which has been debated in the House of Lords. Clause 1 widens the scope for breaching non-molestation and occupation orders and makes that a criminal offence. It provides for arrest without warrant for breaches and for the new five-year sentence. The clauses covering equality of treatment between the sexes, including relationships of significant duration, have been widely welcomed and fit in with other changes to the law that we are in the process of introducing.
  Clause 7 deals with domestic violence and homicide reviews, the drawing together of the agencies, and the changing systems that are necessary for prevention. Clause 8 makes common assault an arrestable offence—most people thought, wrongly, that it already was—and links with clause 1. Clause 10 provides for restraining orders.
  Clause 5 contains wider measures on a matter that I mentioned earlier. It is a difficult issue that has become close to my heart as I have tried to find a way of dealing with it—namely, familial homicide in relation to what I call, following the days when I dealt with the poll tax, joint and several liability. People have been able literally to get away with murder because under existing law it is impossible to carry through action against someone who simply will not name the other person involved and claims that they did not do it. That applies not only to children, but to elderly and vulnerable adults. I do not intend to be controversial, but in due course we will have to ask the House to overturn the Lords amendment. It must not be possible for people to get away with it by having their case adjourned halfway through because it was not possible to prove at the beginning whether the charge was murder or a lesser offence. It should be possible to change the charge to allow for a conviction rather than a technical knockout by the defence. We have to determine the person's guilt, not allow them to

  543
  get away with it because the charge as initially put could not be proved. We must ensure that we get that right in Committee. Our proposals have gained widespread support in the judiciary.
  Andrew Selous: Can the Home Secretary explain why the Bill would not cover a case involving abuse where a brother and sister live together?
  Mr. Blunkett: It is very rare for me to have to say that my homework does not enable me to answer the question, but in this case I cannot. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and ensure that we get a definitive answer in Committee, because waffling would not be helpful at this stage. Of course, we are considering circumstances whereby more than person in the household commits a crime in relation to a third or subsequent person. It is in that context that I am unable to answer the question.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I want to revert to the Home Secretary's comments on his anxieties about the Lords amendments on familial homicide. It is a difficult subject, but one of the anxieties expressed in the House of Lords was that the Government's original drafting of the measure meant shifting the burden of proof and the implied possibility of being convicted of murder on the basis of silence and that that would breach the Human Rights Act 1998. I should be grateful for the Home Secretary's comments because I thought that such an anxiety led to the amendments that were tabled in another place. Clearly, the Committee must consider the matter carefully to ascertain whether the Government's original proposals comply with the Act.
  Mr. Blunkett: We believe that they do. Although, when making a charge of homicide, one obviously wants a conviction of murder, it is reasonable to prove that the individual committed a lesser offence if the murder charge clearly will not stick.
  A second Lords amendment related to condoning murder in circumstances in which the person condoning may have believed that they were at risk. That is a delicate matter, but, in Committee, we want to explore restoring the procedures that are crucial to ensuring that people could not use such risk as an excuse. As with domestic violence, we want people to escape rather than remain in circumstances whereby a child is put to death and someone is compliant with it through remaining in the situation and being afraid.
  Mr. John Bercow: I suspect that my question will be easier to answer, but no less relevant than that of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). I welcome the proposed equality of treatment between married and cohabiting couples on the simple principle that the issue at stake is the protection of vulnerable individuals. Will the Home Secretary enlighten me about the significance of the reference in clause 4 to relationships of non-cohabiting couples being "of significant duration"? I hope that that will not prove to be an exacting criterion or threshold. It would appear to undermine the important principle that the measure has embraced.
  Mr. Blunkett: It is designed to show that there is a stable relationship and therefore comes within the scope of the Bill, given its concentration on domestic violence, rather than other forms of abuse, which other aspects of the law tackle.
  Let me be helpful to hon. Members. One of the advantages of being in government rather than in opposition is that one receives messages on occasions such as this afternoon's debate. I have received a message, not through some hidden earpiece, but when I gave way my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary received a message, which he communicated to me. The Bill covers all members of a household who are over 16, including brothers and sisters.
  Mr. Bercow: Instant gratification.
  Mr. Blunkett: No, I am in favour not of hedonism and instant gratification of any sort but of considered messages, whose suitability to convey I can weigh up.
  Mr. Bercow: Within minutes.
  Mr. Blunkett: Indeed.
  Mr. Dawson: I believe that the only under-16s in a household who would be caught by the Bill are children who are also parents of a child who dies. Is my right hon. Friend entirely comfortable that the concept of parental responsibility in relation to those children is sufficient to warrant their being brought into serious criminal proceedings?
  Mr. Blunkett: We are dealing with culpability. There is already an understanding of the responsibility that those of different ages bear and the legal system allows us to tackle that. In other words, a conviction is sought. The punishment, and how those individuals are dealt with, are then commensurate with and balanced by their age. That is how we seek to deal with such circumstances, for which we have different forms of penalty and approach, including through the youth courts. We can deal with that in a sensitive and sensible way.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) raises an important point, which we can look at more closely in Committee. The offence referred to is one of negligence, or at least offers the opportunity of a conviction on the basis of negligence. The age selected for the start of culpability is 16. Is that too low or too high? I should be interested if the Home Secretary wanted to amplify why 16 was selected, as opposed to 18, for example.
  Mr. Blunkett: In the sex offences legislation that we introduced we established a pattern determined by an individual's age, and 16 was seen as a significant and appropriate age in that legislation—which was debated and agreed in the House with much unanimity. We are applying similar tests in relation to this legislation. I should be happy, however, for that to be debated, examined and tested in Committee, and my hon. Friend

  545
  the Under-Secretary will, in his usual fashion, ensure that common sense prevails if people have doubts and concerns about the matter. We should bear it in mind—I refer back to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre—that in circumstances where parents are under 16, it is presumed that they are in a household with adults over 16 who supervise and support them. Therefore, on this specific aspect of familial homicide, there will be others in the household who also stand responsibility and duty.
  Clauses 12 to 16 bring in powers that were pressed for by Members from all sections of the House during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but which we were not able to deal with then because we had not received the appropriate advice from the Law Commission and others on multiple offending and how to deal with it. I am glad that we have been able to use this Bill to introduce those powers. We promised that we would do so at the time—last November, I seem to remember—and we are able to fulfil that pledge now. There is an issue about vulnerable adults and whether there will have to be two juries rather than one, but that can be dealt with in Committee. I do not intend to hold up the House with that today, because many hon. Members want to speak. Clauses 17 and 18 make technical changes, which do not need to hold us up today.
  That brings us to part 3—clauses 21 to 33—which is the element of the Bill that deals with victim support. It includes the code of practice that we are putting on a statutory footing, the independent commissioner who will champion victims, the victims advisory panel, which will be made statutory, and various stages of amendments, to which I have already referred substantially, that will build up the victims fund. There is also an issue in part 3 about giving the victims of mentally disordered offenders the same rights as victims of other violent offences. That will be widely welcomed outside the House. I pay tribute to the Zito trust for its work on that and many other aspects of a difficult field of policy. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will press separately on that matter through the draft mental health Bill and the consultation on it.
  Mrs. Gillan: On a point of information, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is planning to reinstate the old clause 18 from the original Bill?
  Mr. Blunkett: It is our intention to reintroduce the principle. If, in negotiations with Opposition parties, minor changes are proposed to what was clause 18, which we can take on board, we will be happy to do so. We want to ensure that we get our intended objective, rather than merely getting the words that we first thought of—if that makes sense.
  Lady Hermon rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I thought that the hon. Lady might want to intervene.
  Lady Hermon: Will the Home Secretary take a moment to explain what justification there is for the creation of two tiers of victims in the United Kingdom? Those in England and Wales will have recourse to the new victims commissioner, unlike those in Northern Ireland—although we have a substantial number of victims for a variety of serious reasons.
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Lady is assiduous in ensuring that our attention is drawn to the different legislation applying to Northern Ireland. I was about to say that measures relating to victims of mentally disordered offenders applied to Northern Ireland, but the hon. Lady is right to say that there are different provisions in other parts of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be happy to meet her, and will also meet the commissioner, to establish whether coterminosity can enable victims in the United Kingdom to be treated on a similar basis.
  This is genuinely one of those occasions on which we have the good will of everyone and can make a difference by using the parliamentary process. Because there is consensus on the issue and because we are seeking to implement common sense, it is inevitable that we shall not receive much publicity. People will not learn about this side of politics—about those who work together day after day in Committee, behind the scenes, changing law and making a difference to lives. I appeal to those in the Press Gallery to help us shed a bit of light—[Laughter.] I appeal to both of them to help us shed a bit of light on how democracy can work in the best interests of our people, how we can bring about a just and fair society, and how we can change the culture to one of respect and responsibility.
  Ms Sally Keeble: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: Just in time.
  Ms Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key part of that culture change is accepting that perpetrators can change and control their behaviour? Is it not important to fund and develop perpetrators' programmes, such as the one in my town, if we are to change the culture and the general approach to domestic violence?
  Mr. Blunkett: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the subject and I know of the project she has mentioned. It is making a valuable contribution. In the end, of course, we must change the behaviour of those with whom we are dealing; otherwise, they are highly likely to become prolific repeat offenders who cause misery to others.
  One of the tragedies of domestic violence, which is true of victims of violence more generally, is the way in which people move from one circumstance of tragedy to another. There is a wider desire, and a wider need, to ensure that we overcome the problem rather than merely enabling people to escape from their circumstances, crucial though that is. Being able to work with close colleagues who have battered away at this for many years sometimes makes the job of Home Secretary worthwhile, and I am proud to have been able to move the motion for Second Reading.
  5.13 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am delighted to open for the Opposition. As the Home Secretary said, this subject is important to all parties in the House. I trust that it will show the House working at its best, and those who serve on the Committee doing the same.
  It has taken nearly six months for the Bill to reach the House, and Conservative Members have awaited it with eager anticipation. As we finally welcome it, it seems to us that the gestation has lasted a long time. There is no doubt that the subject transcends party politics. We consider the Bill so important that both the shadow Minister for Women and the shadow Attorney-General will join me in Committee, and I understand that the Home Secretary considers it important enough to field three Ministers. We all look forward to constructive discussions.
  I pay especial tribute to my colleague Baroness Anelay for the sterling work that she did in steering the Bill through the other place and for some of the reshaping that was achieved there. I was therefore sorry in some ways to hear that the Home Secretary intends to reverse all those changes, but his speech today gave me some hope. Rather than a reversal, I would call it a refinement. I hope that we will be able to work together. A reversal could reflect a wider intention to reject all the helpful suggestions from the Opposition, and indeed from Government Back Benchers and the numerous organisations that are deeply concerned about the Bill.
  I hope that, in the light of the seriousness of the subject, my colleagues and I will be able to work very constructively on the issues in Committee and send an even better piece of legislation to the statute book than the one that we are starting with today.
  In 2001, it was estimated that there were 12.9 million incidents of domestic violence against women in the United Kingdom, and 2.5 million against men. Currently, in the United Kingdom, two women are killed at the hands of current or former partners every week; 62 per cent. of domestic violence incidents are reported to end in injury; and in 81 per cent. the victim is a woman. Countless women and men experience the horror of domestic violence, and it is said that one in four women will experience it at some point in their lives. That means that there will undoubtedly be women known to each and every one of us and perhaps men as well, who will have endured domestic violence without our ever knowing that it has happened to them.
  Many live in a climate of fear and intimidation. The testimony of people who have ends red systematic abuse at the hands of their partners over a long period is both harrowing and humbling. Domestic violence also has an impact on employment: among women suffering domestic violence last year, about 21 per cent. took time off work, and of the men and women suffering it, 2 per cent. lost their jobs.
  Furthermore, tens of thousands of children experience the sheer horror of violence in the home. The trauma is incalculable. Many children who watch a parent being abused may go on to become abusers themselves. This makes tackling domestic violence an even greater priority, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said.
  548
  Domestic violence is like few other crimes. It is an emotional and psychological attack, as well as a physical one. On average, women are subject to physical attack on dozens of occasions before reporting it to the police. It is a crime that is kept secret from other family members and closest friends. It can take years to recover from it, and some people never do.
  In a recent survey conducted for the British crime survey, 31 per cent. of female victims and 63 per cent. of male victims had told no one other than the survey about the worst incidents of domestic violence that they had suffered in the year before the survey was taken.
  There can never be an excuse for domestic violence. We cannot allow alcohol, stress or poverty, or culture, to be used to excuse the use of violence as a means of domination or control. I hope that the Bill will help to redress the injustice that many now face. We support its objectives, but we should acknowledge at the outset, as the Secretary of State did, that tackling domestic violence is not simply about legislation: much of it is about changing attitudes.
  Too many people still seem to think that domestic violence is in some circumstances acceptable. Too many seem to think that the victim may somehow have deserved it. Many who experience domestic violence also blame themselves. In fact, 64 per cent. of women and 94 per cent. of men who were subject to domestic violence last year did not even think that what had happened to them was a crime.
  Too many people still think that the woman is responsible too, if she stays in the home despite being abused. How often have we heard people ask, "Why didn't she leave?" as if leaving one's home and children were an easy step to take. On the reverse side of the coin, some people think that a woman is deeply irresponsible if she leaves children at home and flees to a hostel to escape violence. She is damned if she does and damned if she does not.
  Those outdated attitudes need to be changed, but we cannot legislate to change minds; that requires more education and more public awareness. The more domestic violence is discussed in the open, the more light will be shed on an issue that has traditionally remained behind closed doors—one of the last great taboos in our society.
  Tackling domestic violence effectively means involving the police. There are plenty of examples of good practice in today's police force, and I pay tribute particularly to the Metropolitan police and the Association of Chief Police Officers for their work in improving the training for police officers responding to domestic violence. I also pay tribute to my local Thames Valley police, who constantly face domestic incidents that require sensitive handling. The idea that violence in the home can be dismissed as "just a domestic" is coming to an end, and I hope that we will be able to find ways in the Bill to empower the police to deal with domestic violence even better.
  Many of the organisations at the sharp end of domestic violence have welcomed part 1 of the Bill, but many issues need addressing, such as the concerns of the Women's National Commission that were referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), who is no longer in her place, and the concerns of the Southall Black Sisters about ethnic minority women

  549
  subject to immigration control, and their recourse to public funds. Issues have also been raised by Women's Aid, which has proposals to allow for the automatic granting of a non-molestation order where violence is being used or threatened, whenever an occupation order is being granted. We will want to examine that part of the Bill in detail, including exploring a potential definition of domestic violence.
  Some of the most complex measures are in the provisions on familial homicide. There is near universal agreement that that subject needs to be addressed. Research undertaken over three years by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that every week no fewer than three children under 10 were killed or suffered serious injury. In 61 per cent. of the investigations that reached a conclusion there was no prosecution, and in the cases that resulted in a conviction for a criminal offence, only a fraction resulted in a conviction for homicide, wounding or causing grievous bodily harm.
  Clearly, injustices are taking place and the need for reform is accepted throughout the legal profession. Indeed, the provisions in the Bill follow from the Law Commission's proposals published last year. Nobody doubts the Government's good intentions, but good intentions do not necessarily make fine laws, and we will want to examine the provisions more closely in Committee, especially where the Government's proposals diverge from those of the Law Commission. In particular, we shall need to be reassured that the Bill is compatible with human rights legislation.
  The Government have made it clear that they intend to restore the provisions on multiple offending, but we made it clear during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that we were prepared to accept the idea that a jury may try a sample of cases. We agree that sentencing should be possible on the basis of specimen counts, but we must be vigilant in ensuring that that is not an attempt to erode jury trial by the back door, after the failure to do that openly last year.
  I understand that the Government also intend to restore the former clause 18 on fitness to plead, which was removed in the other place. The clause took away from the jury the decision whether the defendant was fit to be tried, leaving that decision for the judge alone. The Government seem determined to remove lay people from the administration of justice. Last week, they tried to do that with the asylum tribunals, for no apparent good reason, and last year they tried to do it with long complex fraud trials, but on every occasion we defeated them.
  We remain unconvinced by the argument that judges should be able to decide unfitness to plead. The consequences of being declared unfit to plead could be a person being locked up under a hospital order without any time restriction, so we shall examine very carefully the Government's attempt to reinstate clause 18.
  Let me move on to part 3. The victims charter was first published in 1990 under a Conservative Government and was widely recognised as a major step towards victims starting to get better treatment. Victim Support has been advocating the right for victims to be entitled to reliable support for some years, and it welcomes those
  550
  measures in the Bill, as I do. However, confidence in the criminal justice system is low. Very few victims see their offender brought to justice, and victim satisfaction with the police went down from 68 per cent. in 1994 to 59 per cent. in 2002–03. Some people will not even report crimeߞas victim or witness—because of fear of reprisals, or because of disengagement from the system.
  We will want to examine the effectiveness of the code of practice and the role of the commissioner, but I now understand that the Government intend to table a series of amendments on support for victims of crime, so we shall want in particular to examine the provisions relating to surcharges on criminal convictions.
  As the court system cannot currently enforce the existing fine system, is there not a danger that the compensation orders will bite on the generally law-abiding, leaving the real criminals to escape? As I said, despite the new and improved figures from the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, just 55 per cent. of fines were paid on time and collected in 2002–03—[Interruption.] He brushes that to one side, but it is obviously a pivotal part of this new policy.
  It really was unacceptable for the Home Office to announce a truncated consultation period on these proposals after the Bill received its Second Reading in the other place. To be truthful, it beggars belief that the Home Office has only just decided how to proceed, and that we shall now receive a raft of amendments at such a late stage, some of which might well be controversial. I hope that the Minister can tell us in the wind-up exactly when we can expect sight of those amendments. That is an important issue, given that proceedings in Committee are due to start as soon as 22 June. This is not a sensible way to legislate, and the Secretary of State knows exactly what I mean.
  As I made clear at the outset, we support the principle behind the Bill, and I do not intend to ask my colleagues to vote against Second Reading tonight. However, some valuable and constructive work could be done in Committee to improve it, so I reserve the Opposition's right to vote against the Bill on Third Reading if the Government do not listen to our sincerely held concerns during its legislative passage. So far, they appear to have listened a little, and we hope that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will listen a lot more. I am very pleased to support Second Reading of this Bill.
  5.27 pm
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: I qualified as a barrister in 1977, and as many Members will know, back then, on becoming a barrister one was not allowed to earn any money for the first six months—and rightly so, as I certainly knew nothing then. Since then, the system has improved somewhat through sponsorships and scholarships. In my second six months I was allowed to earn money, and during that period I was fortunate to be in chambers that gave me quite a lot of work, much of which was to do with domestic violence. I was given such work because it was not regarded as important, and it certainly was not the sort of work that more senior barristers and members of chambers would do. It was the work that nobody else wanted, so the most recently qualified member of chambers would be sent along, and would probably turn up in court having got the papers that morning or the night before.

  551
  I was very young and although I would not need a white wig now, I certainly did then, and mine was a very new wig indeed. I was representing women—and it was women—who were in the most difficult of circumstances, and indelibly fixed in my mind is one of my very first appearances. I went to the county court to represent a woman in respect of a non-molestation and ouster application. She had been the victim of severe domestic violence, but the judge made an instant judgment about her and her character and morals. He said, in open court, "I won't have your client behaving like a slut." He attached conditions to the order and it eventually ended up in the Court of Appeal. That is an illustration of how the courts, the judiciary and the system treated women in those cases.
  Not long after that, I went to work in, and helped to run, a law centre in London. We had a number of cases of domestic violence. At that time not many firms of solicitors wanted to take on those cases. I recall a case in that law centre where we had found a refuge space for a woman and we were going to court, but she returned to a violent husband who murdered her. That case was not unusual and it happens every week in our country.
  Today, some years later, the position has changed. I anticipate that we will have a consensual debate today—an adult and a grown-up debate in which we can treat the issue seriously and view it with the importance that it deserves. For a long time, though, we could not have such a discussion—certainly not in the country at large and, if we are absolutely honest, not in this place.
  When I entered the House in 1992, I was lucky to be chosen to sit on the Home Affairs Committee and one of our first reports was on domestic violence. I have just refreshed my memory of the conclusions that it drew. I argued in that Committee that we should work to produce a report on domestic violence, but some of my colleagues wanted instead to produce a report on car boot sales. Nevertheless, we produced the report on domestic violence and the House has certainly made progress on the issue.
  It is not just the House that has changed; many other agencies and services have also changed. The police service, for example, is now radically different from the one that we used to know. I recall how it used to be in the early days of the domestic violence units when only a couple of police officers in those units knew what they were doing and were sympathetic. I am not saying that policing is perfect now; of course it is not. In the main, however, a change of culture has occurred among the police. Anyone who travels around to speak to people working in the area of women's aid will know that they have extremely good relationships with their local police officers. That is a tremendous step forward.
  However, many women and children in our society remain in an appalling position. The figures on the number of women who are victims of domestic violence are staggering. I have to say that, if those figures were reversed and it were the men in our society who were dying at the same rate, there would probably be a national inquiry. For far too long, domestic violence has been treated as if it were somehow an issue of concern for women only—a women's issue. It is not. It is an issue for men and women. It is one of the most vital criminal justice issues in our society.
  552
  I warmly welcome the Bill. It is a very important step forward. The fact that we can have a debate in which all parties of the House make a constructive contribution is a vital aspect of progress. However, we still need to deal with some other issues, and we must use legislation to deal with some of the matters that are so important to tackling domestic violence. Of course the legislation is vital, but we must use it as a way to change the culture by adopting measures that go alongside it. There are problems for women whose immigration status is uncertain, especially in connection with the recourse to public funds rule. That issue has been raised many times over the years, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) rightly said, by Southall Black Sisters. In fact, it was raised in the Home Affairs Committee report that I mentioned a moment ago, because that group came to give evidence to the Committee, and I remember advocating that it should do so. That remains a major issue, but it could be overcome.
  We must also face the issue of legal aid, because there are problems with some firms of solicitors being unable to take on domestic violence cases. I had such a case recently in my constituency. The thresholds for qualification are also a problem that will have to be looked at.
  We must also ensure that the Government's approach to domestic violence is truly joined-up. That is why it is good to see so many different Departments taking part. When I was responsible for homelessness, among other issues, I put some of our budget into tackling domestic violence and into support for the 24-hour hotline, because we know that domestic violence is a major driver of homelessness. Any council housing department will confirm that. A proper, joined-up approach is vital.
  We must also ensure that refuge provision is not patchy. Some parts of the country have a surplus of housing stock and it is easier for women and families to find other accommodation, but it can be much more difficult in other areas. We need to support organisations such as Women's Aid and Refuge. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the people who work in those organisations. I felt very privileged when I had the chance to tour those organisations, and I found it amazing how long the people working there had spent doing so. It was not unusual to find women who had worked there for 15, 20, 25 or 30 years. One remarkable organisation was run by a mother-and-daughter team who had put in untold years of work, at not very high pay, completely devoted to public service. That is public service at the highest level. People can suffer burn-out in providing such a service, but it was especially pleasing to meet women who had been through domestic violence and then come back to those organisations to work as advisers and counsellors.
  My final point concerns education. We need to ensure that we educate children to realise at a very young age that domestic violence is wrong. The provision of domestic violence education in schools is patchy. In some areas, local education authorities and schools have incorporated the issue into the curriculum, but others have not. We need to make much more progress in that area. Girls and young women need to know that they do

  553
  not have to put up with domestic violence. Boys and young men need to know that decent men do not behave in that way. That is why we need to think of different ideas for getting to people. When we had the idea of putting advertisements for women's aid in black cabs in London, it was looked on by some as extraordinary, but everybody wants to have a say in pointing out that domestic violence is wrong. It is important that we think of non-traditional methods of getting over that message about domestic violence.
  Domestic violence knows no particular social groups; it has no socio-economic barrier—it is there and we must overcome it. Although I am not complacent, I feel more confident than ever before that we are on the way to tackling domestic violence. However, it will require not only the Bill but a great deal of hard work and effort to ensure that we have measures alongside it to bring it to fruition.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I warmly welcome the Bill, and we have already heard three extremely constructive speeches in its support. It has been eagerly awaited; it seemed to take an intolerable time to come from the other end of the Corridor, but it was eagerly awaited before that because we had hoped for legislation in the last Session. Nevertheless, it is more important for the measure to be right than early; as previous speakers said, domestic violence is undoubtedly a major issue for our criminal justice system, as is the support of victims and witnesses, so we need constructive legislation to deal with it.
  When we talk about domestic violence, we are talking principally about violence of men on women, but not exclusively; it is equally important to remember that domestic violence can be directed against men and against children, who are often the inadvertent victims of domestic violence against another individual, usually their mother. There is also abuse of people who are vulnerable through age or infirmity.
  I am about to say something that I rarely say to the Home Secretary: he has introduced a Home Office Bill that may not, I fear, go quite far enough. I do not suppose I shall ever say those words again. My fear has been recognised by practitioners in the field, many of whom, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, were keen to brief us of their concerns about both the commissions and omissions of the Bill. I share with the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) admiration for those who work in associations dealing with domestic violence issues and with victim support; they do an admirable job, often with little credit, so if we can make some redress for that it will be worth doing. They have expressed disappointment that the Bill does not deal with some of the aspects that they wanted it to cover. It will be the job of those of us who serve on the Standing Committee to set out some of their proposals—not to wreck the Bill, but to improve it. We want not to undermine the Bill but to ensure that it does its job in the most effective way.
  Domestic violence has been around for a long time—we should not see it as a new phenomenon. Recently, I attended a production of "Oliver!" by Frome operatic
  554
  society and it occurred to me that Bill Sykes is the archetype of an abuser—the domestic abuse of his partner ended up with familial homicide. Such fictional archetypes make us realise the prevalence of violence in domestic relationships; it has been with us for a long time and, sadly, is still prevalent.
  I entirely agree with the Home Secretary when he said—I think that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Galan) agreed—that this problem could not be cured entirely by statute. We should not pretend that it could. A cultural change is needed in many ways to deal with a public culture of acceptance or tolerance of abusive behaviour within a relationship. I do not accept such tolerance, and I hope that no Member of House would accept it either. Sometimes it is reinforced by cultural stereotypes within a particular youth culture. I am not one of those who say that every ill in this society is down to pop culture, films or anything else. However, when it is possible for reputable record companies to put out records that talk about slapping partners around as if that were normal behaviour or something to be admired, I have serious concerns. I am not a natural censor; I do not want to stop people enjoying the music that they enjoy. However, a degree of responsibility is required.
  Sandra Gidley: Does my hon. Friend not think that we as politicians also have a responsibility? Does he share my sense of more than slight dismay that the Home Secretary himself earlier used phraseology such as giving somebody a kicking? I know that that was said in another context, but this is not a subject for jest. Should we not be careful about the language that we use in this place?
  Mr. Heath: We all need to be very careful about the language that we use in any circumstances. I do not want to overplay this point, but I believe that we have to make things clear to young people in particular. Surveys have shown that there is an alarming degree of acceptance among young people that domestic violence is somehow okay. We have to counter that through education and exemplary behaviour.
  There is an element by which domestic violence is hereditary. I do not mean in terms of a congenital disposition—I do not believe that for a moment—but in terms of learned behaviour. People who are brought up in households in which there is an abusive relationship are more likely to believe that such behaviour is acceptable.
  Mr. Dawson: I make the same point that I made to the Home Secretary. How on earth can we send positive messages to young people when it is perfectly permissible under the law for people to assault them?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes his point, and makes it frequently. It is a matter that will be debated in the context of other legislation, and I do not want to confuse two pieces of legislation.
  If there is a problem with the public culture, there are also issues with police culture. I accept the fact that the police have improved no end on this issue, but their response is still patchy. The problem is often not the lack of power available to police officers but their willingness

  555
  to use the powers that are already available. They may believe that they are acting in the best public interest, but they need better training so that they know how they should respond to a given situation.
  There are also problems with the legal culture, and that point was admirably made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green in her remarks on the legal profession. Sadly, there is a lingering culture in our courts and legal system that makes it more difficult than it need be for someone to lay a complaint, have it properly investigated and resolved I through judicial process. We need a legal culture that sustains and supports the victim far better than the one we have at the moment.
  The culture of the victims themselves is also a problem. In a way, it is nonsense to talk about a victims' culture, but there is a feeling among many victims that they do not have the capacity to get themselves out of the situation in which they find themselves. We must find ways, either through the agencies with which we engage or the legislation that we introduce, to reach out to those people and tell them that there is a way in which they can get themselves out of their relationships and that the law and society will support and help them in the future.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: My hon. Friend has spoken at length about different cultures and criticised them for allowing things to happen or turning a blind eye, but in supporting what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said, surely we must also attack the culture that makes it permissible to smack or beat young children in a family setting.
  Mr. Heath: Again, my hon. Friend tries to lure me into a different debate, but I want to maintain my position and talk about the Bill.
  I fear that the Government have vastly oversold the Bill. I am not saying that it will not be valuable, but it will not do many of the things that people outside the House—and perhaps even hon. Members—expect after hearing the messages that the Home Secretary and his colleagues put out. They might feel that it will achieve more than it will.
  Many practitioners think that criminalising the breach of non-molestation orders will not provide an adequate material solution to the situation that exists. The Home Secretary knows that there are real worries about how civil and criminal court processes will interact. Assurances were given in the other place that it would not be a problem to use the civil court process, even if the criminal court process existed. I hope that that will be the case; it is something that we shall have to tease out of the Under-Secretary it Committee.
  I hugely welcome the provision that will extend existing legislation to same-sex couples, although I wonder how that proposal to promote equality will interconnect with the Civil Partner ship Bill. We need a clear understanding of the definitions used and the way in which they will work.
  I think that every hon. Member will welcome the proposal that common assault be an arrestable offence. Many of us warmly welcome the fact that the Government are addressing cases of familial homicide in which it is impossible to establish clearly which of two
  556
  people may be responsible. The Law Commission's report was extraordinarily helpful and we also had a good Westminster Hall debate on the subject recently, which was secured by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). I am slightly worried that the Government have chosen some of the Law Commission's proposals and rejected others, but I nevertheless welcome the fact that they are prepared to address the issue. The Under-Secretary will know that domestic homicide reviews are much supported by the Metropolitan police as a valuable addition to the system, but that others have doubts about the value added by the proposal. We shall have to tease out from the Government whether there will be adequate resources to underpin the structures that will be needed to make the system work. We want a proper definition of domestic violence to be incorporated in the Bill, and although that argument has been heard in the other place, we will need to rehearse it.
  We will examine the operation of occupation orders and the way in which they will work in practice. We want to know a little more about the central register of occupation or non-molestation orders that Baroness Scotland said would be established. How will that work, what will be its scope, how will it be resourced and how will it be accessed so that it can provide valuable support to law enforcement agencies? There are worries about the use of recovery orders, and I hope that they will be addressed later in the debate.
  I repeat the point that has been made about access to public funds by victims of domestic violence who are subject to immigration controls. We have always said that we want something to be done about that, and I thought that the Home Secretary made a helpful suggestion when he said that he might try to find a non-statutory route to achieve the same objective that we want, so we shall listen carefully to what the Under-Secretary says about it in Committee. On criminal procedure, we must consider sample counts, although we are told that the Government intend to reverse the amendment that was made in the other place. They also intend to reverse the amendment passed in another place on unfitness to plead.
  I hugely welcome the proposal for a commissioner for victims and witnesses. I hope that that individual will have the widest possible remit and a clear working relationship with children's commissioners. I hope that he or she will be able to deal effectively with the status of vulnerable witnesses. Many of our co-respondents have suggested that a proper advocacy service should be placed within the context of the commissioner for victims and witnesses, which I support. The one thing that would make a huge difference to people would be a properly resourced advocacy service, and the commissioner could provide a useful focal point for it.
  Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the widest possible remit for the victims commissioner, so may I rely on his support and that of his colleagues in Committee to ensure that that remit is extended through the code of practice for victims, given that the Northern Ireland Office is currently resisting the

  557
  proposal? Will he assure me that he will support extending the remit of the victims commissioner to Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady knows from experience in Committee that I often support her proposals, and I know of no contrary arguments to her suggestions at the moment. I thought that the Home Secretary gave a guarded, yet positive, response to her earlier intervention, so we shall have to find out what happens in Committee.
  Miss Anne Begg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that consideration should be given to whether the victims commissioner and any body subsequently set up should be able to reflect the views of disabled women who are subjected to domestic violence? I hope to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make that point because disabled women have specific needs and I am worried that they might not have been considered during previous discussions on the Bill.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady makes an admirable suggestion that I shall be happy to support, although I am not sure whether it would be necessary to limit her proposal to disabled women because disabled people of both genders may be subjected to violence. I hope that we will be able to return to that matter.
  We are advised that the Government intend to reverse four amendments made in another place. On the "no case to answer" issue, I will listen carefully to what the Under-Secretary says because I do not think that our opinions are especially far apart. We all understand that human rights are paramount, but, equally, we want a competent trial process. We might be able to reach a consensus on a process with adequate safeguards that would achieve the Government's objective. I am open to a constructive debate on the matter.
  I have less sympathy with the Government's case on the other three amendments that they intend to reverse. The Home Secretary said that citing domestic violence as a mitigating factor for a reasonable inability to prevent violent behaviour was similar to condoning murder or murderous behaviour. That was an unfortunate phrase. When someone is seriously worried about their welfare and perhaps the welfare of the dependent children, it is wrong to say that that concern condones inappropriate behaviour. I hope that the courts will have the capacity to take the incidence of domestic violence into account when determining the appropriateness and, indeed, the reasonableness of the defendant's behaviour. If that is not explicit, the Government should give us strong reasons why because I have yet to hear them.
  I do not understand why the Government are attempting to reverse the cross-admissibility in sample counts. It is common sense and what judges will, in any case, do. In that case, why are the Government so insistent that it should not be in the Bill?
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Mr. Heath: I give way to someone who knows far more about this than I do.
  Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the courts are not to be cross-admissible, it at least raises the suspicion, which I am sure is not justified, that the Government are trying to achieve something quite different from their stated objective at the outset? That is why the other place and I—and, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman—have some anxiety on the issue.
  Mr. Heath: I agree entirely; one can come to no other reasonable conclusion because the case is proven. We must again wait to see on what grounds the Minister chooses to explain his desire to reverse the amendment.
  On fitness to plead, I agree with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) that it is yet another erosion of the role of the jury. The measure is not necessary and is inappropriate. We should resist any attempt to put the provision back into the Bill.
  We heard about the one addition that the Home Secretary wishes to make. I have no further comment on that other than to say that I welcome the fact that he has listened. We want to consider the detail and I hope that we will be able to support what is being proposed as an appropriate source for the victims' fund.
  I finish by asking two direct questions on things that might be in the Bill. One should be included, but I can understand why the other might not be, although I want the Minister to confirm that that is the case. The first is the problem of contempt of court, which was brought to the House's attention via the case before Mr. Justice Munby, on which the Solicitor-General fairly recently made a statement. It seems that sharing information with an elected Member of the House would be construed as a contempt of court. The Bill is an appropriate vehicle to deal with that difficulty. Will the Minister consider whether a form of words could be included at a later stage to deal with a situation that will cause many problems to many hon. Members and their constituents if it is not corrected?
  The second question is whether the Minister intends to legislate in any way on the partial defence of provocation. We have the Law Commission proposals, which are being consulted on, and that process will be completed in due course. I believe, again, that the Bill is an appropriate legislative vehicle for such a measure. I suspect that he may not agree and will want to wait a little longer. Perhaps he can share his intentions with the House. That does not mean to say that we will not necessarily test the proposals within the context of the Bill, but at least we will know where the Government stand.
  The Bill is useful. It could do much more to support victims of domestic violence and victims and witnesses generally. That is what we will attempt to achieve in Committee and at later stages. Nothing that I have said in criticism of the content or the omissions should be interpreted as anything other than full-hearted support for the Government's intent behind this valuable Bill.
  6.4 pm
  Ms Meg Munn: I, too, welcome the Bill, the first major piece of legislation for some 30 years on domestic violence issues. It rightly puts the focus on victims at the heat t of the issue.
  The Bill has been welcomed by groups, organisations and my constituents as trying to address an extremely complex problem that brings so much heartache and distress to so many children, parents and families. This process of debate and discussion gives us a real opportunity to address the many issues and to strengthen the protection for all victims.
  As chair of the all-party group on Voice, which focuses on issues concerning learning-disabled adults, a number of issues concern me. I want to devote my speech to looking at things from the perspective of adults with learning disabilities. My starting point is that adults with learning disabilities have the same rights as all adults and that, wherever possible, those should be protected in mainstream legislation. We have an opportunity to put that protection in place in this Bill rather than in other Bills that will come before the House in the near future, such as the mental capacity Bill or the mental health Bill. We should consider how this Bill can put that protection in place.
  Violence against, and the neglect and ill treatment of, women and men with learning difficulties in their own homes is horrifyingly widespread. Perpetrators are too often not brought to justice, which is a scandal and something that must be tackled. The Bill allows us the opportunity to do that.
  On the specifics, I am concerned that the definition of vulnerable adult differs from that which has been in use for some time for adults with learning disabilities under the Department of Health Guidance "No Secrets". I understand that the issue is complex because the Bill seeks to deal with a wider range of issues, but it is important and needs further discussion. The Bill identifies a vulnerable adult as someone over the age of 16, whereas "No Secrets" identifies them as over the age of 18. There are issues of compatibility with other legislation to consider. It is possible for someone to be the perpetrator of an offence at the age of 16. However, given that child protection legislation goes up to the age of 18, it would seem more appropriate that children are deemed to be under 18, not 16.
  Clause 7 deals with domestic homicide reviews. How does that fit with the requirements in child protection guidance, as set out in chapter 8 of "Working Together: Giving children and young people a say", in which a child who is killed has to be the subject of an interagency review? Fortunately it is rare for someone aged 16 or 17 to commit such an act, but if they did, to which guidance or legislation would they be subject? How would the process work? I am not saying that we cannot overcome those problems, but we must consider them. My preference is to have the vulnerable adult as someone who is over the age of 18. People between the ages of 16 and 18 should be deemed I to be children and covered by relevant legislation.
  I am also concerned about the current definition of vulnerable as set out in clause 5(7). Old age, physical or mental disability or illness do not in themselves make people vulnerable. I have been in helpful correspondence with the Minister on the matter and
  560
  understand that it is not intended for that to be the only way in which vulnerability is ascertained. However, it suggests to me that there is a need to define vulnerability in addition to the specific attributes.
  I also understand that the courts need leeway in judging whether someone is vulnerable. I am concerned that without a clearer definition, or at least a move towards that, there will be only judgments to rely on in determining someone's vulnerability, and that that will not lead to consistency.
  The offence in clause 5 of causing or allowing the death of a child or a vulnerable adult is very welcome. I understand entirely that the provisions have been framed to deal with concerns that have been around for many years that two adults can deny having been involved in the death of a child, and nobody is held accountable or brought to justice as a result. I would like consideration to be given to the Bill also covering cases where somebody is seriously injured but not killed. That could be dealt with by the inclusion of a specific offence of causing or allowing serious harm to a child or a vulnerable adult. That would push forward the issue and identify just how serious it is.
  Several hon. Members have said that domestic violence has not been given the status that it should be given. We are talking about violence in the home; it could not be more serious. We need to consider the matter seriously. Including such an offence in the Bill rather than trying to deal with the abuse and neglect of people with learning disabilities through other legislation or guidance would be beneficial, because it would recognise that they are people first. All such legislation and guidance is to be welcomed, but wherever possible we should aspire to making such provision in mainstream legislation.
  I also want to talk about the definition of households. It seems that I have become a little caught up with the definitions in the Bill, but that needs to be the nature of our discussion because we should have overall aims that we can all sign up to. The current definition is not clear about which premises it includes. There have been many changes in practice concerning learning-disabled adults over the past 20 or 30 years, and they now live in a range of settings, which is very welcome and in line with the Government's aim of enabling such people to live as full and as independent a life as they can. I want to be assured that all learning-disabled adults are covered by the legislation wherever they live. That would require inclusion in the definition of residential homes. I know that there is legislation about care standards and the like, but whether people have protection by right or purely on the basis of where they live merits consideration again.
  Even more important is the issue of other supported accommodation for learning-disabled adults. Again, that can encompass a range of settings—just, indeed, as it does for everybody else. Sometimes such accommodation is a group home with some carer support living in; other times it is a group home with no carer support and only people coming in from time to time. It can also be an individual living in a flat in a complex where support is provided. Protection of learning-disabled adults could be improved by the specific inclusion in the Bill of carers. That would ensure

  561
  the inclusion of learning-disabled adults who had been abused by someone who had responsibility for their support or care but did not live with them.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know of horrific examples of abuse and that the ability to explain and to talk about one's experience is often so important to achieving a conviction. We know how hard it is for people without a disability to talk about having been the subject of domestic violence. How much harder is it for those who face the difficulties of a disability? The most vulnerable people are the most at risk, and we should consider whether we can do more to offer protection. By adding the words "or is a paid carer or volunteer" to clause 5(5), we might be able to achieve that. I urge the Minister particularly to consider supported accommodation.
  I know that there is a view that adults in such accommodation receive professional support, but the standard of it varies enormously depending on the capability of the residents. I am concerned that the Bill does not provide protection when the person giving the help and support is the abuser. It is important to bear in mind the fact that physical abuse is almost invariably preceded by some form of mental abuse or cruelty, which isolates the victim and prevents them from seeking help. That happens within marital or cohabiting relationships in the home, and it also occurs when people are abused by their professional or voluntary carer. We must recognise that. While the Bill is before us we have the opportunity to address that complex and difficult issue.
  The creation of the commissioner is an enormously welcome move. It will ensure that there is someone who focuses on the victim and is able to speak for them. I would like the inclusion of a requirement to consider diversity. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) described the importance of disabled women. We have an opportunity in considering that to consider strengthening the protection of learning-disabled adults. I would like a specific requirement to oversee care settings as well as domestic ones. I am pleased that the Minister has assured me that equality and diversity will feature prominently in the commissioner's terms of reference, even though they will not be defined specifically in the legislation, but we need to bear in mind how difficult it is for people who have a disability, particularly a learning disability, to get justice. Ensuring that the commissioner plays such a role would be most welcome.
  As has been said, this debate is not just about legislation; it is about changing culture and attitudes and what we do. How we implement the legislation when it finally comes through is also enormously important. It is important that the police are made fully aware that the legislation refers and applies equally to people with learning disabilities. Victims do not always see themselves as such. One hon. Member—I cannot remember who—gave some statistics that showed that people do not necessarily recognise that they have been the victim of the crime of domestic violence, so it is important that the police who act in such situations take that message fully on board.
  562
  There has been concern about whether the definitions of domestic violence used by the police and by the Crown Prosecution Service are the same. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) raised the difficult issue of whether there should be a specific, agreed definition of domestic violence in the Bill. I accept that that might not be desirable, because it would not allow for change over time in response to changing circumstances, but there is concern that there are different definitions around and that that might even be reflected in different police forces. I am assured that the Association of Chief Police Officers uses a clear definition and that that should be used by all police forces. The Bill provides the opportunity to change practice through tight implementation plans in order to achieve consistency across all police forces.
  This is an excellent Bill with many strong points. I welcome the work of the Home Office both in putting it together and in supporting the organisations that provide help for victims of domestic violence, although there is always more to do. I am sure that by working with all interested parties who want a strong and protective piece of legislation it will be possible to achieve a law that will protect more people and make it clear that domestic violence is violence and is not acceptable.
  6.20 pm
  Tim Loughton: I am delighted to speak in support of the Bill. I hope that it has been worth the wait because, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, it has been a long time coming. The Bill received its Second Reading in the other place on 15 December last year, and was brought to the Commons from the Lords almost three month ago.
  I declare an interest as a patron of the Brighton women's refuge near my constituency in Sussex. I recently visited the Adur district women's refuge in my constituency to see the excellent work that it does in difficult, cramped circumstances on tight budget, and was impressed by the support that it offers many of my constituents. It could offer support to many more, if it had the resources to do so. It operates a floating support housing scheme, and helps people to access services such as GPs, benefits, social and health care, and legal advice. Most important of all, it gives information in a safe and sympathetic environ merit, as it was lucky enough to be given premises by the local authority and is housed in the Adur civic centre.
  Too many such projects and refuges rely on the vagaries of local authority finances and the budgets available in a particular year. Occasionally they receive lottery funding, but they should receive mainstream funding because the number of victims of domestic violence does not fluctuate with the economy, or according to how much council tax or the local authority budget has gone up or down in a given year. We must therefore look again at the way in which many of those essential projects are funded.
  As many hon. Members have said, this is not so much about the minutiae and details of the legislation, but about changing cultures and attitudes. It should be commonplace and acceptable to talk about the problem of domestic violence, and we should encourage and coax

  563
  out of the shadows people who do not want to admit or acknowledge that they are the victims of domestic violence. It is a very welcome subject and an important Bill, and I am glad that we could support it in another place.
  Domestic violence has been a crime in the United Kingdom since 1861, yet two women a week are still killed in England and Wales as a result of domestic violence. Women, as we have heard, are predominantly the victims of domestic violence, which is thought to account for about a quarter of violent crime. It has been estimated that in the past year police attended more than 500,000 million domestic violence calls, which represents a big cost to the police budget. A response to a single incident is estimated to cost more than £1,027. It is important that the police respond and that the scale of that response is not a financial judgment.
  The criticism has been made that many domestic violence officers, who do an excellent job—I have met and worked with them in my own constituency—spend a great deal of time seeking information instead of responding to it. Domestic violence does not feature in many Government targets and is not a registered performance indicator, so inevitably it has a lower priority, as is the case with many other things that are subject to the target mentality. Some 62 per cent. of reported domestic violence incidents end in injury, with 18 per cent. requiring medical attention. Those at greatest risk, as we have heard, are women aged 16 to 29. Most alarming of all, as I recently learned, is that domestic violence often starts or escalates when women are pregnant—a time when they need the most support but are also the most vulnerable to potential abusers. Many partners walk out on pregnant women.
  A woman is assaulted, on average, 35 times before she flees to safety. She may go to up to 10 different agencies before she gets the help that she needs. It is extremely frustrating for refuges when women are passed around different agencies—a streamlined one-stop-shop approach is needed to provide help at the crucial time when somebody has made the decision to leave home, is on the verge of making such a decision, or desperately needs help to stay in her own home, where she may be under attack. Despite that, however, we have more animal sanctuary places in this country than places in women's refuges. It is estimated that there are 40,000 women staying in refuges, which every year provide accommodation for 23,000 children and 110,000 people in need of refuge support services. We therefore need to treat the problem more seriously.
  We have all, I am sure, dealt with constituency cases involving victims of domestic violence. I have dealt with a number in recent months—the problem seems to be on the increase. It is never a straightforward case of a wife being beaten up or physically assaulted by her partner or husband. Usually, the focus is the psychological intimidation that she experiences, even after she has split up with her partner and non-molestation orders have been secured following considerable angst, stress and legal expense. Women can still be abused, and are subject to devious forms of stalking. Former partners may retain house keys, enter premises, rifle through possessions, then disappear. An abuser may move into accommodation close to the home where his former partner lives, hang around the restaurants and schools that she uses or the schools attended by the children.
  564
  Such psychological intimidation or stalking can be much more dangerous and threatening than the physical act of being beaten up.
  Mr. Dawson: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. Is he concerned about the number of contact orders issued to violent fathers with a record of domestic violence, and does he think that we need to take action in the Bill to ensure that contact orders and residence orders are only made when children's safety can be guaranteed?
  Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, for once, has not mentioned smacking. He makes a perfectly legitimate point, about which we can have a separate debate, and shall no doubt do so under the auspices of the Children Bill. We need to do a great deal to improve the whole contact process. I am in favour of an assumption of shared parenting contact wherever possible, but clearly where there is a serious risk of harm to the children we need to take suitable precautions to limit, bar or control the contact of non-resident parents at contact centres and so on. The process is extremely complicated—the hon. Gentleman and I agree about much of the problem, and we need to look at ways of solving it.
  Many of our constituents who bring cases of domestic violence to our surgeries are frustrated by the lack of effective police action. It is not a case of police officers lacking the will to do something—they are sympathetic to the victim, and many of them, as I have said, do an excellent job—but of it being difficult to pin something on the abusers, who are often devious in the way in which they push the threshold of the law to the limit. Therefore, it is essential that the Bill initiates a joined-up approach among agencies, including the police, the courts, the various health agencies and, because of the stress caused to those involved, housing agencies—one of the most important practical problems for a woman fleeing the home is for her and the children to find alternative accommodation from already strained local authority housing lists—as well as schools and the agencies dealing with alcohol abuse.
  I shall concentrate now on the effects on children. There is rather an absence of references to children in the Bill, but they are an important element of the problem we are discussing. Every day, thousands of children witness cruelty and violence behind closed doors. More than a third of children of domestic violence survivors are aware of what is going on. The figure rises to more than half if the woman has suffered repeated violence. There are clear links between domestic violence and child abuse. It may become a generational phenomenon. Hon. Members spoke earlier about a learned attitude, and there is evidence to suggest that if children see parents being physically abused, that behaviour can be replicated in the school playground.
  In a recent survey, 27 per cent. of mothers said that violent partners had also physically assaulted their children. That must be psychologically traumatic for children at a sensitive stage of their development. There are implications for the Children Bill, which is currently in another place and will come to this House before long. A significant determining factor for an abused woman leaving an abusive partner is the fear of having

  565
  her children taken away from her by social services. We need greater understanding and a better service from social services to reassure an abused woman that her children will be safe if she takes herself to a place of safety where the children can go as well, and that there will not be an assumption that she has somehow become a bad parent and that her children therefore need to be taken into care. That is an important aspect.
  There are further implications for the Children Bill arising from the need to share information about domestic violence. I should be interested to hear from the Minister what discussions he has had with the Minister for Children in that regard for the forthcoming Children Bill. I particularly welcome the terms of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill in relation to familial murder—
  Sandra Gidley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Tim Loughton: In a moment—and the thorny issue of joint enterprise, on which I have campaigned for many years and on which I introduced a ten-minute Bill last year.
  Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman has moved on a little from the point on which I intended to comment. He mentioned the Children Bill and access to information. There are growing concerns that the provisions to ease access to information for professionals could make it easier for a violent parent to access the information, and that safeguards are needed to make sure that that does not happen. Is that the hon. Gentleman's understanding, and does he wish to comment further?
  Tim Loughton: The Children Bill is currently going through the House of Lords. There are serious concerns about the formulation of clause 8, which I think is the one to which the hon. Lady was referring, and which deals with data sharing. I have some serious concerns about it because it appears to present a blank cheque to the Government to the extent of producing a surrogate ID card for children through the back door.
  I am in favour of data sharing. That was clearly the message that came out of the Climbié report, and that is the way we must move ahead. But that can be done only with the relevant safety checks and balances to determine how appropriate information is input into the system and, more importantly, who has access to it. I am sure that the Government would not countenance any system, and we would not give it our support, if there were any question that information about vulnerable children could be accessed by people who might abuse those children.
  The hon. Lady may be alarmed, but she can rest assured that the Conservative Opposition will make sure that the Government do not try and sneak in anything like that, if they were so minded. I am sure that they are not, but there is an awful lot of detail missing from that part of the Children Bill, and we will want to be substantially reassured before we give it our support.
  I return to the topic of joint enterprise. I have an interest in that first, in my role as the shadow Children's Minister; secondly, because I introduced a ten-minute
  566
  Bill about joint enterprise last year; and thirdly, because of a constituency case. It was the case of a four-year-old constituent of mine, John Smith, who on Christmas Eve 1999 died in hospital from 54 marks on his body at the hands of his prospective adoptive parents, Simon and Michelle McWilliam Each subsequently denied that they had struck the fatal blow. A charge of murder or even manslaughter could therefore not be brought against either of them and they were both convicted of the lesser charge of cruelty to a child, for which they received an eight-year sentence. That was murder in anything but name. The couple got away with murder, literally.
  Too many other cases like that are happening. There is a loophole in the law that will, I hope, at last be addressed by clauses 5 and 6. I wholeheartedly congratulate the Government on having responded to that. The Justice for John campaign in my constituency, arising from the case of John Smith, lobbied long and hard for that, with my support. It will be a testament to that horribly abused child that at last we are getting a change in the law, which hopefully will deter people from thinking that they can get away with it. Too many of the cases of the 80 or so children a year who die at the hands of their carers or parents do not result in the prosecution of those people.
  Of those 80 children, half are under the age of one. Contrast that with a halving in the number of children who have died as a result of accidents since the 1970s. Babies are five times more likely to be killed than any other age group, and the prosecution rates are very low. As the Law Commission showed, 61 per cent. of investigations that reached a conclusion resulted in no prosecution for any offence at all—and of those that did result in conviction, only a few were for the serious charges of murder or manslaughter. That was the subject of the excellent NSPCC report, "Which of you did it?", which was greatly informed by a Sussex policeman, Detective Inspector Martin Bacon, who has done so much work on joint enterprise and child killing. I welcome the reforms in the law.
  There are a few small points relating to concerns about the way in which the Bill has been drafted, or which might be added to the Bill. I wholeheartedly share the concerns of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) about the age definitions of children in the various parts of the Bill and the grey areas that that causes.
  Various outside bodies are concerned about ethnic minorities and asylum seekers, especially women who are subject to domestic violence and whose right to stay in the UK is largely dependent on remaining with the abuser. We must get a little smarter when dealing with ethnic minorities and asylum seekers who are being abused.
  There are problems with the definition of domestic violence, as the hon. Lady said. We need consistency between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and social services. There are a couple of further points that relate to the Children Bill as well. How will the proposal for a register of civil orders to allow police to check for outstanding orders against an alleged offender interact with the database proposed in the Children Bill? Surely that is an essential piece of information that needs to be

  567
  available to the appropriate agencies, under the auspices of the director of children's services, to ensure that children are not vulnerable in that respect.
  How will the commissioner for victims and witnesses interact with the children's commissioner proposed in the Children Bill? Which commissioner will promote the welfare of child victims? Unless those inconsistencies are straightened out at an early stage, they may fall between two stools.
  Another technicality that may have been addressed elsewhere, but has been mentioned to me, is highly topical given that we have just been through a series of elections. Some women wish to exercise their vote, but remain anonymous on the electoral roll because they are staying in a refuge where they do not want an abuser to find them, or have moved to a new address that is a little distant from their original home address and similarly do not want to be tracked down. Are there measures to ensure that those women are entitled to exercise their right to vote without compromising their safety? Have the Government considered taking that into account?
  Finally, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) regarding the mental capacity measures in the Bill. I hope that the Government will think again about reversing the amendments that were made in another place. In the matter of unfitness to plead, it is right that the decision should remain with the jury. The Government have not made the case for changing that. Such a decision is a matter of public interest, and a jury has the competence to make that decision. A decision that someone is unfit to plead can have draconian results, such as a hospital order without time restrictions. That is as the law stands now—the changes that the Government propose in the draft Mental Capacity Bill, which has been knocking around for two years without any sign of becoming legislation, provide even greater powers to lock up people whose behaviour certain other people do not like. It is essential that there are proper checks and balances over who is deemed unfit. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider that and to consult more widely than before with mental health charities and other organisations, because the Bill has serious implications for those suffering from mental health problems.
  Notwithstanding those small points, it is right that the House should give the Bill its support. It is also right that the Government should be scrutinised in relation to the amendments that they are trying to overturn, some of which would improve the Bill. The Bill is long overdue, but its time has finally come. I hope that Members of all parties will give it their constructive support to ensure that, when it eventually becomes law, it will be even better than the version that we are scrutinising today.
  6.43 pm
  Judy Mallaber: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. I am afraid that I must start with a minor point of disagreement with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who said that the Bill had been oversold. Other mechanisms are required to deal with the issue—legislation is only one part of it—but we should not a accept that the Bill has been oversold. At last, after all these years, there has
  568
  been such a change of culture in the way in which the subject is considered that the House is seriously identifying it as a crime that is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. That in itself is deeply significant.
  When I go to the annual general meeting of the local east Derbyshire domestic violence forum this Thursday, the Bill will be welcomed because several of its measures deal with issues highlighted by forum members in a consultation that I encouraged them to undertake. The same applies to proposals that were made following a consultation that we organised with the Derbyshire-wide forum, when we sat down for a day with Women's Aid and victims to go through the issues that they wanted us to take up on their behalf.
  Several of the legal changes in the Bill were mentioned in the course of both consultations. Making the breach of a non-molestation order an arrestable and criminal offence will be broadly welcomed. When a perpetrator comes to someone's home in the middle of the night and is threatening, the victim will feel safer in the knowledge that the police have greater powers to arrest that person and take them away. The importance of making common assault an arrestable offence has been emphasised to me by local police officers who deal with cases of domestic violence and who reckon that people are assaulted 35 times before they go to the police. They will welcome the ability to arrest someone on suspicion of assault without a warrant.
  The Bill has been a long time coming, but that is partly because it has been through a huge amount of consultation. That is important, because the issue has to be subject to detailed and ongoing work by all the agencies in our community and a wide range of people. The Bill is just one element of what needs to be done.
  I welcome the code of practice, which will ensure that victims have the advice, information and support that they need to deal with the criminal justice system. I also welcome the victims' fund and the commissioner for victims and witnesses. However, I want to highlight a couple of concerns that my local domestic abuse forums have particularly emphasised and which may not be given enough support. I hope that they will be taken on board in developing the code of practice and ensuring that the necessary resources are put in.
  First, the local and Derbyshire-wide forums strongly highlighted the lack of facilities and resources for counselling. One of my main local counsellors is a woman who operates through Victim Support and is being taken on board, with some funding, by our community safety partnership specifically to coordinate and develop counselling services. She told me that victims need life coaching from the moment they agree to seek help. They need to be taken right through the criminal justice process, which can last for a long time, and sometimes to be assisted over a lifetime. Yet many counselling services offer only a limited number of sessions.
  That issue arose many times during the consultations with local victims that we organised as part of the consultation exercise. I could give one quote after another from women saying that they needed advice. One woman said:
  "The only problem I face is the isolation and loneliness of not being part of the family."

  569
  She said that the refuge staff had been very supportive, but continued:
  "I think a woman who has experienced this abuse should be designated a personal mentor, counsellor who has been through the situation herself, maybe for the rest of her life."
  Another woman said:
  "After two years on my own I still think about what it was like. Talking about it helps. I have a support worker but I would like to see her more often."
  Counsellors can legitimise the victim's experience by telling them that they were not at fault and talking them through it.
  Another woman said that she discovered a huge amount of support when she went to seek it. However, she then said:
  "A key reason for my never seeking help in the years before was my conviction that no-one would even start to believe me—to everyone else he was a charming, attractive fireman."
  Such support cannot be provided in only a few counselling sessions. A little help in going through the process is not enough. We need to ensure that that point is taken seriously and that the code of practice, the help that we provide and the necessary resources cover the matter.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady is making an important point. She said that the experiences that she cites are from a survey covering Derbyshire. Was the point made about the difficulties for people in rural communities, who live a long way from support structures? They can feel even more isolated, if that is possible, than someone in an urban setting, where at least there are refuges and structures that they can consult.
  Judy Mallaber: There is a specific problem in rural areas, and one of the programmes in Derbyshire concentrates on villages and what we can do there, but similar problems arise in urban areas. A woman who now lives in London but previously lived in one of the towns in my constituency came to see me with her mother and sister. She had suffered the most appalling emotional and psychological abuse for many years and had never talked to anybody, including her family. She had not found it possible to raise the matter. She did everything that her husband said—she would not open the cupboard that contained the cheque books or do anything that he told her she could not do. She was isolated in an urban environment. One can be as lonely there as in a village or rural area, although I accept that specific problems apply in rural areas.
  Support for perpetrators to deal with offending behaviour was also highlighted locally. Last week, I spoke to one of our local police officers who deals with the matter and was told that victims often say that they are not happy or confident about taking up and pursuing their abuser if they feel that they cannot get help for their partners who are abusing them. It can be important for the victim to feel that some help is available for the perpetrator to deal with offending behaviour. Little such help is currently available; a huge gap in services has been identified. I hope that taking people through the criminal justice system, providing continuing counselling and dealing with offenders'
  570
  behaviour will be taken on board. These measures are a critical part of finding a legislative system and support services that will help victims, and help perpetrators to deal with their offending behaviour.
  One project at the university of Derby—Prevention of Domestic Abuse—was originally funded through lottery money, but now continues solely because of an academic, who is using it as a project and getting psychology students to provide assistance. Provision is hit and miss, and such services are unavailable in other parts of the country. I am sure that that is happening elsewhere. A couple of national pilot programmes have been set up, but only in the Prison Service and the probation service. I should be interested to know their outcome. They do not tackle the problem of people who have not yet been convicted; nor do they consider the possibility of a victim seeking help if she knew that assistance was available for her abuser to deal with his offending behaviour.
  Locally, we are seeking European funding through a Daphne application. We must have more consistent funding and I hope that that will be taken on board when we consider the code of practice and other services.
  Training is also crucial. We are developing a protocol locally to ensure that every professional is involved and takes responsibility. All the surveys that have been conducted, the day that we spent with victims and the questionnaires that we persuaded the trade unions to send out on what was being taken up in the workplace, showed that, although there had been a sea change in attitude and despite the wonderful quotes from incredibly supportive people in all the agencies and the police, unsympathetic approaches continue to exist. A huge amount needs to be done. The protocol that is being developed in our area provides that every professional should take responsibility. In the next couple of weeks, training sessions will be held for 100 of our local professionals, for example, police officers, social workers and teachers in east Derbyshire. That is important.
  I look forward to hearing what the code of practice will include and how the Under-Secretary envisages that the supplementary services, which the commissioner would presumably examine, will be taken on board. The Bill contains much that is important and valuable, but it should be supplemented by a range of other services.
  I want briefly to mention a subject that was raised earlier: the amendments tabled in another place on repeat offences. I have not examined the legal position in detail and I do not pretend to understand the legal arguments, but I plead with those who intend to support the Lords amendments to reconsider carefully. One main reason given for the relevant provision is internet pornography. I have examined that issue and I recently contributed to a debate in Westminster Hall on the subject.
  It is difficult seriously to tackle the crime of child pornography on the internet when one is considering only a few cases. A man in Lincolnshire was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for downloading 450,000 images. When they started some years ago, the police were chasing perhaps 12 pieces of child pornography in their area, but they now chase hundreds, thousands and millions. Every one of the 450,000 images involved a

  571
  child being abused, yet there is a sneaking suspicion that it is difficult for current legislation to exert its full force because of the scale of the crimes.
  Tim Loughton: I concur with the hon. Lady's comments. I recently spent an afternoon in the paedophile unit at Scotland Yard and saw cases of literally hundreds of thousands of images that had been downloaded. It is so easy to do—as easy as downloading a record track on to an MP3. The other problem is the enormous shortage of forensic technical officers who can get the kit together to analyse all the stuff. It is essential to make that easier when abuse is clearly taking place on a large scale.
  Judy Mallaber: I understand that new technical methods may make it possible to scan through all the images and identify them as unacceptable and illegal without having to go through every one. However, we have not yet arrived at the point at which the technology has developed to the extent that courts can accept it as evidence. I urge hon. Members who are keen to accept the Lords' amendments to be careful. Every single image represents a child who has been raped, abused or had something else appalling done to them. The full force of the law needs to be applied. It is not acceptable that, because one cannot get a jury to look at 450,000 images, the case will not be taken sufficiently seriously and the appropriate sentencing will not be carried out.
  I welcome the Bill. I look forward to a constructive debate and to our taking up all the issues that need to be covered to ensure that the legislation is underpinned and supplemented by the range of services required to ensure that domestic violence and other crimes are tackled seriously.
  6.59 pm
  Sandra Gidley: Since we began our debate, 151 instances of domestic violence have probably been reported to the police, if the average is anything to go by. I therefore welcome the Bill's proposals, but the question of whether more could be done has already been asked. Some of what I was going to say has been highlighted already, so I shall just reinforce the points that have been dealt with in some detail.
  The first helpful addition would be to include a definition of domestic violence in the Bill. The Home Office has a perfectly adequate definition. I wondered whether having a definition mattered, and what difference it would make, but when I have talked to agencies that deal with this field and try to track what is happening, I have found that the fact that different agencies have different definitions makes it difficult to track through and compare like with like. I fail to see what the opposition is to having a definition. In nearly every Bill that we deal with, we spend the first two or three hours defining concepts in fine detail, so I really do not know why there is no definitions here.
  Another issue, which has been raised a number of times, is the lack of recourse to public funds for women with an uncertain immigration status who are victims of domestic violence. Many of those women have been sponsored by UK-based spouses or partners, and may not have had much to do with their partner before
  572
  coming over. Unfortunately some, within a short period of time, become subject to domestic violence. Often, because of language difficulties and other problems, the only network that such women have in this country is the friends and relatives of the family into which they have married, so they literally have nowhere to go and are often forced to remain with an abuser.
  Some such women will be eligible to stay, but there is still a period of time in which they cannot have access to money in their own right. It can take months to process an application in their own right, during which time a woman cannot leave because she has no access to money for accommodation or living expenses. There might also be children affected in such cases. This is, fundamentally, a human rights issue, but my understanding is that the Government have resisted change because that would undermine the integrity of the immigration and benefits rule. I urge the Minister to consider ways in which we can get round that. I suggest that he look closely at the whole issue of sponsorship. There are probably ways in many cases in which a woman's living expenses can be recovered from the sponsor without jeopardising her safety. I hope that he will look at that in further detail.
  Many groups that have commented on the Bill have called for a community-based domestic violence advocacy service. I am not sure whether that is what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was referring to when he mentioned a one-stop shop, but we are probably thinking broadly on the same lines. The thought is that such a service would be cost-effective. In 2000, the cost for the police to respond to a single incident was £1,027. The average cost of an advocacy service has been estimated at £778, a saving of £249 per case.
  Vera Baird: I think that it is the cost of each visit from the police that is £1,027, whereas the cost of an advocacy service attending a client from start to finish would be £778.
  Sandra Gidley: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her intervention; she has far more experience in this field than I have. As we have already heard, 500,000 domestic violence calls were attended by the police last year, so it seems sensible to try to save money. Domestic violence is one crime that has, sadly, a very high repeat rate. Investing resources in each case, in whatever is the most cost-effective way, should in the long run bring down the overall rate.
  Why is it so important to have a domestic violence advocacy service? There is a great need for the one-stop shop approach, and many calls are made for that to be delivered by women for women. I was slightly uneasy with that suggestion at first, because there are men who are victims too. However, they are generally not the biggest problem and are not usually in a situation in which they have nowhere to go. I am also assured that men in such circumstances are happy to talk to women. It seems to be necessary for women to have somewhere to go where they can be made aware of their rights, their entitlements and the support that is available for them. This subject is rarely talked about, and most women think that they are going through their problems alone. They often do not want to go public or let people know

  573
  what is happening because they somehow think that it is their fault. It is not; but that is often the mindset involved.
  The biggest omission from the Bill concerns child contact. Is it right that a parent with a proven history of domestic violence can have unsupervised access to their child? The consultation paper "Safety and Justice" said that that would be dealt with in the Children Bill, but it is not dealt with there and it is not dealt with in this Bill. If we are not careful, we will miss two perfect opportunities to do something about this problem once and for all.
  Mr. Dawson: I share absolutely the hon. Lady's concern. Does she agree that it also seems utterly unacceptable for residence orders to be given to parents with a record of domestic violence or child abuse?
  Sandra Gidley: Yes. The hon. Gentleman has a long record of proactivity in this field, and I have much sympathy with those arguments, which I shall come to in a moment.
  The current presumption seems to be that a child is better off if he or she has contact with both parents. I cannot argue with that if both those parents are loving parents, and violence was not a factor in the break-up of a marriage. I could not agree more in those circumstances, and I have sympathy with those—usually fathers—who for various reasons, not their fault, are not allowed as much access to their children as they would like to have. Sadly, however, this is not all a bed of roses—life ain't like that. Research by Women's Aid has shown that in approximately half of domestic violence cases, the man has also abused the child in some way.
  Listening to some of the rhetoric that is around these days one gains the impression that contact is often not granted to fathers, but let us look at the statistics. In 1997, 42,000 contact orders were granted; in 2002, 61,356 were granted. We might ask how many were refused, and wonder whether there is a growing trend in that direction, too. Bearing it in mind that a third more contact orders were granted, the statistics for refusal are quite stark. In 1997, 1,850 were refused; in 2002, the number had decreased to 518, which is 0.8 per cent. of cases. Clearly, a significant number of children have contact with a parent who has a known history of violence.
  Guidance to the courts on that matter does not seem to be enough because the statistics show that since the court guidance was issued in April 2001 across England and Wales, at least 18 children have been ordered to have contact with fathers who have previously committed schedule 1 offences against children, and 64 children were ordered to have contact with fathers whose behaviour had previously caused the child or another child to be placed on a child protection register. Of those, 21 had unsupervised contact.
  We are told that every child matters. I am not sure that those children's best interests were taken into account. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has done much work on this, has produced numerous case stories showing the
  574
  complexity of what the courts and others must handle. In some cases, children have been under considerable pressure to play down certain aspects of behaviour. Children want to please. They want to please both parents, and they want to say the right thing. It is not always possible to obtain the full story of what is going on during the first contact with a child. In one very sad case, pressure was put on a child who had claimed that certain things were happening with the parents. None of the family could believe it, and the whole family put pressure on the child, suggesting that he was imagining it and it could not really have happened. Each of us could probably describe equally heartrending cases.
  A disturbing theme in a number of the NSPCC's case studies is the importance that officers in the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service appear to ascribe to contact with the father, often against the wishes of the child. The child may say that he or she is scared and frightened, and there are examples of that. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the suitability of CAFCASS officers for the task has been reviewed. As I have said, children's wishes and needs are often complex.
  There are other vulnerable groups to consider. I welcome clause 5, which creates the offence of familial homicide—
  "Causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult".
  It closes a legal loophole that allows each parent to say, "It was not me" or to stay silent, thus preventing a case from being made.
  Not just children and not just women are affected. Action on Elder Abuse began campaigning for clause 5 after a lady called Margaret Panting, aged 78, died at the hands of her family in Sheffield. I understand that she was a constituent of the Home Secretary, and that he has taken a close interest in the case. There is a real need for the clause. Statistics from Action on Elder Abuse show that two thirds of such abuse takes place in private households, and that 44 per cent. of identified abusers are family members. Of the identified abusers, just under half are sons and daughters, and a quarter are spouses. It is only rarely that a hands-on carer causes the abuse. Because people often think of carers in this context, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not talking about them.
  Despite the need for clause 5, however, I am not entirely sure that the current definition of a vulnerable adult is satisfactory. I am not convinced that we should define vulnerability in terms of age alone. That needs to be pursued in Committee.
  A potential scenario in the clause gives cause for concern. There is an assumption that in a case involving a husband and wife, both partners are equally culpable. To an extent, that assumption ignores the nature of domestic violence. It is insidious. We tend to focus on physical violence, but a strong characteristic of these cases is the belittling of women. There is psychological abuse. A woman will reach a stage at which, although not exactly cowering in a corner, she adopts protective behaviour in order not to attract violent behaviour, and her self-esteem is shattered. It takes a long time for women to recover from that.
  In such circumstances a woman may be terrified of saying something, and pointing the finger of blame. When such a woman is herself a victim, is it fair to put

  575
  her in the dock beside her partner? The last thing I want to do is create a loophole—a defence allowing people who clearly have not been victims of domestic violence to say, "I was terrified that he was going to beat me up." Nevertheless, I feel that we must recognise a type of behaviour that is not unusual and make allowances for it.
  Mr. Heath: We would expect a court to have particular regard to the extent to which the defendant had been subjected to domestic violence or was in fear of being subjected to it. Our noble Friends tabled an amendment to that effect, which the Government apparently intend to remove.
  Sandra Gidley: I urge the Minister to think long and hard. If that amendment is indeed to be removed, is there another way in which attention can be drawn to what is a very real problem?
  Vera Baird: I understand why such action has been advocated. My only concern about it is that there are other ways of putting pressure on people to stay quiet, to join in or to deny to the police that either party committed any offence. What about pressures such as duress and the withholding of money? My fear is that, by implication, the term "domestic violence" could almost exclude many other means of exerting pressure.
  Sandra Gidley: I understand that the courts have some discretion. I am sure that the Committee will spend a long time trying to get it right, and I hope that the hon. and learned Lady will be on the Committee, because I know she often has useful insights into thorny questions of this kind. I hope she accepts the spirit in which I make my comment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned the particularly thorny issue of fitness to plead, a subject dealt with comprehensively by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. Mind believes that the proposed changes
  "will lead to an increase in unwarranted deprivation of liberty and an unfair criminalisation of people who are not of proven criminal liability."
  I am sure that that too will be explored further in Committee.
  We have reached this point after some time. What has been happening is welcome, but while welcoming the Bill to an extent, Davina James-Hanman of the Greater London Domestic Violence Project says:
  "The changes will not, however, deliver the results that the Government wants. The current system fails through a lack of consistent implementation not through a lack of legislation."
  I hope we will improve the Bill. but I also hope that the Minister will give thought and impetus to further and more consistent implementation. I lope we will improve the Bill, but I also hope that the Minister will give thought and impetus to further and more consistent implementation.
  7.18 pm
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: I want to discuss the possibility of including in this excellent and welcome Bill a new and specific criminal offence of forcing to
  576
  marry, which is a dreadful aspect of domestic violence. First, however, let me say to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) that I have had dealings with young ladies who have been brought in at a very young age, married, subjected to domestic violence and, in two cases, thrown out on the street. As she says, they often have no one to turn to—their parents and family are 10,000 miles away, and may not have much sympathy in any case, because in their community the woman is always wrong. I have had 100 per cent. success using the domestic violence concession in those five cases. It has taken three or four weeks to avail them of the concession, allowing public funds to be allocated. Everything can be improved on, but it is my experience that those women have benefited from the concession.
  In February 1999, I raised in the House the subject of forced marriages. Since then, a great deal of work has been done: we have had the working group on forced marriages, the tireless work of the community liaison unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and guidelines for social workers and police officers. More importantly, many people who denied the very existence of forced marriages at that time now publicly denounce the practice. There has been a sea change in attitudes. At least now we can openly discuss a subject that was for too long taboo. I applaud the achievements of the Government and the police—especially West Yorkshire police: they may have come well down the league tables, but as far as many Asian women in my constituency are concerned, they really are wonderful. The team led by Martin Baines, with the help of Phillip Balmforth, is truly second to none. There has also been help from the Home and Foreign Offices, and from consular staff around the world, which has had an enormously positive impact.
  Despite that progress, the fact remains that young girls are still being forced into marriage every day, and there has been an increase rather than a diminution in the number of cases, perhaps because of increasing interest in the subject or an increase in the number of young people who are now of the traditional marriageable age—or possibly it is simply because the good work done to date has concentrated only on the effects of forced marriages, as opposed to their causes. It is perhaps a case of closing the gate after the horse has bolted.
  On average, my constituency office deals with a case of forced marriage every week. I happen to know that my two Bradford colleagues, who have large ethnic communities in their constituencies, deal with approximately two a week. The community liaison unit at the Foreign Office handles between 250 and 300 cases a year, as do Southall Black Sisters, and West Yorkshire police had 52 reported cases in the first half of this year.
  I have, I am sad to say, lost count of the number of desperate stories I have heard of the plight of British girls, and to a much lesser extent boys, some as young as 14 or 15, who have been forced to marry someone, often thousands of miles from home, with whom they are completely incompatible.
  I remember well the case of Noreen—not her real name—who was forced at the age of 14 to travel to Bangladesh to attend a family wedding, only to find on arrival that it was her own. She objected, but the

  577
  psychological and emotional pressures from the family, and the physical pressure from her grandmother, ensured that she went along with it. Subsequently, she was told that she could not return to the UK until she was pregnant and "happy" with her husband. Desperate to return home to Keighley, 14-year-old Noreen complied with the family's wishes.
  Three months after the wedding, pregnant, and with her education disrupted, Noreen was allowed to return home on the understanding that she agreed to sponsor her husband's application for entry to the UK as a spouse. Her son is now 15 months old, and her husband has made an application for leave to remain in the UK as a spouse. The pressure from her family and the threat of repercussions if she failed to comply were so great that she was forced, initially, to agree to sponsor that application. However, even at her tender age, with a young child, she has finally decided to divorce her husband, stay his application for leave to enter, and live with her boyfriend, whom she met at school, and his family. She has paid the price for her honesty. She has been disowned by her family, deprived of all contact with her brothers and sisters, and lives in fear of retribution from the family.
  Why, in the 21st century, are we prepared to allow the rights and lives of young people to be abused in such horrific ways? How can we possibly sit back and allow the rights of women to be ignored, with young British girls relegated to the category of an item for sale or a convenience that can be used as a means to get round immigration legislation?
  In the case of Noreen and many others, there is not only the threat or the reality of physical violence. All too often, they are haunted by the spectre of an honour killing—an extreme aspect of the psychological and emotional pressure and blackmail brought to bear so heavily on the victim.
  Education certainly has a crucial role to play in our attempt to eradicate this abuse of human rights and breach of child protection. Given that the number of forced marriages continues unabated, legislation is urgently required. This Bill gives us the chance to do something now. An amendment to make coercing or aiding and abetting someone into forced marriage a specific criminal offence in its own right is long overdue. A clear definition of forced marriage, incorporating not only the physical threat to the victim but taking account of the psychological and emotional intimidation that can be suffered is vital.
  I am sure that many will suggest that the criminal law already makes adequate provision for those abusing their children in such ways. The laws of assault, child abduction and false imprisonment are generally cited, but despite the existence of those laws, the practice of forced marriage continues. The aim of a new and specific offence criminalising coercing or aiding and abetting someone into forced marriage is not to bring about mass prosecutions of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Rather, it is an attempt to send out a clear and decisive message: forced marriage is not only un-Islamic but illegal.
  Why introduce a criminal law when we are not expecting many prosecutions? It is a question of changing hearts and minds regarding unacceptable
  578
  practices. The House passed legislation some time ago criminalising the driver or passenger of a vehicle without a seat belt. I cannot be sure of the exact figure, but I would suspect that the number of prosecutions for non-compliance over the past few years has been very small. That does not diminish in any way its value in terms of road safety.
  A new law would give a victim of forced marriage, at a time of considerable pressure, the comfort of knowing unequivocally that she is in the right and those applying the pressure are categorically in the wrong.
  Mr. Grieve: I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Lady has to say on a very difficult problem. Is not the difficulty with her interesting proposal that it still puts the onus on the individual victim to be willing to give evidence, probably against her parents, so it might be unlikely to be effective? Does she agree that it is an irony that at one time the primary purpose rule was operated, sometimes imperfectly, to provide a deterrent to such forced marriage being used as a mechanism to allow immigration to the United Kingdom, but that that is now gone?
  Mrs. Cryer: I would prefer not to discuss the primary purpose rule at this point—I could go on about it for quite some time, but I was not a Member of Parliament when it was being used, so I cannot comment on it. However, my late husband was a Member of Parliament at the time, and I know that he had some problems with it. There were problems, and that is why it was removed, but I agree that that did open to a certain extent the floodgates to the problems that I am dealing with. I also agree that it would be difficult to get young girls to come forward to give evidence against their parents that could well put them in prison, but we need to do this as a shot across the bows. No, we shall not have many prosecutions, but the very existence of a criminal law on that subject would be helpful to us when we try to help those girls.
  Mr. Grieve: There is one area in which we have already made some progress. As a result of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, for the purposes of coming back into this country, and for sexual relations to take place, we do not recognise marriages under the age of 16 that have been carried out abroad—a matter on which hon. Members on both sides of the House combined. That may go some way towards solving some of the problems that the hon. Lady has identified.
  Mrs. Cryer: In the case of Noreen, the police knew what was going on, but no charges were brought; the grandparents were involved, and they were not charged with anything. I still feel that a specific criminal offence would assist such girls.
  Mr. Dawson: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, and I support what she proposes. Is she aware of the use of care proceedings by local authorities in such cases?
  Mrs. Cryer: Yes I am, and I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying—but I cannot explain how very difficult it is for girls who are brought back traumatised. It takes them all their time and effort to come to see me, and they

  579
  come through the back door, because they are terrified that somebody from their community might see them. For some reason, both the young girls and their families in the Asian community in Keighley seem to regard social services as a sort of monster. I have never understood that, because I have no evidence that they have been dealt with unfairly, but they do seem to be terrified of social services, so I do not think that it is an option for those girls to seek help as my hon. Friend suggests.
  To continue: the weight of English law is clearly on the side of the victim—or should we pay lip service to political correctitude and parental choice, however misguided, and leave the law unchanged? I am not attempting to point the finger at any particular group or community; I can only act on the information that I am given in my constituency work. I do not go out to find such horrific cases; they are brought to me.
  It would give me the greatest pleasure if representatives from the communities in which forced marriage affects a minority were able to raise the issues themselves. The day when the words of a white, middle-aged, middle-class old-fashioned socialist can be replaced by those of an Asian woman in this House will be the day when I will no longer need to raise such issues. Were those communities prepared to take the lead on these issues themselves, there would be no need for a change in the law. Regrettably, not only in my constituency but in many northern towns and cities, I see no sign of that lead being taken. Instead, traditional patriarchal views seem to dominate and be of paramount importance, rather than the rights and the equality of women.
  I am not having a go at any particular religion or community, and I am aware that the Koran is as explicit as the Bible in its support for gender equality. For example, Sura 3:195 says:
  "And your Lord replied, 'I shall never cause the deeds of any of you to be lost, male or female, you are of each other'".
  Clearly, this is a question not of religion but of culture—or, more correctly, of the use of and reliance on perceived cultural values to excuse behaviour that we in the 21st century rejected years ago. For us to do nothing would, through our inactivity, sanction abuses of human rights, and young people would continue to suffer as a result of outdated and unacceptable perceived cultural traditions.
  I do not suggest for one minute that a new law criminalising the coercion, aiding or abetting of a forced marriage would solve the problems of forced marriage overnight. It would, however, be a major step forward. This may be more properly discussed on another occasion, but I would also like to see new legislation in line with the law in Denmark, in which a minimum age for people from outside the European Union who enter Denmark as spouses has been established. The Danes have specified the age of 24; I would be happy with 21. Likewise, ensuring that British citizens could not act as sponsors until they reached that age would give additional protection to the vulnerable. It would also give them time to complete their education.
  Whatever improvements there have been since 1999, clearly they are insufficient to deter some parents from subjecting their children to a marriage that they do not want, and which devastates their lives.
  580
  This Government have had the courage to meet the challenge of domestic violence head on. Many victims, and professionals who deal with the consequences every day, will thank us for our boldness. However, I hope that the Government will also consider extending the protection of the Bill to young people whose rights are being daily abused by enforced marriage.
  7.36 pm
  Andrew Selous: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who speaks with great wisdom, insight and compassion about the issues that she finds in her community. The extent of the problem of domestic violence has been well outlined by everyone who has spoken so far. It is appalling that there are between half a million and three quarters of a million domestic violence offences every year. I understand that a quarter of women and one sixth of men are likely to find themselves subject to domestic violence at some point in their lives.
  We have already heard several times that there are two deaths a week from domestic violence, and that 22 per cent. of all violent crime relates to domestic violence. Those are shocking statistics that rightly shame and concern all of us in the House, wherever we sit within it. Like many hon. Members, I have had the privilege of going around a women's refuge in my constituency, and I pay tribute to the staff of South Bedfordshire women's aid., who do an excellent job. They do not always have the funding or the facilities that they would like, but they provide an extremely important service at a critical and distressing time in the lives of many of my female constituents.
  I spoke to some of the staff there earlier today and they asked me to make several points in the debate. The constituency that I represent is partly a rural area, and they said that there is still a strong feeling among many people that domestic violence is not something that would happen in "our village", or "our town". The subject tends to be under cover, and I hope that this debate, and the publicity that we can give it in our constituencies, will give people the courage to realise that, sadly, the problem is widespread, and encourage them to go forward, seek help and contact the police as soon as possible.
  Another question raised by the lady to whom I spoke in the South Bedfordshire women's aid refuge was: where can men go? Women have been the focus of the debate, rightly, as I understand that 81 per cent. of the victims of domestic violence are women—but that means that almost 20 per cent. of victims are men. A gentleman came to one of my constituency surgeries not so long ago—a strong, healthy man—and broke down in tears in front of me when he described the distress and sheer terror that he felt because of the woman with whom he was living.
  We have talked of taboo subjects, and I venture to suggest that domestic violence against men is even more of a taboo subject than domestic violence against women. However, we should be aware that it does exist, and we should encourage men not to suffer it and to seek relevant help.
  Vera Baird: I agree very strongly with what the hon. Gentleman said, in that it is probably harder for men than for women to complain about domestic violence, particularly in situations such as he is describing. However, it is important to note that most domestic violence against men—although clearly not in the case he describes—is by men on men: by fathers on sons, brothers on brothers, sons on fathers and gay men on other gay men. The joint inspectorates of constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service, which conducted a thematic inquiry into domestic violence, found a female to male domestic violence level of only 1.5 per cent.
  Andrew Selous: I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Lady, who has informed our debates throughout. I was merely highlighting the fact that men are also victims, rather than trying to argue that any particular group causes these problems. This is a very real question that we should be aware of in designing these services. Who of us in this Chamber today has any facility for men in that situation? So far as I am aware, there is certainly no South Bedfordshire men's aid for the 20 per cent. or so of men who are victims of domestic violence.
  I should also like to pay tribute to Bedfordshire police, and in particular to Chief Superintendent Ivor Twydell, who used to be the superintendent of central division, which covers my constituency. He organised a conference on domestic violence not so long ago, and I know that he has a personal commitment to this issue. It was he who first told me that Bedfordshire police estimate that, typically, some 28 different assaults have to be made on a woman before she is prepared to come forward and do something about it. That is a truly shocking statistic, and I am pleased to note that one of Bedfordshire police's objectives for this year is to increase the arrest rate in cases of proven domestic violence.
  I want briefly to express a few concerns about the Bill as drafted. Like all who have spoken, I recognise its importance and hope that it is passed, but I look forward to hearing from the Home Secretary about the sibling relationship aspect, and I am most grateful to know that a letter will be forthcoming on that subject. Like one or two other Members, I am worried about convictions going ahead without a jury trial on remaining counts if an initial sample count has reduced a sentence. I note that the Bar Council has expressed concern about that issue. I am also worried about the issuing of restraining or non-molestation orders against acquitted suspects, and I hope that that issue will be considered in Committee. We are talking about very serious offences, and we must have the assurance of proper and due process of law to make sure that when such penalties are imposed, we are absolutely happy that justice has been done. That is very important indeed.
  Many Members have rightly said that this whole subject is about tackling a culture that regards domestic violence as acceptable, and about making it clear that our society is not prepared to accept it. However, I want to focus the remainder of my remarks on pointing out that that is too low an ambition. We should do far more than simply change the culture, so that domestic violence is no longer acceptable. We should focus on what we can do to ensure that domestic violence does not happen in the first place, because as with all things, prevention has got to be better than cure.
  582
  In considering the origins of domestic violence, we must first pay tribute to those parents who engage in the long, hard slog of disciplining their children in a loving way, to make sure that they resolve disputes with brothers, sisters and friends in a non-violent way. That is a very tough job, whether one's children are aged between three and eight, or older. It is a very long, hard, tough slog, and I pay tribute to all parents who engage in that process, and who, through the love of their children, are prepared to discipline them and to make them realise that hands and feet are not the things with which to resolve arguments. If we as a country can establish that principle with young children, we will go a long way towards making sure that there are fewer victims of domestic violence in future. Doing so is very important indeed.
  Of course, it is absolutely vital that there is no tolerance whatever of bullying in schools. South Bedfordshire schools are generally excellent, but from time to time people come to my advice surgeries and tell me stories that really do worry me. I am not sure that the school or local education authority in question has always acted with quite as much speed or concern as the parents and children had a right to expect.
  It is also very important that we encourage our children to communicate. I was concerned to learn that David Bell, the chief inspector of schools, thinks that the nation's five-year-olds are less able to speak and to communicate than in previous generations, and perhaps slightly less articulate generally. This issue is terribly important, because if people are unable to communicate properly, the likelihood of their expressing themselves physically, rather than verbally, can increase.
  My worries were reinforced following a conversation with the former chief inspector of prisons, General Sir David Ramsbotham. When he was chief inspector, a prison governor told him that if he had to get rid of all his staff, the last people to leave through the gate would be the speech therapists. He was pulled up short by that comment. Many prison inmates have never really learned the ability to communicate properly, and a lot of them are in prison because they have resorted to violence—in many cases. domestic violence. We need to teach people in prison the ability to communicate properly, and we should acknowledge the constructive role that speech therapists play in that regard.
  Domestic violence, as we know, arises primarily out of broken family relationships. Sadly, this country fares very badly in that regard. We are the divorce capital of Europe, with some 40 per cent. of marriages breaking down; indeed, the figure for broken cohabiting relationships is even higher. Of course, it is by no means the case that all broken relationships lead to violence, but we can say that violence is very largely a product of broken relationships. That said, domestic violence is also often alcohol or drug-induced.
  On prevention in cases where domestic violence has already happened, I was very interested to learn from the Assistant Secretary of State, who visited the UK just before Christmas, of the preventive work undertaken recently by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It runs a relationship enhancement course, and on a recent cohort some 90 violent husbands who were first-time offenders for spousal abuse were put through it. As a result, not one was rearrested for the same offence within a year.

  583
  However, some 20 per cent.—one in five—who had not been on that programme committed domestic violence again. It would be useful if the Minister contacted the American equivalent of the Department for Work and Pensions to see whether we can learn from those preventive programmes, to make sure that domestic violence reoffending rates come down. Indeed, there are other programmes, such as the alcohol programme, from which we can also learn.
  Within the UK, the particular voluntary organisations that I look to with the greatest enthusiasm in respect of their ability to reduce domestic violence in the future are the community family trusts. These are relatively new in the UK and there are only about 17 throughout the whole country. They were established in 1998, but more are on the way. Since their establishment, they have attracted Government and charitable funding. The Government funding has come partly through the marriage and relationship support programme within the Home Office, although it is now been moved to the Department for Education and Skills. I believe that the community family trusts will play a key part in helping us as a nation to develop our relationships better and to learn relationship skills so that there is less domestic violence within the UK.
  Community family trusts work with a wide range of professionals within the community—typically registrars, clergy, school heads, primary care trust staff and local authority staff—and they are committed to improving all couple relationships. They are also committed to the promotion of healthy marriages. They work before couples get married, when children arrive and when couples are in danger of splitting up—but not only at that stage. I believe that these groups will play a significant role in helping to reduce domestic violence in the UK.
  My plea is for prevention as well as cure. I recognise that the Bill's provisions are important for dealing with domestic violence as and when it occurs, but let us not lose sight of the fact that the best result of all would be to reduce the numbers that have to be dealt with as a result of the Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I tell the House that there are about 100 minutes left for debate and eight hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye? Hon. Members can do the maths for themselves and work out how many minutes are appropriate if we are to include all who have been waiting patiently to contribute to the debate.
  7.52 pm
  Julie Morgan: I am pleased to contribute to this important debate and delighted that the Bill is finally before us and beginning its passage through the House. I am pleased that the Bill has all-party support, but I am also proud that the Labour Government are introducing the legislation as a matter of priority. I congratulate Ministers on pushing for it to be included in the legislative programme and thank the Solicitor-General for her determination in seeking to get domestic abuse high on the political agenda. We have certainly succeeded in achieving that.
  584
  In nearly all the consultations with women that I have had and also in the Government's consultations through the "listening to women" programme. tackling domestic abuse always comes up as a high priority. When the "Safety and Justice" consultation paper came out in June 2003, I held a meeting in my constituency at which nearly 100 people, mostly women, came together to discuss the issues—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is not meant to read newspapers in the Chamber—and photocopies of newspapers are the next best thing.
  Julie Morgan: When the 100 people, mainly women, attended my meeting to discuss the Government's proposals, I was struck by the intensity with which they—together with representatives of different agencies that came along—discussed the subject. Given that one in four women suffer from domestic abuse, it is a matter of huge concern to all of us; if we have not suffered from it ourselves, we know of friends and relatives who have been in that position. I have always found that whenever domestic violence is discussed in a small group, workshop or private setting, there is always someone there who says, "This has happened to me." It is important that we take the opportunity presented by the Bill to try to encourage as many people as possible to come forward and talk about their experiences. There has been a taboo on talking about these difficult, intimate problems.
  The clear message from the Government in introducing the legislation is that domestic violence is unacceptable and must be tackled. There are ways of tackling it, and it is no longer acceptable to provide excuses. As others have said, it is no longer acceptable to say, "It is only a domestic". This criminal behaviour must be tackled head on: that is the Government's message today.
  I would like to talk a little about the experience of domestic abuse in Cardiff. We have discovered there that it is possible to tackle the problem, but that the best way of achieving results is to get all the agencies to work together. That is the key to tackling domestic abuse. We need domestic abuse legislation, but we also need effective multi-agency working. It is essential that proactive advocates work with the victims. We need the legislation, but as many others have said, we also need the work on the ground.
  I chair the Cardiff domestic violence forum, which is attended by all the key agencies. Two years ago, the Cardiff women's safety unit was set up with a grant from the Home Office as a pilot project for 12 months. After the first 12 months, because of the unit's success in tackling domestic abuse, the funding continued and was split between the Home Office and the Welsh Assembly. Now the funding has moved over entirely to the Welsh Assembly.
  The women's safety unit is a multi-agency group of workers that, most importantly, includes a serving policewoman. That is one of the keys to its success: the police and all the other agencies are working together to tackle the problem. The unit supports victims and their children throughout the entire court process and acts as

  585
  a central point for all the agencies in the area. It trains the relevant agencies, including magistrates, court officials, accident and emergency staff—health is a key sector to be taken into account—midwives and many other agencies.
  As a result of working together in Cardiff, there has been a notable improvement in the statistics. We have actually seen how this work has changed the statistics for the better in Cardiff: more crimes are being reported, the number of repeat incidents has gone down, and the number of women withdrawing their cases before reaching the courts has also gone down. One of the reasons for that happening is the support to victims given by the women's safety unit staff: accompanying them to court, promoting a special domestic violence court where all the domestic violence cases are listed together, building up strong links with the Crown Prosecution Service and responding to emergencies.
  In common with other hon. Members, I have had women coming into my constituency surgeries in desperate situations, but I have been able to contact the women's safety unit, which often offers an almost immediate appointment or to go to the victims' homes, if necessary. The unit will negotiate over the different legal, housing and benefits issues and it is able to provide the one-stop shop that other hon. Members have mentioned today. That is the sort of response that is needed when we have reached the stage of women reporting a crime.
  Several measures in the Bill will further help that safety work. For example, setting up an independent commissioner for victims is bound to contribute to supporting victims. The change in the law to make common assault an arrestable offence will give much more power to the police when they go victims' homes. As I have said already, experience in Cardiff shows that intensive work and intensive intervention can deal with the problem with some degree of success, particularly helping cases to go to court. As other hon. Members have said, what we really want is to stop cases reaching the stage where that is necessary.
  In Cardiff, we set up multi-agency risk assessment conferences. An evaluation showed that the monthly meetings provided a focus for sharing information from all the different agencies. As a result of those meetings, action was taken to reduce the harm to high-risk victims. The MA RACs deal with only a small number of very high-risk cases—about 20 to 30—working with both victims and their children. They have been successful and, since their establishment in April 2003, have been effective in reducing revictimisation. Six out of 10 women have not had to seek help since that intensive form of help was introduced, and those positive results show the benefits of a multi-agency approach to helping women who experience domestic violence.
  Helping those women requires large resources, and most of the work is done by women workers from the women's safety unit. I would like to see a network of such units across Wales and the rest of the UK. There is one in Cardiff and another has been partially set up in Caerphilly. The intensive support needed to address those issues must be available to all victims of domestic abuse in the UK.
  586
  Another recommendation in the Bill that I strongly support is the statutory establishment of homicide reviews. We have only had one such review in Wales; most of them have been carried out by the Metropolitan police in London. The one we had in Wales came to some important conclusions. It was jointly chaired by the NSPCC and the police, which felt that that was important as it facilitated the involvement of other agencies and provided a good model.
  The review produced some awful and regrettable statistics. Before the death of the woman involved, she had made 27 visits to accident and emergency, and suffered 11 assaults and six unexplained injuries. Her case had not been flagged or tracked, and no routine questioning on domestic abuse took place. Only one health professional sought to refer the victim to another agency, despite her numerous visits to her GP. A lack of training was evident as has been true for all the reviews so far.
  The importance of putting such reviews on a statutory basis is to show that they are not done to blame anyone. We need to find out why such homicides happen and learn the lessons from them. Homicide reviews should also be linked to other reviews. Other hon. Members have mentioned the chapter 8 case reviews for children at risk and reviews of the situation of vulnerable adults. Much of the information will overlap and many of the professionals involved will be the same. Much experience can be built up from those reviews and it is important that the work is not duplicated. The review in south Wales took 18 months and enormous time and effort from the professionals involved. It is important in terms of cost and efficiency that work is not duplicated and that professionals who deal with various vulnerable groups work together. In that way, it would be possible to build up a body of expertise linked to all the various agencies.
  It is also important to consider this Bill in connection with the Children Bill. We need a strategy to deal with the child victims of domestic abuse and the men who offend. If one in four is a victim, there must be a lot of offenders. We must create a climate in which men do not become offenders, and that involves education. We also need to offer opportunities for men to seek help for their behaviour voluntarily, through programmes in the community, instead of waiting until they get to court and are made to attend. When I last looked at the number of programmes in prison available for domestic violence offenders, there were only two in the whole of the UK. I hope that the Minister will be able to address that important issue when he replies.
  Alcohol abuse has already been mentioned. Sadly, Euro 2004 will mean that the rate of domestic violence will soar. Half of all domestic attacks on women are fuelled by alcohol and, unfortunately, the football competition will increase the amount of alcohol consumed and, therefore, the number of attacks. It happens on Superbowl Sunday in the United States and it will happen in the next three weeks.
  I am pleased to support the Bill, which is a huge step forward and recognition of a problem that has been hidden for far too long. I shall be pleased to support the Government tonight.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Robert SymsI also welcome the Bill and the way in which the debate has been conducted, with dialogue across the Chamber. I am sometimes suspicious of that, because well-intentioned Bills can go wrong because of too much consensus; a little argument is sometimes necessary. However, I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and indeed the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), all have an eye for detail. I am sure that the propositions in the Bill— many of them very technical—will be tested and we w ill get the legislation that the country deserves. The problems that we can all foresee will be sorted out so that we end up with a reasonable Bill.
  Much of the challenge of addressing domestic violence lies in changing attitudes, and they have changed substantially in my lifetime. Attitudes have changed on what is considered acceptable and what people will report or tell their friends and relatives. We have taken a giant step forward. The point that the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) made about implementing the current law is right. Much of the present law is not used but could help in the fight against domestic violence. One of the greatest strides has been in police attitudes to the topic. As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said, people now know that the police deal much more sensitively with the issue, and that is very helpful.
  Domestic violence is a major problem. Between 500,000 and 750,000 incidents occur each year, of which 62 per cent. lead to injury and 18 per cent. require hospital treatment. As we have heard, it can lead to people losing their jobs because they cannot turn up to work. People can suffer for years. Indeed, many people suffer many assaults over the years before they feel that they can come forward, and so we may still only see the tip of the iceberg.
  I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill. The introduction of significant new police powers to deal with domestic violence, including making it an arrestable criminal offence to breach non-molestation orders, with a penalty of up to five years in prison, is very good. When people see the courts issue an order, they want to feel protected, and when such orders are breached those responsible must feel the full rigour of the law. In such cases, five years in prison is perfectly appropriate. I also welcome the provision to make common assault an arrestable offence and the amendment of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to ensure that victims have a say if an application is made to change a restraining order that protects them from abuse or harassment. People do not always understand why orders have been changed, especially if they were happy with them, and that can lead to further pressure and harassment. I also welcome the strengthening of the civil law on domestic violence so that cohabiting and same-sex couples have the same protection as heterosexual couples. The Bill will also extend the availability of non-molestation orders to couples who have never lived together or been married, and that is important because problems can arise in such circumstances and need to be dealt with.
  588
  Like some of my hon. Friends, I still have reservations. If a man is acquitted in a criminal trial, he could still be subject to a yellow card restraining order, and that raises civil liberties issues. I am sure that the Committee will consider that provision in great detail to see whether it would be appropriate.
  We heard from the previous speaker of the tremendous importance of multi-agency working between the police, the probation service, local authorities and other statutory agencies. Many have domestic violence forums, but they are not necessarily funded; certainly in Dorset, where our police force is well at the bottom in funding terms, that adds to the burden on the agencies. If the sharing of information reduces problems in the long term, it may save money; as we have heard, visits—perhaps repeated visits—from the police cost an awful lot of money, so information sharing and multi-agency working could represent a saving.
  I welcome the setting up of a register for civil orders. Victim Support certainly recognises the importance of that, because sometimes the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are hampered by not having full information.
  In 2001, victims' personal statements were introduced and they have become a helpful sentencing tool for judges and magistrates. It is important for their recovery that victims of a crime are asked how it has affected them.
  The Home Secretary slightly confused me when he was talking about victims' compensation; indeed, I am a little disappointed that the Government have not yet published their proposals, as it is rather late in the Bill's progress for their publication. There has been some speculation about the tariff system for fines to provide £25 million for the victims' compensation fund. In general, I welcome the principle that those who perpetrate a crime should pay towards compensating the victims, but I have some concerns.
  Earlier, the Home Secretary seemed to be setting out a complex and complicated formula whereby there could be a surcharge of £35 on fines of more than £1,000. He said that the system might be income related, but that would build in further complications. He then said that the surcharge probably would not be appropriate for a first offence and that fines of less than £1,000 might incur a £10 surcharge. He also referred to the Department for Transport's review of the points system.
  We are getting into a complex system, albeit for laudable reasons, and the Committee will have to spend a lot of time ensuring that we have an understandable system that works and does not become a bureaucratic nightmare. I am glad that the Home Secretary seemed to be ruling out a £35 surcharge on parking tickets, but I remain slightly concerned that, as the Government seem to have many speed cameras in inappropriate places, some of my constituents could face an added charge—like an additional tax—to support the fund. Those proposals need sorting out; we need much more detail about the Government's thinking.
  The importance of women's refuges has been mentioned. A refuge was set up in Poole only a couple of years ago. Councillor Elaine Atkinson, of Poole borough council, has been a great advocate and has worked very hard. She and her committee raise money

  589
  for the refuge and do sterling work. A problem in Poole is that we have both some of the most expensive housing in the country and a housing shortage. Somewhere to live or to find refuge is extremely important for victims of domestic violence, and Poole is one of the areas where that is a major constraint on people moving out of their home to get away from domestic violence.
  Every week, 40,000 people throughout the country are looking for refuge—a tremendous number. Refuges are important, but funding can be haphazard. We have already heard about the unsung heroes—people who have worked hard over many, many years to keep those important institutions going, but there are not enough of them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made the interesting point that there were no refuges for men. The problem is probably much smaller, but I had not focused on it.
  I have some reservations about a commissioner for victims; it seems a little like gesture politics. No doubt, however, the Committee will look into that matter to determine what the Government are doing. I can certainly think of better ways to spend money.
  The measure is important. There is much consensus in the House. Through our work in our constituency surgeries, we all realise the importance of the issue. It does not matter whether we are from poor areas or rich ones; people in all income brackets suffer from domestic violence. It must be tackled, and if we get the legislation right it will make a material difference to many, many hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens.
  8.15 pm
  Ann Keen: The first women's refuge in Britain and, I believe, in the world was set up in Chiswick, in my constituency, by Erin Pizzey. I became familiar with the work of refuges in the early 1980s when I was a nursing tutor at West Middlesex university hospital in my constituency and met Sandra Horley, who is now the chief executive of Refuge. Ever since, we have continued to be friends and to work together. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Jo Richardson, who was the MP for Barking and did so much in this field when it was difficult to do so.
  We are seeing unprecedented political activity on domestic violence. It is more than 30 years since the relevant legislation was given such a far-reaching overhaul—it certainly needed one. As a result, abused women and children will be better protected than ever before. It is amazing to think that throughout three decades they have struggled to make their voices heard, campaigning for changes in the law, public attitudes and society's response to domestic violence. At last, those changes are happening and no one working in the field would deny that it is a most exciting moment.
  Many of the organisations that I listen to and work alongside ask whether the Bill and other recent legislation, in particular the Children Bill, go far enough. Can we now tell the woman who calls Refuge's national helpline to stop worrying because there are legal remedies for her and her children that will be
  590
  implemented by understanding professionals? Can we reassure her that society will comprehend and support any decision she makes about her future?
  Many workers in Women's Aid and Refuge would agree that we have made major legislative advances. It is also true that, as has been shown in the Chamber today, there is the political will—and the will of society—to end domestic violence. The voices are stronger than ever before.
  At one time, it was acceptable to be a drink-driver, but that is no longer acceptable in our society. I believe that we have now reached the stage when our society is saying that domestic violence is no longer acceptable either.
  There are other causes for concern, however. I have a particular interest in the denial of benefits to women with no recourse to public funds. I praise the work of the Hounslow Asian women's refuge in my constituency and of the Southall Black Sisters in the neighbouring constituency. They have done so much for so long, like the late Jo Richardson, at a time when it was not easy to talk about domestic violence in communities such as Southall. I hope that we can make representations and that the Minister will look further into the problems relating to benefits.
  We need to integrate policies and services for adult victims with those for their children. From my knowledge of such work, and from the explanations of Refuge, it is clear that domestic violence affects women and children in overlapping ways. It affects them together through the experiences they share; it affects them separately through the experiences they do not share and, perhaps most significantly, it affects them in relation to each other. We must not forget that about 50 per cent. of children are also abused by their mothers' partners.
  Absolutely staggering figures have come out from the Department of Health and recently from the Royal College of Midwives. Domestic violence is the biggest single killer of the unborn child. Women at risk from domestic violence are four times more likely to miscarry and four more times more likely to have a low birth-weight baby. Foetal morbidity from violence is more prevalent than from diabetes or pre-eclampsia.
  As a nurse in the 1980s, when I was learning the profession, I knew the myths that surround domestic violence. I understood how difficult it was for women to be believed and to leave. However, I was somehow part of that, too. When I worked in an accident and emergency unit, I would care clinically for the woman whom I was asked to look after. The police would come into the unit and ask where the domestic was, and I would reply, "I will take you to her." I would care for her clinically and I hope that I cared for her emotionally, but I also made mistakes. I would say, "Why did you let him do this to you? I wouldn't let this happen to me. Why can't you leave?" As a health professional, I was reinforcing the view that perhaps it was the woman's fault.
  I remember, in particular, the husband of a woman with a ruptured spleen. He brought me and all the nurses chocolates and wanted to know which ward his wife was on so that he could visit her after she had been taken from the accident and emergency department. We felt that we did not know quite how to deal with this and we

  591
  did not know where to take the problem. We did not want the husband to visit her on the ward, but we knew that that would happen because the police were not involved and no one was dealing with the fact that he had ruptured her spleen. That was the position in the 1980s, but I am pleased to say that today it is a very different story. We all know how to react.
  Other Members have raised issues that I was going to mention. It is important that we consider the perspective of health professionals, but we are still not asking women how the abuse happened to them. They are visiting GPs, hospitals and other health professionals, because they might be abusing alcohol or even have suffered the trauma of an overdose. The health professionals may be dealing with other substance misuse, but nobody ever asks about domestic violence. There may be rare cases in which enlightened trusts, hospitals and primary care teams look at ways of dealing with the problem, but that it is still not good enough. When someone says that they have bumped into a door or fallen down the stairs, other questions could be asked about the bruising.
  The bruising may also be psychological, especially to the children involved. I am very concerned about their contact with violent fathers. Only the other week, Refuge told me about the case of a child who had witnessed his father shoot his mother in the stomach. On the father's release from prison, he was granted contact with the child and used to whisper in her ear, "I'm going to get you and I'm going to get your mum." We should involve teachers and social workers and everyone in this wonderful multidisciplinary team that we have today. It is much more enlightened and, without question, it will be able to deal with the support system in the Bill and the work of the Metropolitan police. I praise it for the massive change in attitude and training that has taken place.
  We cannot be complacent. Teachers must ask themselves why a child is disturbed. Could it be the result of domestic violence? Why is a child truanting? What is going behind the closed doors in the home? Many health workers are privy to what has gone on behind closed doors and, with that responsibility, they must ask the right questions. Health professionals still ask refuge workers and workers in the domestic violence field why the women do not leave, but that is still the nub of the problem. If the professionals are still asking that question, their training means that knowledge and information has not got through.
  We need proper funding, so that we can ensure that every refuge and all those in the profession working with women and children do not ever have to turn anybody away because of lack of funds. That requires co-ordination and the implementation of a proper strategy throughout the whole multidisciplinary team. Otherwise, this brilliant Bill will not be implemented. That is my biggest fear.
  I commend the Government and every agency that has worked on this issue, but, in particular, I commend the brave women who have come forward, told of their cases and lived through them to go on to a much happier life.
  8.25 pm
  Lady Hermon: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have done my maths and will keep my comments short to allow other hon. Members to speak.
  I am rather embarrassed, as I believe that I am the only Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland here today. I regret that. Domestic violence is a very serious problem in Northern Ireland and, if the statistics are correct, six people there died as a result of paramilitary violence, but on average six people a year die as a result of domestic violence. If the House were discussing paramilitary violence, I imagine that representatives of the other parties would be present. However, I note with deep regret that they are not present for a debate on domestic violence. As has been said many times before, murder is murder is murder—whether it is the result of paramilitary or domestic violence. The victims were loved by someone and their loss is very sad and should be taken just as seriously whatever the cause.
  I welcome the fact that the vast majority of the provisions in the Bill have been extended to Northern Ireland. A fact that is often overlooked in the House is that criminal law is not a devolved issue. Even for the brief time that we had a devolved Assembly and 108 Members sat in Stormont dealing with social security and other devolved issues, criminal law was not among them. Responsibility for criminal law has always remained here at Westminster. Given the results of the Assembly elections last November in which the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein did so well, it is hard to envisage the Assembly rising from the ashes, because that would mean that the First and Deputy First Ministers, who are jointly elected, would come from Sinn Fein and the DUP. It does not take a crystal ball to see that the Assembly will not reconvene until some time in the future, but we live in hope.
  While criminal law remains a responsibility of the House, it is a matter of deep concern that, in many aspects, the people of Northern Ireland have been left behind. The legislation on antisocial behaviour that was passed in the House last year did not extend to Northern Ireland. We are only just finishing the consultation on antisocial behaviour orders in Northern Ireland—they are still not available to us. I listened to questions about the implementation and enforcement of ASBOs during Home Office Questions today and thought, "What a luxury to have them." I praise the Home Office for extending the vast majority of the Bill's provisions to Northern Ireland. Domestic violence is a serious problem in Northern Ireland. Last year's police statistics show that reported incidents of domestic violence in Northern Ireland have increased by more than 9 per cent. I emphasise the word "reported" because as all hon. Members who have participated in the debate appreciate, the cases reported to the police represent only the tip of the iceberg, because the vast majority are not reported.
  It will have been clear to the Government from my earlier interventions that I am extremely disappointed that the provisions in part 3 of the Bill on the code of practice for victims and the commissioner for victims and witnesses will not be extended to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) cast doubts on

  593
  the likely effectiveness of the commissioner, but I think that the proposal is good and long overdue. Unfortunately, however, the Northern Ireland Office is currently resisting the extension of the provisions to Northern Ireland, which is totally unjustifiable.
  The reason why the Northern Ireland Office is reluctant for the remit of the victims' commissioner to be extended to Northern Ireland lies in the "Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland", which was one of two reviews undertaken after the Belfast agreement was signed—of course, the other was the Patten report on policing. The contents of the review are not written in tablets of stone because when it has suited the Government, they have brought forward measures earlier than the review recommended while omitting other measures.
  An entire chapter of the review is devoted to victims, and it examined proposals for an advocate for victims in Northern Ireland. It was concerned that because Northern Ireland was a "relatively small jurisdiction"—that is important, because it is a jurisdiction with 1.7 million people—the proposal to have a separate advocate for victims
  "might merely serve to diminish the stature and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate"
  and cut
  "across the responsibilities of the individual criminal justice organisations."
  That argument was fairly laudable four years ago when the review was published.
  The criminal justice inspectorate, which was cited as the excuse for not having an advocate for victims in Northern Ireland, was established two years ago by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, and Mr. Kit Chivers—a good appointment—was appointed as the chief inspector of criminal justice with great fanfare, song and dance and razzmatazz in June 2003. However, on 19 May 2004, at column 1092W of Hansard, I asked how often the Secretary of State had met the chief inspector of criminal justice. I received the answer "not yet". The inspectorate is not even up and running, and we do not expect that it will be in operation until the autumn. That is gravely disappointing.
  I am perhaps more concerned, however, by something that Baroness Scotland rightly and properly said in the other House, and I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), who will take the Bill through the Committee, is back in the Chamber to hear this point. Baroness Scotland said:
  "I need to be clear that the intention of this legislation is to introduce rights for all victims of crime. We are not looking to create a hierarchy of victims, attaching greater importance to some types of victims than others."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 March 2004; Vol. 658, c. 1452.]
  I tell the Under-Secretary that the substantial majority of people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum for the Belfast agreement. Clause 1 of the agreement said that the people of Northern Ireland wished to remain part and parcel of the United Kingdom unless, and until, a majority voted otherwise. The people of North Down expect to be treated in exactly the same way as those in North Devon.
  594
  Given that Baroness Scotland assured the other House that there would not be a hierarchy of victims, the people of Northern Ireland need not only words, but action. To use a horrible phrase, albeit one that describes the situation accurately, they need joined-up government, rather than enormous amounts of time and money being wasted on truth and reconciliation commissions. Such proposals will not bring justice and truth in Northern Ireland, but a lot of pain will be caused to many people. The way forward for the Government and the many thousands of victims of Northern Ireland would be to extend the Bill—lock, stock and barrel—to Northern Ireland as quickly as possible.
  8.34 pm
  Huw Irranca-Davies: It is always a great privilege and pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon).
  Domestic violence is now the second most common crime in the United Kingdom. The House can take pride in the fact that not only do we have a Government who are introducing this Bill, but we have many hon. Members—I do not count myself among them, not having been here for long—who have consistently, across many years, spoken up for those who do not have a voice for themselves. Such legislation will help to reduce the occurrence of the insidious incidence of domestic violence that can trap and torment adults and children alike into a personal hell, from which many have traditionally seen no escape.
  I suggest that we are speaking for those who do not readily have a voice themselves. Let us put that assertion and the bland statistics behind domestic violence in context. It has been mentioned that in each year of the British crime statistics, in excess of 500,000 people will be subject to domestic violence. That means that if we filled the Chamber to capacity with those people every day, and if we debated the subject every day and listened every day to those who suffer from personal abuse, we would finish that debate not next year, not one year hence, not two years hence, but in April 2007. That is the scale of the problem and the challenge that we face. It also shows the scale of the testimonies of despair, pain and hurt that we would hear. Yet that is only the recorded incidence of domestic violence.
  We have one afternoon and one evening, yet in this one sitting we can begin to act for the many silent voices that also haunt the Chamber and this country. Those silent voices haunt the pages of the supplementary questionnaire to the British crime survey, which show that more than six out of 10 women and nine out of 10 men who were subjected to domestic violence did not believe that what had happened to them was in any way a crime. On a related issue, there are the silent voices of more than four out of 10 women who have been subjected to rape, as defined by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1904, but who do not conceive of themselves as having been raped. There are also the innocent and reluctant observers of domestic violence—the children who stand by and watch. Those are the silent voices behind the pages of what are merely reported crime statistics.
  My wife works in an accident and emergency department of a major south Wales hospital. In addition to the expected and accidental injuries that come

  595
  through the doors every hour of the day and night, there are also the unexpected and the non-accidental. One recent study suggested that in one inner city hospital, more than one in three women who entered the doors of the A and E unit had been victims of domestic violence at some point.
  The most abused are often women, making up, as has been mentioned, more than eight out of 10 of those who are at the receiving end of domestic violence. However, they are not the only victims. Some men are also abused. Also, children continue to see one parent abusing another. It is believed that nine out of 10 children are in the same room or the next room during attacks on their parents. One in three will try to intervene. The physical scars of domestic violence, and sometimes the deaths through domestic violence, are often just the most obvious and immediate manifestations of such abuse, but the emotional scars and the repercussions on the mental health of those involved—not least the children trapped in the mayhem—are sometimes difficult to see, but equally long lasting and potentially devastating to the individual's whole life.
  It would only be right to highlight the fact that many organisations are involved in changing that domestic environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) was one of many who talked of their role in that. Those organisations give options to those who feel that they cannot speak out or escape their predicament and cannot alone mild an alternative future. The refuge centres throughout the UK give assistance not only to women, but to families, so that they can begin the path that ends the violence.
  Wales has 31 women's aid groups, including one in my constituency, which provide temporary accommodation. Caerphilly has a year-long pilot project—one of two in the UK—that aims to stop domestic violence and, at the same time, deal with the under-reporting of incidents. Only last month, the first all-Wales helpline for victims of domestic violence was launched in Penygroes. The helpline offers confidential information and support for individuals. In the autumn, we begin a programme that deals with the child victims of domestic violence, who are now beginning to show, as one could foretell, disturbing signs of becoming violent and aggressive themselves.
  There is an economic cost as well to domestic violence and abuse. According to the manager of the Cardiff women's safety unit, domestic violence is the biggest cause of murder in south Wales and costs society around £1.1 million each year. Although the moral case for ending violence is paramount, the financial case is also compelling.
  So we are making steady progress in Wales, but we have much more to do. As we highlight the issue today, I urge anybody who feels that they are in a situation of violence to seek assistance from the many organisations that can help. The Bill will augment that work by helping to diminish the occurrence of violence and by creating the legislative and, most importantly, as other hon. Members have mentioned, the societal climate in which violence in the home is simply not tolerated.
  Today we find ourselves in a position to instigate change; the Prime Minister has rightly described the Bill as
  "a symbol of our determination to rebalance the whole criminal justice system around the needs of the victim".
  596
  I have confidence in the fundamentals of the Bill and in the parameters and guidance that it sets forth for the judicial system. We stand in an enviable position: we have reached a point where we can, if not end, at least sharply reduce the incidence of domestic violence. I think of provisions in the Bill such as the new police powers that make domestic violence an arrestable offence; the penalties of up to five years in prison; the power to issue restraining orders even when the defendant has been acquitted but where the court believes that there is still a risk of abuse; the extension of the civil law to cover same-sex couples in cohabitation; and the new offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or a vulnerable adult. There is so much good in the Bill that the welcome that it has generally received should be no surprise. The changes will strengthen the law so that those who perpetrate the crimes will be punished, while the victims' rights will be restored to where they belong.
  The Bill has been welcomed by many working in the field and across the party political spectrum, as we have seen from today's debate, but as any legislation proceeds, there are always calls for fine-tuning or strengthening of the provisions. The Minister will be aware of those concerns. They have been taken up by many organisations and have been reiterated to me by organisations in south Wales, which are hugely supportive of the Bill but which want the Minister to respond sympathetically to the following issues.
  First, how can the Bill ensure that there is safe contact with parents and family when a relationship breaks down? Should that need for safe contact be enshrined in legislation? If not, my constituents ask me, how can safe contact be achieved, particularly in the light of evidence that some children may continue to be put at risk by being put into contact with schedule 1 offenders or those on the child protection register, when sometimes such contact is unsupervised—or even by being ordered to reside with parents who have a history of violence? When the Minister responds to the debate, will he confirm that he recognises that danger, and will he demonstrate how it can be avoided if the need for safe contact is not to be enshrined in legislation?
  Secondly, will the Minister explain how adequate provision of services for the victims of violence—services such as advocacy, protection and support—is to be achieved across the UK? I recognise that that will entail partnership and multi-agency working, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North said, but will the Minister expand on the additional funding recently announced for the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and confirm that that funding is applicable also to Wales?
  Although it is true that domestic violence may never be completely eradicated, this Bill offers the legislative framework that will create a climate in which abuse cannot thrive and will not be tolerated. Given that 120 women and 30 men are killed each year by their partner, what better place than here and what better time than now to help to end the daily torment of thousands of our constituents and of many thousands of women, men and children in every part of the UK, and to put to rest the ghosts of domestic violence that haunt this House and houses throughout the country?
  8.44 pm
  Vera Baird: Domestic violence used to be a secret crime committed in the night behind closed doors. It was secret not only because he would not talk about it but because of her shame. It was also private—outsiders who knew or guessed would regard it as a hands-off part of the complex of the couple's emotional relationship. The police took the same view: they thought it was just a "domestic", a nuisance which it was beneath them to attend and which took place, often at the same address, many times.
  Those attitudes are not now acceptable from him, the police or her. She needs support, but she must speak out. Domestic violence perpetrators are often serial offenders who leave one battered woman's life in disarray and take up with another. She will therefore serve other women badly by keeping a dark secret. According to the lead of the Association of Chief Police Officers on domestic violence, many domestic violence perpetrators commit other crimes, and it is desirable to bring them to police attention. Considerable damage is done to children who witness domestic violence and even suffer it, because there is a close link between domestic violence and child abuse. For all those reasons, and because women are entitled to live in safety from violence, everyone involved must play a role in ensuring that domestic violence is stamped out.
  I therefore welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on it. It is by no means the first thing that they have done to tackle domestic violence. The list of non-legislative measures is as long as a book, and they have started to change the culture, not least—and I speak approvingly—of the main Opposition party, who did not keep the issue at the forefront of their mind when in government, but have today made some positive proposals. The Bill, however, could be improved. It deals mainly with court proceedings, but few cases are complained about, and fewer reach court. Forty-two per cent. of complainants withdraw their complaint, and the conviction rate is 11 per cent., so there is a need for pre-trial action.
  Consider a typical domestic violence complainant in, for instance, Redcar. Redcar and Cleveland women's aid does a fine job on a fine, or thin, budget. Usually in the household, the abuser has the money and, as a rule, is the tenant or owner of the house. He helps with the children, or perhaps his mother helps, so that the woman can go out to work. What will she do for money if she gets rid of him but cannot work? He will have to leave—or worse, she will have to leave, and perhaps go to a refuge. What then? She has never had a tenancy, the children will lose their father, they will be poorer financially, emotionally impoverished and the home will break up. People who regard him as a nice guy are bound to think that it is something that she does that makes him want to beat her up. Can she not just put up with the odd thump, as it has not killed her yet? If, despite all that, the woman makes a complaint, it is imperative that the public authorities pursue it with vigour, yet the joint inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, in a report on domestic violence only a few months ago, made it clear that the police response is patchy and that the CPS interest in those files is sometimes thin. The complainant will not have the personal power to drive the agencies on.
  598
  We should remember that the complainant will have been abused about 35 times before she makes a complaint and her self-esteem will have been undermined. It is essential to provide a domestic violence advocacy service to support complainants, overturn the system's lack of enthusiasm and drive the agencies forward. An advocacy system is already operated by specialists at the Redcar and Cleveland branch of Victim Support. Advocates can negotiate on housing—a frequently needed skill, because all too often it is the woman, not the man, who leaves. Alternatively, if she stays, the advocate will help to develop a safety plan, such as changing the locks, arranging for a panic alarm or CCTV—whatever it takes. Advocates can manage benefit entitlements, which change when families break down, and can help to arrange child care and, if necessary, change the child's school. They can make referrals to counselling services, help with the civil courts, and drive on the criminal case. As other Members have said, they are a cheap but important link. Existing UK schemes have shown significant reductions in repeat victimisation, and benefits for the process of family healing after the event. I commend such schemes to the Government, and urge them to consider including provision for one in the Bill.
  I shall say no more about women with no recourse to public funds, save to agree that it is a major issue. I shall say no more about contact for domestic violence perpetrators with children, which is an extremely serious issue. I shall say no more about the need for a definition, save that the police and CPS inspectorate pointed out that those two organisations have different definitions of domestic violence. If it is to be monitored properly, there is a need for one. I shall say no more about familial homicide, provisions on which I supported throughout the proceedings on the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
  I shall spend the few remaining minutes on the statistic that two women a week are killed by violent partners, and 30 men a year by their battered partners. Many men and women run the defence of provocation. It cuts the conviction from murder to manslaughter, so the sentence is not mandatory life—it becomes discretionary. The Government are undecided whether to change the law on provocation. They should.
  In domestic killings, men kill because of anger or sexual jealousy; women usually because of abuse. Provocation means what it says, although in law it is a little more technical than that. Provocation is killing in a sudden and temporary loss of self-control caused by provocation, under which a reasonable person might have reacted in the same way. The point of it is that although the defendant kills and goes too far, his culpability is mitigated by the provocative conduct of the victim.
  Originally, that had to be wrongful conduct by the victim, because that is the philosophy behind it, as I have just set out, and it would have turned that philosophy on its head to apply the doctrine in circumstances where the victim had a right or was not wrong to behave as they did. However, there have been cases in which women have been killed and men have said they were provoked to lose their self-control by "nagging". For one man, the final provocation was the way the woman moved the mustard pot across the table. In a case in Leeds, the Crown accepted a plea from a man to provocation

  599
  manslaughter when he had killed his wife after she merely told him she was going to leave to go to another man.
  We must remember that the behaviour is supposed to be that of a reasonable person, but one might think that it is not. A House of Lords case called Smith four years ago stated that when considering whether a reasonable person might have reacted to the provocation in the same way, all the characteristics of the defendant must be taken into account, including anything that might lower his level of self-control. So the defendant's characteristics are put into the reasonable person, who becomes the defendant, and the question whether a reasonable person might have reacted as the defendant did is completely meaningless. In addition, this defence blames the victim who, in those cases and many others, is entirely blameless, and it causes extra anguish and a sense of injustice to the grieving family.
  The typical killing by a battered woman is not from anger and does not fit the sudden and temporary loss of self-control model. Eighty per cent of such killings take place while the woman is under attack. She runs into the kitchen and turns and stabs the man once with a knife when he is coming for her. There is no defence of killing out of fear or despair that accommodates battered woman in the way that killing out of anger—provocation—accommodates men. However, there is no less emotional or psychological stress if somebody kills after long tolerance of harsh treatment, in desperation, rather than suddenly, in provoked anger.
  One might think that that run into the kitchen and the turn-round under attack is self-defence, but it is excessive. To be a defence. self-defence must be proportionate. If a woman is attacked, perhaps only with fists or boots, even though the man is stronger and has used violence before, if she takes a weapon and lashes out a jury will not acquit on self-defence. Excessive or disproportionate self-defence leads to a conviction for murder, not for manslaughter.
  Women are defended on two bates—first, that the act was proportionate self-defence, and secondly—if that fails—that it was provocation. However, proportionality in self-defence requires some measurement; some deliberation. Provocation—that is, the attack by the man—requires a sudden and temporary loss of self-control and a lashing out. The two are quite inconsistent. Women do not kill out of anger. Both defences often fail—hence, violent men get away with murder and battered women are convicted of it. The need for a reform of the law is urgent. The Law Commission has made excellent proposals, which I ask the Government to accept. I intend to propose an amendment.
  Just before 1 April, clause 12, which attacks trial by jury, went through the Lords. Last year there were Government plans to scrap trial by jury. In November, the Government dropped proposals that would have allowed defendants to choose trial by judge alone. Critics, myself included, argued that that would soon become no choice at all. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows judge-alone trials in cases of jury intimidation, but no restriction on jury trial in serious fraud cases will be implemented without a further vote.
  Under the new proposals, the process starts with an appeal when a man has been charged on four specimen counts of 17 allegations. The Lord Chief Justice said
  600
  that he cannot be sentenced for the 17, although they are identical to the four, because they have been neither admitted nor proved—he can be sentenced only for the four and will have to be tried on every count. The Lord Chief Justice said that that need not be unduly burdensome or unmanageable. The Law Commission, on the other hand, said that it was an intractable problem in cases involving hundreds of charges. The Government accepted that and proposed a two-stage trial procedure. The first stage takes place before a judge and jury in the normal way. with specimen counts; then, in the event of a guilty verdict, there is a second stage in which the defendant is tried by a judge alone on any charge that was linked to the specimen counts. It is thought that many will plead guilty at that stage.
  Many, including the Bar Council, see the abolition of jury trials as the thin end of the wedge. I confess that I share some of those fears. I see no difficulty in having a second—or, indeed, a third—trial heard by a jury. If the counts are specimens, the relevant evidence will be admissible in the second stage anyway; and if the person has been found guilty, which is admissible under the 2003 Act, it seems pretty likely that there will be guilty pleas on many of them.
  However, my main concern relates to what I readily accept are unintended consequences. If a two-tier system of trial becomes law, people will soon be singing the praises of trial by judge alone. There is no doubt that trial by a judge is speedier and cheaper than a full-blown jury trial. People will ask, "Why do we need 10 of these counts to be tried by a jury if the other 190 are being tried by a judge? Let's do them all under a judge." Once again, it will be the beginning of the end for juries.
  This is a good Bill, and given the good will that we have seen here tonight it can be better. However, clause 12 is a bad clause that is unconnected with domestic violence or its victims. I hope that the Government will think again on that, but I sincerely congratulate them on the rest of the Bill.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a privilege to have the opportunity to take part in the Second Reading of this very important Bill. I commend my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his focus on domestic violence and for expressing in the Bill the need to afford adequate protection to its victims.
  As we have heard—it hardly needs restating—domestic violence accounts for a quarter of all recorded crime. One in four women experience violence from a partner during their lifetimes. It is a shocking fact that by the time we have begun to discuss the Bill in Committee, another two women may have died as a result of such violence.
  We should therefore be pleased that the Government are investing more than £60 million per annum; introducing measures in the Bill to make the breach of non-molestation orders a criminal offence; extending the provisions of part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 to same-sex or non-cohabiting couples; establishing procedures for holding and undertaking domestic homicide reviews; making common assault an arrestable offence; extending the availability of restraining orders; and supporting the victims of domestic violence—indeed, all victims and witnesses—by establishing a commissioner to serve their interests.

  601
  I sincerely hope that during the passage of the Bill there will be no further debate on the relative roles of the commissioner for victims and witnesses and the commissioner for children. It would be hugely to misunderstand the role of the children's commissioner to fail to appreciate that that person will have a fundamentally important task in ensuring that children are able to access all the ordinary avenues of support that are available to them in society. However, to send child victims and witnesses to a children's commissioner, not to the commissioner set up for the purpose, would be to send them down a devalued and child-only cul-de-sac.
  I am surprised that such a good Bill does not propose a statutory definition of domestic violence. I wonder how the proposal for a commissioner for victims and witnesses relates to the undoubted need for a national advocacy service for the victims of domestic violence. Like others, I am anxious about the funding and support for refuges. I hope that those important matters can be tackled during the Bill's passage.
  We are considering an important measure for children. The Government recognise the appalling impact of their witnessing domestic violence because clause 120 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 extended the definition of significant harm to include impairment from seeing or hearing the ill treatment of another. It is imperative that the provision is implemented and I understand that that is due to happen in January 2005. I sincerely hope that there will be no delay.
  Clause 5 provides for joint liability in cases where a child has died but the prosecution is unable to determine exactly who killed him. That is crucial and I hope that the principles of parental responsibility and that of all adults in the household will be supported. However, it is a significant and serious anomaly that children under 16, who happen to bear responsibility because they are parents at a young age, could be criminally liable when, in so many other ways, they would be perceived as extremely needy children. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acknowledged, many are surely supported by other adults in the house, who could well bear responsibility under the clause.
  A great deal of emphasis has rightly been placed on the appalling number of women who are killed in this country as a result of domestic violence. Hon. Members should never forget that one or two children a week are killed by parents or care givers. Three quarters of children on child protection registers have experienced domestic violence. It has not been said in the debate that at least 28 children have been murdered during contact visits in recent years. On Wednesday at 12.45 pm in the Attlee Suite, I shall host an event organised by Women's Aid, which child victims of domestic violence will attend to give incredibly brave testimony about their experiences and to question my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I commend him for his willingness to listen to children and I hope that all other hon. Members will join him on that occasion. Listening to children and tackling their issues effectively is an important way in which to tackle fundamental aspects of domestic violence.
  602
  In the past few decades, there has been a major cultural shift in our attitudes towards domestic violence. However, we need to be bolder and braver in the Bill if we are to make genuine progress and tackle some of the deepest roots of violence in our society. As I have already said twice, it makes no sense to deplore violence without having the courage to give children the same protection from assault as adults enjoy.
  I predict that a change in legislation, which sweeps away the mid-19th century concept of reasonable chastisement, will come soon. I firmly believe that, in only a few years, people will look back on debates in the House and regard it as, at best, quaint that some people objected to removing an objectionable provision, failed to ensure the equal protection from assault of adults and children, and opposed introducing a crucial and significant plank of child protection.
  I want to speak about contact. As a father myself, I support the right of children to have good contact with both parents throughout their childhood, but I am appalled by the actions of judges who have ordered and enforced unsupervised contact, and in some cases residence orders, to the benefit of violent, abusive and dangerous men. It seems to me essential that we bring about in this Bill a presumption of no contact unless it can be organised safely and the child wants it.
  As a strong supporter of the Government's Green Paper, "Every Child Matters" and their statement to that effect, I cannot believe it appropriate that we should debate a Bill addressing violence, crime and victims without dealing with the national scandal and disgrace—a fact that shames every single Member of this House—of the deaths of 27 children in the custody of the state since 1997. This Bill should recognise the fact that children who commit criminal offences are troubled, needy children who need better looking after rather than locking up. In particular, we should use this opportunity to raise the age of criminal responsibility and to ensure that those few children from whom we actually need to be protected go into care rather than into custody. Those children who have, to our shame and disgrace, committed suicide in custody are some of the most tragic victims of whom one could possibly conceive.
  Children are twice as likely as adults to be victims of crime, and this good Bill has the potential to be an excellent one if we really place them at the centre of our concerns. We should look to improve the Bill significantly in the ways that I have suggested, link it with the Children Bill that will be before us in a few weeks and ensure that the policies of the Home Office become firmly grounded in the principles of the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters". Let us, for goodness' sake, have some joined-up government.
  We should listen to the children who have been through the devastating experience of domestic violence if we really want a perspective that will help us effectively to counter this dreadful and demeaning feature of our society. Some months ago, a young woman called Chloe came to see me and Later sent me a letter and a song—although hon. Members will be relieved that I shall not attempt to perform her excellent song. Chloe perhaps in a preview of Wednesday for my hon. Friend the Minister asks:
  "Why do the courts force children to see their dads when they are frightened of them? Why don't the courts make sure that it is safe for mums and children when they know the dads are violent?"

  603
  Above all, she asks:
  "Who tells the judge off when he don't listen to the children?"
  Let us all listen to Chloe.
  9.8 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: I feel at a bit of a disadvantage speaking in this debate because of the expertise that hon. Members on both sides have shown in this subject. Their expertise is wider and much more long standing than anything that I can bring to bear on the debate. I appreciate that the Bill does not apply to Scotland, because it concerns a devolved issue. It applies only to England, to Wales and, if the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has her way, wholly to Northern Ireland.
  However, I should like to rare one specific issue tonight, to ensure that it does not get lost in the Bill's passage through Committee. It relates to the particular needs and difficulties faced by women or men with physical disabilities, and the ways in which they can deal with suffering at the hands of a partner, husband or wife who is violent to them or neglects them.
  The issue had not crossed my radar until a couple of weeks ago, when I was contacted by the Radio 4 programme, "Woman's Hour", It had picked up the fact that an area of policy might be being ignored—that, while domestic violence was being given an airing and this Bill was being dealt with in the House of Lords, the specific plight of disabled women was not being dealt with. Until I spoke to the programme's researchers, I was not aware of the issue. None of my constituents had come to my office to talk about it, and other Members to whom I have spoken say that it is not on their radar either. The researchers said that many people involved in women's aid and running refuges had not considered it.
  There is a lack of knowledge about this. There is also the fear that what is already a hidden problem—for domestic violence happens in the privacy of people's homes—has an extra hidden dimension in the shape of what is happening to people with disabilities. I have some expertise in that I know what it is like to be a disabled person, but I can only imagine what it must be like to feel trapped in a violent or difficult relationship with no means of escape.
  The aspects of domestic violence have been well covered today, and are well documented; but I found it difficult to discover any research on the incidence of domestic violence involving disabled women and disabled people in general. I know that a conference was held in the UK a few years ago, but I have not been able to establish whether any action has been taken as a result of the issues raised then. The only research I have been able to find comes from north America. A study conducted by Margaret Nosek and Carol Howland in the late 1990s concluded that abuse of women with disabilities was a problem of epidemic proportions. It is difficult to quantify because the research has not been done, and because victims of such domestic violence are probably less likely to speak out than victims of domestic violence who are not disabled. We know how difficult it is for any victim of domestic violence to find the courage to speak out; imagine how much more difficult it must be for someone with a physical disability.
  604
  We should also bear it in mind that domestic violence is not always physical. It often starts psychologically. Sometimes a woman's partner undermines her self-worth, shaking her confidence and making her believe that without him she could not survive in society. Even the most confident women, who work or have their own sources of income, can be undermined by that psychological wearing away of their confidence.
  Let us imagine a disabled person who, no matter how forward-looking or involved he or she may be, has found it difficult to establish his or her self-worth. Most people become disabled rather than being born disabled. Someone who has become disabled will be trying to cope with what that means, and with self-image and all that it involves. I was a teenager when it became clear to me that I would grow into a disabled adult. It was difficult enough to face that realisation. Imagine a woman in the same position whose partner cannot cope with the knowledge that he has a disabled wife or partner, and who therefore makes it harder for her to get to grips with her disability.
  Disabled victims of domestic abuse face particular difficulties not only in trying to alert others but in getting help, even if they manage to do so. They may be living in relative isolation. I understand what others have said about women living in remote areas, but being a disabled person in any community can be isolating. In some cases, the abuser—who may also be the main carer—may restrict freedom and contact with others. If a disabled woman tried to escape the situation, where could she run to? The local women's refuge is unlikely to be wheelchair-friendly—although most disabled people are not necessarily in wheelchairs—and the aids and adaptations available in the home would be unlikely to be available elsewhere.
  A disabled person with complex health needs may have built up a complex support network and in particular a relationship with their GP and the local health service providers which they would be reluctant to leave behind in order to escape the violence. If they are reliant on the abuser for the physical help that they need, it may be difficult for them to suggest that the abuser should be the one to leave the home.
  We know that non-disabled women victims of domestic violence often have an emotional and perhaps a financial dependence on the perpetrator, but for someone with a disability that dependence may also be physical, which adds an extra dimension. The abuse may also be in the form of the withdrawal of help—not something that is done to someone, as is the case with most incidents of domestic violence, but something that has not been done. For example, someone may not have been washed or properly fed.
  It is important to look beyond the definition in the Bill, which refers only to "vulnerable adults". I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) said about people with learning disabilities, who have particular problems, especially if they are in a care home, but most people with physical disabilities are in their own home and may have become disabled later in life, so they would not be classed as vulnerable adults unless their disability was exceptionally severe. A woman could be very able, and holding down a job, while happening to have a physical disability.

  605
  The Bill will definitely provide better support for victims, and I welcome the appointment of an independent commissioner mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and many others. It will be important to have someone responsible for victims' health care, housing and social security needs.
  I am also attracted to the idea proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on 18 May and again today, of an advocacy service for victims. Such a service could cater directly for the needs of a disabled person, and would be much more effective than the general help given to all victims. I know that Women's Aid and women's refuges try hard to deal with individuals, but I contend that there is an extra dimension for women with a disability. I wanted to speak in the debate so as to ensure that on Second Reading and in Committee those needs would be addressed and taken on board, and we would start to speak about this subject.
  As I said, I am talking about double invisibility: domestic violence is invisible; and the violence that has been meted out to disabled women, and the difficulties that they are living with, are hidden problems that need to be addressed. That will happen only if we talk about the issue, if the Government are aware of it, and if Women's Aid and the women's refuges are aware that there is a group of women whom they need to deal with. That applies to all the other agencies as well. As we have heard, women are often passed from pillar to post, from agency to agency, and that too, can be doubly difficult if a person has a disability. I know that I have concentrated on disabled women—the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pulled me up for that—but I have done so because women are predominantly the victims of such violence. However, that does not preclude men, and I suspect that there may be more men in that position than male victims in the general population, because in such cases the female partner is in a position to withdraw the help that the man so desperately needs.
  I urge the Government to remember the group of people whom I do not believe are properly covered by the Bill, and to give due consideration to the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar about a victims' advocacy service. If they do, we might get properly tailored and directed help to the people who need it.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a privilege to speak in a debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), especially two days running—by which I mean two days running in parliamentary terms. It is appropriate that I seem to be the last speaker before the wind-up speeches from the Front Benches, because what I want to say is merely a footnote to the debate. The serious issues and examples that people have been raising are not part of the area that I wish to cover, except by inference.
  606
  I want to flag up a particular concern. Given the time and the nature of the wind-up speeches, I realise that the Minister is unlikely to be able to respond now to what I say, but I hope that it will be considered and that I might receive a letter explaining the Government's position.
  When victims of crime, especially victims of domestic crime, have made claims to the authorities about their problems, and when it is decided that, although they might receive some sympathy, no action is to be taken, they should always be given the fullest explanation of why that decision has been taken. If full explanations have to be given, it is more likely that action will be taken.
  I realise that in many cases, that may already be provided for in the Bill. There is a code of practice under clause 21, and there will be investigations by the parliamentary commissioner under schedule 4; there are procedures to go through, and one would expect responses to be given. Under schedule 5, there is also a role for the commissioner for victims and witnesses. Unfortunately, as the Bill stands none of that applies to Northern Ireland, but perhaps that could be subject to amendments at a later stage.
  The victims charter as updated in 1996 says that where victims have made claims but action is not to be taken, or a case is to be dropped, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service will give an explanation. However, in some cases, especially when Departments are involved, the code of practice on access to Government information can be used to prevent that explanation from being given. Schedule 4(4) points out that the Parliamentary Commissioner will not deal with certain matters. It states that
  "the Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation pursuant to a complaint under subsection(1A) of this section in respect of—

  (a) action taken by or with the authority of the Secretary of State for the purposes of protecting the security of the State, including action so taken with respect to passports".

  Other possible exclusions are mentioned concerning the ruling of the Government and their agencies, and it is exactly those matters that could be subject to the code of practice for access to Government information, to which I referred. That code of practice should itself be subject to the 1996 victims charter and to previous measures, so that explanations are given and people know where they stand. Such pressure for explanation would mean that action was much more likely to be taken to defend victims, including victims of domestic crime, the details of which have been explained fully by other Members.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has been a fascinating debate. It is sometimes said that this Chamber is not very well attended, but I am bound to say that, in my experience, if one can be bothered to sit through six hours of debate one learns a tremendous amount. Today has been no exception, because it has become apparent that many Members from all parts of the House have come along to contribute their experiences, including their constituency experiences, and their knowledge to a difficult topic.
  As the Minister is aware, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said earlier, we welcome the Bill greatly in its generality.

  607
  That welcome is genuine and we will do all that we can—as, indeed, our colleagues did in the other place—to co-operate in the Bill's legislative passage and to ensure that, once it is on the statute book, it makes a powerful contribution to dealing with this difficult problem and, we hope, to reducing the incidence of domestic violence as a result.
  There have been some fascinating contributions, and although it is perhaps invidious to single out individual speeches, one or two did strike me very forcefully. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) appositely pointed out that it is extraordinary that we have more animal sanctuaries in this country than refuges for those who suffer domestic violence. That is indeed an extraordinary state of affairs, and I am afraid that it probably highlights the extent to which we have failed to take this problem sufficiently seriously.
  The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird)—I listened to her contribution carefully and I shall return to it—made some very powerful points. I wholly support her desire for a review of the law of provocation; indeed, I am also in favour of the simultaneous review of the law of self-defence, because in my view the two need to be looked at together. I fear, however, that the Bill might not be the appropriate place to do that. The subject is a complicated one, and in embarking on such a process at this late stage in the Bill's passage—a Bill that has already been considered extensively elsewhere—we might be doing it a disservice. However, if the Minister wants to look at that issue at a later date, he will undoubtedly have the ready co-operation of Conservatives in trying to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
  The hon. and learned Member for Redcar also offered an interesting and trenchant critique of the way in which trial by jury of sample counts only has been inserted in the Bill, a point to which I shall return briefly. I do not entirely share her pessimistic view of the intention behind this change, which I can support in some measure. However, I certainly do share some anxiety about the Government's approach as reflected in the text. I shall want to examine that very carefully in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made a powerful speech about the fact that men, too, are affected by the phenomenon of domestic violence, which should not be forgotten, irrespective of the context in which it takes place. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) also made a powerful case, demonstrating how attitudes had changed.
  I greatly appreciated the contribution of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who spoke about the experience of disabled people. We know from recent headlines in the press and in one particular case that there is clear evidence that those who are disabled and in a position of dependency on others may suffer serious abuse without it being properly looked into, and I hope that the Bill may make a contribution to dealing with that problem.
  I move on now to discuss some of the key issues posed by the Bill and to highlight those areas that seem to require some very careful thought. At the outset, the
  608
  Government set out to change the law by making breaches of non-molestation orders a criminal offence. We support that aim, but I am anxious that the Government are seeking to overturn some minor changes made in the other place, which sought to ensure that those powers could not be abused in respect of the rights of cohabitants regarding the occupation of property. The Minister may be able to help us; otherwise, we shall have to examine it further in Committee.
  Most importantly, as commented on by many hon. Members in the debate, there is the whole question of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult. The House will be aware of numerous cases in recent years where it proved impossible to secure a conviction in circumstances where two people were the only two who could possibly have inflicted violence on a child or vulnerable adult. In those cases, one blamed the other, and, because it could not be shown which of the two had committed the offence, both had to be acquitted. The Government have our entire support in seeking to deal with that problem by providing a framework within which it is possible to convict the people who were involved.
  The House may wish to bear in mind some problems in the provisions as drafted that might be inevitable in the light of what the Bill is designed to achieve. I do not necessarily complain about it, because it may be difficult to draft the provisions any differently, but clauses 5 and 6 provide for a completely new offence of death by negligence. Those provisions could be applied not only as an alternative to homicide where it was impossible to demonstrate which of two people perpetrated the injuries—the public largely understand that—but could be used where it was simply desired to prosecute someone for having been negligent.
  That may not be a bad thing. Under clause 5(1), a parent or adult can be deemed guilty according to certain criteria, whereby he
  "was, or ought to have been, aware of the risk mentioned … failed to take steps as he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect"
  the victim
  "from the risk, and … the act occurred in circumstances of the kind that"
  the defendant
  "foresaw or ought to have foreseen."
  Doubtless, few in the House would quibble with that. However, it is noteworthy that it does not apply only to the victim's father or mother: it applies to another member of the household, even to one as young as 16 at the time of the act that caused the death. If it involves the mother or father, it could apply, as I read it, to someone under the age of 16. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) commented on 14-year-old mothers in her constituency. As drafted, clause 5 provides that, in circumstances where the husband was perpetrating an assault on the child, someone could be committing an offence if they did not report it, even though they were of that age. There are saving provisions in the Bill, because the courts would take into account whether the person had suffered domestic violence and any other circumstances, which would include the age of the person accused.

  609
  I highlight those points because we will wish to return to them in Committee. We should be careful not to place in statute provisions that extend further than we originally envisaged. Under clause 5(6), the extent of the negligence could include an attack on a sibling by a young child in the household who was known to have a propensity for misbehaviour. That is a far-reaching provision and I point that out to the Minister to highlight the extent of the change in the law that the Bill will bring about. I hope that we will be able to look at that matter constructively, so that we hit the target we are aiming for and do not legislate in a manner that we did not intend.
  The second point of concern was highlighted by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar. The Bill includes provision on specimen counts and trial by jury on sample counts only. That is perfectly appropriate, although it is not specifically related to domestic violence. The hon. and learned Lady and the Home Secretary will remember that last year I argued vociferously at the Dispatch Box against any restriction on the right to trial by jury. I said then that I had read—and, I thought, understood—the Law Commission's proposals on the difficulties that are encountered with indictments on multiple counts. A sample of counts can be tried and, theoretically, if the defendant is convicted, he should be willing to have all the other counts taken into consideration. If he does not, they cannot, under current law, be taken into consideration without his consent. That is the mischief that we seek to tackle, and that is why we take the view that it would be appropriate to try to shorten the process, even if it meant that a judge resolved the issue after sample counts had been tried and convicted before a jury.
  We will co-operate with the Government to try to achieve that end, but as originally drafted it appeared that the Bill—perhaps unintentionally—would go much further and lead to a situation in which someone who had been convicted of an offence of a particular type, such as credit card fraud, could be tried by a judge alone on other counts that might relate to a completely separate series of incidents. That was not my intention when I signalled my willingness to co-operate on the issue to the Home Secretary. It is still not my intention and I therefore note with pleasure that after the Bill's passage through the other place it expressly provides, in clause 12(9)(b), that the
  "evidence in respect of each count is admissible at the trial of the sample count".
  That provides an important and much needed protection.
  I am not sure of the Government's position on the issue. It has been rumoured that they intend to reverse that provision and I would regret that. We would be constrained to oppose the deletion of clause 12(9)(b). I hope that we can consider the matter overall, and if the Home Secretary has other ways of approaching the matter by altering the Bill in some other way we will consider them with an open mind. We share the Government's desire to achieve the end I have described and we will work hard with the Minister on that issue. However, we will not allow a situation to arise in which trying a defendant on one count makes it possible to admit a catalogue of other largely unrelated offences to
  610
  be tried by judge alone. If that is what the Government are trying to do, I regret it and I hope to receive some assurance that that is not the case.
  I do not understand why the Government seek to withdraw—I think that is their aim—the question of a person's fitness to plead from decision by a jury. My experience suggests that it is a decision that juries can take easily, in proceedings that take place rapidly but provide, nevertheless, an important reassurance that cuts two ways. The first is that the state will not avoid a trial by locking somebody up, or putting them into a hospital, on the basis that they are insane, to punish them when, in fact, they have not committed an offence and might be perfectly sane. I might describe that as the Soviet Union problem. Secondly, the state might decide to avoid the trial of someone who is palpably guilty of an offence by saying that they are unfit to plead and subsequently releasing them soon thereafter by administrative procedure, or by imposing a community supervision order even though the person should have been tried in the first place.
  I do not understand why the Bill, sensibly amended in the other place, cannot be preserved in its current form. I very much hope that the Government will allow it to remain as it is, substantially improved by consideration in the House of Lords.
  We now come to what is not yet in the Bill but will be: the victims' fund, which was discussed earlier today. I ask the Minister and the Home Secretary to give us soon details about the provisions for the make-up of the victims' fund. The issue is important for the wider public. I remain without a full understanding of what the Home Secretary envisages. At the Dispatch Box earlier, he gave the impression that certain sorts of offence, such as a first-time speeding offence, would be excluded from the victims' fund levy, but will that apply to someone who is receiving his third fixed penalty speeding notice? Will the differentiation be between the first and the third or whether someone has been summoned to the magistrates court for sentence because it is considered that the circumstances are such that he might be disqualified?
  We need some clarity soon. A large number of people in my constituency and elsewhere are deeply dissatisfied with the administration of justice. They see the police, the appointed guardian sheepdogs who should look after them, as incapable of protecting them from predators but extraordinarily efficient at nipping their heels every time they step out of line. My fear is that the Home Secretary's proposal will lead to the problem that the people who pay for the victims' fund will be the generally law-abiding, while the people who never pay a penny will be the serial offenders. That is the risk. Enforcement will be against the softest targets, with the danger of bringing the whole process of the administration of justice into disrepute, which I know is not what the Home Secretary intends. We really need reassurance on that subject.
  With those comments, I move from my critique back to my general approval of what the Government are trying to do. Much in the Bill commands support. We shall look carefully at the detail and do our best to improve the measure if necessary. We shall certainly not waste the Committee's time where the job has already been well done. I hope that we end up with an extremely

  611
  good piece of legislation, but let us try to ensure that we do not put into the Bill things that we subsequently regret.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I am grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in this impressive debate. The contributions on both sides have been well informed and reflected a deep level of concern as well as consensus on the main issues. Tackling domestic violence and providing better support for the victims of crime should be a priority for us all, I certainly welcome the tone and the terms in which this debate has been conducted, as initiated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and reflected in equal measure by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). As is customary, in his concluding remarks, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised a number of issues which, I am sure, we will return to with great interest in Committee.
  We have consulted extensively on the measures in the Bill, in the documents "Safety and Justice" and "Justice for All", and a number of earlier consultations with victims. The measures to tackle familial homicide build on the extensive work of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Law Commission. The measures to tackle multiple offending follow directly the commission's recommendations.
  This is the biggest overhaul of domestic violence legislation for 30 years, although, as many hon. Members have made clear in the debate, tackling domestic violence is not solely about legislation. As well as bringing in tough new laws to protect victims and prosecute abusers, we need to change attitudes and practices as well as provide emotional and other forms of support.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) told the House that the first refuge in the world was based in her constituency. She rightfully paid tribute to the pioneers of that work. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) told us about the first case of domestic violence in which she had provided legal representation. She spoke eloquently about how attitudes have changed since then and how the Bill can take us further forward.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) spoke about the definition of vulnerable adults. She asked whether 16 was the right age to classify someone as an adult in such cases. I have to tell her that the NSPCC and the Law Commission agree that it is the right age, but I have been in correspondence with her and I look forward to further discussions with her on this issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) talked about the importance of inter-agency working and she told the House about the domestic homicide reviews that have been carried out in Cardiff. We all pay tribute to her work as the chair of the domestic violence forum in Cardiff. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (July Mallaber) spoke eloquently about her local constituency experience. She called for professional training and properly funded support services. The hon. Member for South-West
  612
  Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) reminded us that domestic violence affects men as well as women, and he rightly emphasised the need for prevention.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) reminded us all of the additional problems that may face disabled people who are subject to domestic violence. I assure her that we are seeking to fill gaps in provision for supporting disabled people.
  A number of speakers raised the problems faced by the victims of domestic violence who are still subject to immigration control. The Government recognise that, although the numbers involved are relatively small, these women are in extremely difficult circumstances. We will continue to work across government and with outside organisations to find a long-term solution. Although we want to help the individual women, it is also important that we protect the integrity of the immigration and benefits system.
  The Home Office has agreed a one-off grant of £40,000 to Women's Aid to bolster its last-resort fund. These funds are intended to cover the living expenses of women who are making an application for indefinite leave to remain because of domestic violence, and they will help to meet the living costs of those placed in refuges and who cannot be covered by the supporting people arrangements. I am certainly very happy to listen to other practical proposals that may be made in our debates and by the groups that are most closely involved.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), raised concerns about child contact. Rather than legislating in favour of mothers or fathers, the Government believe that the current system in which the welfare of the child is the court's paramount concern is right. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on Wednesday and, especially, to meeting Chloe, about whom he told us. I hope that I will have a convincing answer for Chloe. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that any presumption in favour of either parent would mean that a child's welfare was no longer the decisive factor, which would fetter a court's discretion to decide each case on its merits.
  The Government recognise that domestic violence is a key issue, which is why we are introducing new forms for section 8 applications, which relate to contact and residence. The forms will allow domestic violence to be cited at the start of proceedings so that judges are aware of that throughout. We believe that those measures and our ongoing investment in additional supervised contact centres are the best way to ensure that child contact arrangements are safe for everyone.
  Several hon. Members talked about advocacy—indeed my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) talked eloquently about the matter. The crime reduction programme has already funded several projects to assess the effectiveness of different kinds of advocacy, outreach and support measures. The results of the pilot schemes are due in the summer. I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore that the crime reduction programme does indeed cover Wales.
  In the meantime, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are working to provide victims with the support that they need so that they feel able to

  613
  support prosecutions. It was gratifying to hear support from hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which the modern police service is addressing the matter more constructively than it did in the past.
  Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre, argued for a statutory definition of domestic violence. Although that might seem like a good idea at first sight, we take the view that it would be difficult to create a statutory definition that would reflect the full breadth of domestic violence while being easy to keep up to date. However, the Government acknowledge that there are worries about the different non-statutory definitions of domestic violence that are used by different agencies, so we are working with partners towards a single working definition.
  Several hon. Members mentioned provocation, including the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar. It is an important and far-reaching issue. We need to be confident that provocation will be dealt with fairly and consistently when it is either a partial defence to murder or a mitigating factor during sentencing. That is why we asked the Sentencing Advisory Panel to examine sentences for manslaughter in cases of provocation and the Law Commission to examine the partial defence. The panel has issued a helpful consultation document, as has the Law Commission. The commission's work has, in particular, confirmed how complex this area of law is. We will need to consider the final recommendations carefully, so it would be premature to try to legislate before the work is completed. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield indicated that, when we are ready to tackle the issue, he will be more than happy to co-operate with us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) raised the important issue of forced marriage. She is never afraid to speak out, and always does so with great knowledge and a deep concern for her constituents' welfare. She suggested a possible amendment to the Bill that would create a new criminal offence of coercing, aiding or abetting someone into a forced marriage. We are sympathetic to that view and are examining closely how to find a practical way forward. I look forward to discussing the matter further in Committee.
  Many hon. Members welcomed our proposals to close the loophole on familial homicide. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) cited a specific case from his constituency. As he said, too often in the past people have literally got away with murder in such cases. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear, we intend to reinstate the procedural measures that we believe will help to identify the individual who actually committed the crime. It would not be a just outcome if a conviction for the new offence is achieved when it could have been shown that one of the defendants is in fact guilty of murder or manslaughter.
  We will also seek to remove the explicit reference to domestic violence which was added to the new offence in the other place. I hope that I can reassure those who
  614
  have raised concerns about the issue that the requirement for an individual to take reasonable steps to protect the victim would, in any event, take into account the terrible circumstances that a domestic violence victim may be in and the pressure that they may be under. However, singling out domestic violence could distort the offence and undermine the responsibility that it rightly places, even on those who are themselves victims, to take action if the life of a child or a vulnerable adult is at stake.
  The Bill introduces new measures to ensure that those committing multiple offences will be punished for the full extent of their criminality. That follows extensive consultation and consideration by the Law Commission. Clauses 12 to 16 provide for a two-stage trial—the first by jury to try a sample count, the remainder to be tried by judge alone. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield indicated that we would be in for further discussion on that in Committee, which I look forward to.
  The measures on fitness to plead, which, again, we will reinstate, aroused concerns in another place. The change was originally proposed by Lord Justice Auld in response to the concerns of judges that the current system of appointing two juries is both wasteful of court resources and unhelpful to vulnerable witnesses. There is no question of weakening the right to trial by jury. A jury will still have to consider whether the defendant committed the act with which he is charged. No one will be detained in hospital unless a jury has found that he has committed the offence. However, the change will improve the process for the defendant in a number of ways, not least because a jury does not have to give reasons for its decision, so there is no basis for a challenge should the defendant wish to appeal the decision.
  Throughout the debate, there has been strong support for an independent victims commissioner and a statutory victims advisory panel. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred to that. I will take him up on his offer of sending him a letter rather than giving him a detailed response now.
  We will amend the Bill in Committee to ensure that the victims of mentally disordered offenders have the same right to information as victims of other serious sexual and violent offenders. They will have the right to make representations and to be informed about the conditions imposed on the offender for the protection of the victim. They will be told when the offender has been discharged. That measure will be extended to Northern Ireland.
  I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and heard her argue powerfully her view that part 3 should apply to Northern Ireland. Of course, it does not apply because Northern Ireland has its own system. I am sure, however, that there is room for further discussion. She suggested that I might meet the Victim's Commissioner in Northern Ireland. I intend to try to do that, and look forward to her contributions if she serves on the Committee.
  A number of hon. Members expressed their views about the victims' funding measures. The Government have, of course, massively increased the amount of

  615
  financial support we provide to Victim Support. We want to go further, however, which is why we consulted on a package of new measures in "Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime", published in January. We have said that a victims' fund will provide £4 million from the proceeds of crime to improve support to victims of sex offenders.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that we will table amendments. I can tell the hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham and for Beaconsfield that the amendments on the victims' fund will be tabled next week and debated towards the end of the Bill. The other amendments on measures related to victims of mentally disordered offenders will be tabled this week. I conclude by commending the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CRIME AND VICTIMS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]:

  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CRIME AND VICTIMS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
    Committal
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    Proceedings in Standing Committee
    2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 6th July 2004.
    3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings commenced.
    5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
    6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    Other proceedings
    7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    Question agreed to.

  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CRIME AND VICTIMS BILL [LORDS] (MONEY)
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and

  616

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under another enactment.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    HEALTH CARE AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONS
    That the draft Health Professions (Operating Department Practitioners and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the Mental Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 1272), dated 6th May 2004, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.
    That the draft Licensing (Indoor Arenas) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.

    BROADCASTING
    That the draft Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) and Order [17 May],

    LICENSING
    That this House approves the draft Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was laid before this House on 23rd March, insofar as it relates to guidance to licensing authorities on the discharge of their functions under that Act.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
    That the Beer from Small Breweries (Extension of Reduced Rates of Excise Duty) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 1296), dated 10th May 2004, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell]
    Question agreed to.

  COMMITTEES

    CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
    Ordered,
    That Charles Hendry be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Mr Nick Hawkins be added.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    EUROPEAN SCRUTINY
    Ordered,
    That Mr Mark Hendrick be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Anne Picking be added.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  10 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I am delighted to have the opportunity of an Adjournment debate on documentation and the immigration and nationality directorate. I reassure the Minister that I do not want to engage him in a big debate on immigration policy. I have views on that subject—broadly in favour of a more liberal system—but I have not come along to argue about broad, strategic policy questions. Equally, I do not want to take advantage of this opportunity to raise humanitarian cases, as one could and as I have done in the past. I have written to him and his Department about one or two particular cases, but they are not my
  top priorities—they are more to illustrate the particular policy point that I want to raise this evening: procedures.
  My experience has prompted this debate. I know that I am not the only Member of Parliament who has found that often the majority of cases in the weekly surgery concern immigration and asylum. I ask myself why that is so. I do not represent Southall or Slough. Twickenham is not a major centre of immigration and refugees. Less than 10 per cent. of our population are from ethnic minorities. It is fairly cosmopolitan in one sense, in that there are many second-generation immigrants and refugees, and because it is a fairly affluent and educated part of London there are many people who travel and have overseas wives and husbands. In that sense, it is quite a mixed population, but in no sense could it be said to be a major concentration of migrants. Therefore, I ask myself why we have so many problems.
  The problems are very often not major cases of policy; they are not the kind of issues that I would normally want to take to a Minister, to whom I would appeal as a last resort for his humanitarian judgment. They are often purely clerical problems—people who are immensely frustrated because of delays in the processing of their visas or naturalisation, who go to their MP, often in desperation, because they do not know what is happening and have been waiting for a very long time. I am being affected by the issue and Ministers are being involved in fairly low-level clerical problems. That seems fundamentally unsatisfactory.
  I therefore raised a question on 23 February with the then Minister of State for Citizenship and Immigration. I asked:
  "Why does the Home Office not adopt the simple policy of copying travel documents once they have been verified, and releasing them so that people can get on with their lives while they are waiting?"
  Somewhat to my pleasant surprise, the then Minister replied very positively:
  "I agree with the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman proposes; that is exactly what we are trying to do. In some cases, for various important reasons, it is not possible, but I agree that in general, documents can be copied and sent back, and we have asked the immigration and nationality directorate to implement that process in future."—[0fficial Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 17.]
  I was delighted by that gust of common sense and constructive reaction. There was a large cheer around the House, which led me to believe that many other Members had exactly the same problem.
  618
  I have returned to the issue in this debate, however, because I can see no evidence that that is happening. Since 23 February. I have dealt with a succession of cases, some of which I have referred to the Minister's office, which illustrate that it would be much simpler for the Department, members of the public and ourselves if documents were simply copied instead of being hoarded for long periods in the immigration and nationality directorate. That is a simple measure, but it would affect the ability of a large number of people to conduct their lives satisfactorily. I therefore wish to pursue the question of why the positive initiative offered by the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) has not been followed through.
  In preparing for this debate, I studied the IND website to learn about the many different applications that can be made. It was clear that the Home Office and the IND accept that there is a problem, as there are various provisions for people who need to remove their travel documents in an emergency. There are many good reasons why people have to travel. There may be family disasters or they may be working for an employer who requires them to travel overseas. I am not making a case for people who simply want to swan around while their refugee status is resolved, as there are often compelling reasons why they have to travel.
  The Home Office appears to recognise that, as it identifies two categories in which it is willing to help applicants. First, it says that people can withdraw their passports in cases of naturalisation and if they need them for reasons other than travel, including identity purposes, without being penalised and losing their position in the queue. That is helpful, but I have encountered cases in which people who use that facility find it difficult to get back into the pipeline. Why is it necessary to penalise people at all? Many people seeking a visa who do not fall into those categories and whose application is prolonged may have compelling reasons for wishing to use their passport. Why should they be penalised and sent to the end of a long queue?
  The second category identified by the IND applies to people who need identity papers to open a bank account. On its website, it says that it will make "appropriate arrangements". It does not explain what those arrangements are, but hints that it is possible to access that facility. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate how many people use those facilities and how many people apply to have their passports returned for travel purposes, even if that involves a penalty. I do not expect those figures today, but they would give us an idea of the seriousness of the problem.
  The right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston accepted that it would make much more sense, in the vast majority of cases, to copy documents and return them to applicants. In her reply on 23 February, she referred to "various important reasons" why that is not always possible, and it would be useful if the Minister spelt them out. Obviously, if an applicant for visa status is a suspected terrorist or criminal the authorities would wish to keep them under surveillance. I have no quarrel whatever with that as it is quite sensible, but such cases involve a microscopic percentage of people. What are the "important reasons" for withholding passports in many cases? It would make perfect sense to release the documents at the first available opportunity. People are often required to submit various documents, not just

  619
  passports but birth certificates and other documents, to be used for identity purposes and kept on file. In most cases involving people applying for extended or indefinite leave, or for refugee star us, the objective is surely to enable them to use their documents to apply for bank accounts and driving licences. We want them to use proper, formal procedures, not operate in the grey area of the underground economy. So for goodness' sake let us make sure that they have access to their documents and can work in a proper legal manner.
  Similarly as regards travel, it is not clear to me why somebody applying for, say, refuge status of various types should be discouraged from travel They may wait two, three or five years to have their position regularised. Why should they not be able to come and go freely? If they leave the country, their passports are available for checking by immigration officers when they come back in.
  My final reason for questioning the desirability of the immigration and nationality directorate holding on to documents is that they frequently get lost. I sometimes believe that Twickenham residents are particularly vulnerable to that. I have very large numbers of cases of essential identity documents disappearing in the Department.
  There is an appalling case winging its way to the Minister—the case of Gisella Grant, who as a young lady came to the UK from Trinidad many years ago. She came as a student, married a British person and is now divorced. She wishes to regularise her position in the UK by seeking naturalisation. I have not written to the Minister, but the details will follow. She applied for naturalisation and did not feel any sense of urgency about the matter, but submitted the documents and discovered some time later that the Department had lost them. For a long period she has been pursuing the Department, trying to find out what happened. She has now involved me in the case.
  Unfortunately, Ms Grant's employer, a film company where she has quite a responsible job, is being pursued, as many employers currently are, in respect of illegal immigration, and she is being asked to prove who she is. She cannot. She has no documents to prove her identity. The Home Office has lost her passport. Last week she was fired because she cannot prove who she is and her documents are somewhere in the Home Office. That is not a unique case. My argument, based on that example and others, is that it would be much more sensible for documents to be released as soon as possible and returned to the applicant.
  There is a series of special problems, which I shall cite because they are among the examples about which I wrote to the Home Office. First, there are cases of naturalisation. Naturalisation is rarely highly controversial. It rarely involves illegal immigrants. It often involves people who have been resident in the UK for long periods and who are working, settled members of the community. The problem with naturalisation is that the applications usually take a long time because, for perfectly good reasons, the immigration and nationality directorate wishes to obtain references and other materials. So why cannot passports be copied and returned to the applicants once they have been submitted and the checks carried out?
  620
  I have given the Minister two examples of a great deal of unnecessary hassle caused by documents being held in such cases. There was a Mrs. Sen whose problem has been resolved, thanks to the intervention of a Government Minister. I am grateful for that, as is she, but the problem need never have arisen in the first place. The second case, which has not yet been fully resolved and about which I have written to the Minister, concerns a Mr. David, an Antiguan gentleman who is seeking naturalisation. He has lived in the UK for many years. He did get his passport back—the story has moved on since I wrote the letter—and he did travel, but now the passport has had to go back into the system. His job requires him to travel frequently, so he does not know whether to keep reapplying to have his passport released. The Home Office will not tell him how soon the application will be dealt with—whether it is days, months or years—and will not communicate, answer the phone or answer letters. A simple way out would be to copy his passport and proceed with the evaluation of his application in an orderly way.
  Naturalisation causes one set of problems. A second set relates to partners. One of the cases about which I have written to the Minister concerns a Russian lady, Mrs. Gulamova, and her German fiancé, Mr. Beaumont-Bruckauf, who live in Twickenham. Her application has been turned down, maybe for good reason—I am not questioning that—but in support of the application the fiancé had to submit his documents to the Home Office, which caused a great deal of confusion in the Home Office. Officials there thought he was applying for a visa for himself, and there was a great deal of secondary correspondence that completely missed the point. The problem is that that young man has to travel a great deal—he works in the City—but cannot do so because his passport is stuck in the Home Office to support his fiancée's application and appeal. That is completely unnecessary—there is no reason why the passport should be there.
  A third set of examples relates to mixed relationships. I have some experience of those problems because I originally married into an Indian family and my son married into a Slovakian family. I have three cases on my books about which I have written to the Minister. Mr. and Mrs. Gooch have been waiting for more than a year for Mrs. Gooch's passport and are unable to travel. Andy Ford is married to a Brazilian lady, and they have one child. The application to regularise her position has been outstanding for three years, and the family cannot travel because her passport is stuck in the Home Office. Another case is that of Mr. and Mrs. Roberts. Mrs. Roberts is a Brazilian lady who is facing difficulties with her case. I am not arguing for or against the Home Office questioning her status—it might be right to do so—but there is no reason why the passport cannot be released to allow the family to travel while the matter is being resolved.
  In conclusion—I have strayed a little beyond my quarter of an hour—I want to make some suggestions as to how, in the spirit of the former Minister's comments, the Government could help people involved in such cases. First, will the Minister seriously consider which documents need to be retained in the IND and for what reason? It should not merely be for reasons of tradition or habit. Secondly, is it not possible to introduce a

  621
  general system along the lines hinted at by the former Minister, whereby when people submit their applications—whether for a visa, a naturalisation or other purposes—the documents are checked, the cheques are received, the passport is copied and put in a pre-paid envelope and returned to the sender, perhaps with a stamp saying that the application is under review, and the individuals simply get on with their lives? Then, when the application has been considered—in a month's time, a year's time or five years' time—they are summoned back to a passport office so that their passport can be properly stamped, or they can send it in. That procedure would save an enormous amount of grief, reduce the risk of loss, and make life much simpler for everybody.
  10.17 pm
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate. He was somewhat self-deprecating when he categorised some of the work that he deals with in his surgeries as low-level administrative work. It is important that people should go to see their Members of Parliament about issues relating to citizenship, naturalisation and leave to remain in this country, because they are very important lifestyle decisions. It is also important that, as a Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman should have the opportunity to raise those issues in the House. I assure him that for every case that he sends me, I receive many from other Members—not only about the retention of personal documents, but about other issues related to immigration and asylum.
  The retention of personal documents belonging to applicants for leave to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom, or for naturalisation of citizenship, is an issue that the immigration and nationality directorate takes extremely seriously. Decisions to retain documents are taken to enable the effective operation of the IND's business. It retains personal documents only where it is absolutely necessary for the consideration of cases, and procedures are in place to ensure that proper care is taken of documents so that they can be returned to applicants at the appropriate time, although those procedures are not always followed religiously in each case. Documents are occasionally lost because of the numbers involved. I shall come to that in a moment.
  Early in the hon. Gentleman's contribution, he asked me why it was important for the IND to retain documents, what purpose that served and in what circumstances it was necessary to do that. I cannot provide an exhaustive list in our short debate but there are important reasons for retaining documents, especially passports. He will appreciate through the debate on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill, which is currently in another place, that there is much concern about documents in asylum cases being destroyed. Significant evidence exists to show that applicants often destroy documents on the instruction of agents or other people to mask their identity or put them in a position whereby they cannot be removed, should the asylum application fail. They cannot be removed from the country without being redocumented. Not every country is prepared to offer us the facility of redocumentation that some provide.
  622
  I cannot go into detail about the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman raised in the debate but I shall endeavour, either through the correspondence that he has engendered in his letters to me or by reference to the official record of the debate, to write to him about the cases and explain why it was believed to be appropriate in each case to retain the relevant documents. In many cases, retention of the documents pending a grant of leave is necessary to insert in them appropriate evidence of the leave. Often, the permission that is entered in the document by a stamp or some other appropriate secure method is the record of the decision. The applicants subsequently have evidence that the decision has been made in their favour. In a significant number of cases, especially those that relate to leave to remain, that is necessary. It therefore appears logical that stamped or certified documents should be retained.
  There are many cases of fraud or deception in relation to documents and when an application is considered, it is imperative that the case worker—the person who has to make the decision—has access to the original documents to ascertain, in the light of IND's knowledge at the time of what constitutes a genuine document, whether such a document is being presented to prove a specific point. I emphasise that because today, I had an interesting meeting with an hon. Member about an individual case.
  At the heart of the case and the request to me to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant was the credibility of the applicant's account of events. That issue had been addressed and readdressed by the applicant, representatives and, latterly, the Member of Parliament in several ways. On each occasion, documentary evidence had been produced to try to prove the veracity of the applicant's account. However, on every occasion, the documents were photostat copies. It was impossible to tell whether the documents were fake or genuine and to test them against other documents that were known to the IND in order to make a judgment.
  I had to tell the hon. Member that, if the assertions could be supported by credible, reliable independent evidence, I would have been inclined to have the decision reviewed. However, because photostat copies were being produced, it was impossible for me to tell whether the documents that had been copied were genuine. That also applied to my officials, some of whom are very experienced. We could not tell whether the documents were genuine and the hon. Member would therefore have to go back to his constituent, and the decision to refuse the application would have to stand in the meantime.
  The three examples that I have given are clearly not an answer to all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made but, in my view, they provide credible reasons for the documents to remain with the application for the period of time that it takes for it to be considered. That is not to say that there are no circumstances in which that is not necessary, and the hon. Gentleman invites me to look again at the procedures, the processes and the nature of the applications that the IND is undertaking, to see whether it is necessary to retain documents in all cases in which they are being retained. I agree to do that.
  That said, however, the answer to the problem seems to be to deal with cases quickly and efficiently, and to return the documents to the applicant together with the

  623
  decision, or at the time of the decision, within a reasonable period. That is what we are seeking to achieve in the IND, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is seeing an increase in efficiency in the IND on those issues, because I know that other hon. Members are experiencing that.
  The fact of the matter is that the IND receives a significant number of documents in the post every single day. For example, applicants seeking leave to remain send the IND about 22,000 items per week. Because many of those documents are important, personal documents of the nature that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, there is in the post room an access-controlled secure environment. All recorded, special or registered post is already entered on to the post room database, which shows the recorded, special or registered post serial number and where in the IND each package has been sent once it has come in. I should like to emphasise that at no time are valuable documents left unattended or unaccounted for.
  The hon. Gentleman asks me, in a beguiling way, to add to that process at some stage a process of photocopying the documents, securing that those photocopies are correct and then returning the documents to the applicant immediately. The question for me is whether it would be appropriately resource-intensive for that procedure to be the norm, or whether I ought to continue to build on the work of my predecessor in this post, who concentrated on ensuring that applications were dealt with as quickly as possible so that decisions could be made in a reasonable period of time, and those passports and supporting personal documents turned round and sent back to the applicants.
  624
  As I have said, some progress has been made on this matter. For example, since charging for leave to remain commenced on 1 August 2003, the length of time for which personal documents are retained in the general group of IND has been much reduced. From receipt by the IND, applications now take three or 13 weeks to process, and current targets are to process 70 per cent. of the intake in three weeks. By week three, 70 per cent. of applications with all supporting documents are now returned to the applicant. The general group of IND aims to process 100 per cent. of intake by 13 weeks, although a small number of more difficult cases are sent on to the immigration service and may take longer.
  I accept immediately that that has not always been the case in the past, and that there is a backlog of work that needs to be worked through, but given that those targets are now being regularly achieved in the IND, there is hope that the resources and processes now in place will be able to bite into that backlog. I can also say to the hon. Gentleman that all passports and personal documents are now being returned by recorded delivery mail; alternatively, a customer may call to pick them up.
  I have not been able to go through all the aspects of the response that the hon. Gentleman's contribution merits. However, I have tried to show him where the priority is for the concentration of resources, and I think that he will agree that that is the appropriate priority. I ask him to bear with us in this development of progress, in the hope that we shall be able to turn round applications, including applications for citizenship, much more quickly than we have in the past, and that his citizens and others will not be deprived of their documents for too long.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Air Quality
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to monitor the prevalence of particulate matter below 2.5 microns as part of her Department's air quality strategy.[176896]

  Alun Michael
  As part of the Air Quality Strategy review, Defra will be considering the most appropriate approach for monitoring PM10 and PM2.5.

  Defra keeps under review PM2.5 monitoring and the need for possible improvements. The Air Quality Expert Group is due to publish a draft report for comment this summer on particulate matter in the UK. This will include an assessment of PM10 and PM2.5 levels in the UK and recommendations concerning monitoring. The Air Quality Expert Group report will also feed into the review of the Air Quality Strategy.

  In addition, there are developments in Europe under Clean Air For Europe on particulate matter which will also feed into the review of the Air Quality Strategy. These include a reconsideration of the number of PM2.5 monitoring sites in each member state.

  Community Transport Fund
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the criteria are against which bids for the Community Transport Fund are assessed. [160104]

  Alun Michael
  Bids for the Rural Transport Partnership Scheme which is run by the Countryside Agency on behalf of Defra are assessed against the following criteria:

  1. Community and partner support

  That the application has a wide measure of local support.

  That the application will cater primarily for the needs of rural areas or rural residents and integrate these with the needs of visitors.

  2. Transport needs

  That the project will meet an identified transport need. This will be assessed by examination of the evidence of need provided in the proposal, the scale and nature of research and consultation undertaken, the Countryside Agency Officer's existing knowledge of the area and their consultation with representatives of key organisations working there.

  The project will not be to the detriment of other rural services and will not compete significantly with other transport services or facilities.
  608W
  The project is unlikely to proceed without assistance from the Rural Transport Partnership.

  3. Financial viability

  That the application represents best value for money.

  The value for money of the proposal in terms of its unit costs and in terms of the additionality obtained by the local transport network in return for the investment requested, or any other relevant factors.

  (For project applications) that it is likely to be socially, environmentally or financially viable by the time the funding from the Countryside Agency ceases. Ideally, all projects should seek to break even by at least the end of the funding period, although it is often found that during the early years of operation there is a deficit, i.e. receipts do not cover costs. For non-profit making schemes, with costs often provided on an ongoing basis in kind, from fund-raising or from grants, commercial viability is not so important.

  However, it should be possible to establish evidence of the economic or social benefits of such schemes over time and it is expected that this will be used to justify continued funding.

  The proportion of the total capital and revenue costs requested from the Countryside Agency (grant rate) and the leverage on other funds obtained from this.

  That there is a firm funding commitment from other funding bodies.

  4. Strategic considerations

  How well the application fits the overall aim of the RTP scheme.

  The aims and objectives of the proposal and how these link with those of Defra and the Countryside Agency. Bids are particularly encouraged for projects that meet vital villages, market towns and wider welcome programme objectives. As a guide the following groups denote whether a project will be classified as a vital village, market towns or wider welcome project.

  Vital Villages—transport projects which meet a locally identified transport need, or relate to the provision of access to locally provided services. Particularly favoured projects are those which address issues of social exclusion.

  Market Towns—transport projects which enhance the role of an area as a service hub. Particularly favoured projects are these which have a close relationship to prioritised market towns and the health check process.

  Wider Welcome—transport projects related to recreation and tourism with a rural destination. Particularly favoured projects are those with an emphasis on sustainable development, or links to other Countryside Agency interests and initiatives.

  The degree to which the proposal relates to regional and local policy.

  The implications of not providing funding support for the proposal.
  609W
  5. Technical viability

  The expected benefits of the proposal.

  The competence of the applicant (and fund holder, if different) to implement, manage and administer the proposal.

  How the proposal will be implemented and its development strategy.

  The arrangements made for monitoring and evaluation.

  6. Additional criteria

  In April 2003 an additional criterion was added:

  Should target areas suffering from deprivation.

  Air Routes
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) routes and (b) airlines which operate each route on which it is permitted for dogs and cats to travel in the passenger cabin. [175548]

  Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 26May 2004]
  Guide and hearing dogs only may be transported in the cabin under the Pet Travel Scheme on the following routes and airlines:

  Cyprus

  Larnaca to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways

  Paphos to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways

  France

  Paris (Charles de Gaulle) to London Heathrow: BMI British Midland

  Germany

  Frankfurt to London Heathrow: Lufthansa

  Malta

  Valletta to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways

  Netherlands

  Amsterdam (Schiphol) to London Heathrow: BMI British Midland

  Portugal

  Faro to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways

  Spain

  Alicante to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways

  Almeria to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways

  Arrecife to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways

  Fuerteventura to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways

  Las Palmas to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways

  Madrid to London Heathrow: BMI British Midland

  Malaga to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways

  Palma, Majorca to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways

  Palma, Majorca to London Heathrow: BMI British Midland

  Tenerife South, Canary Islands to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways

  No route is approved to carry cats in the cabin at present.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether conformity with the provisions of the Control of 610W
  Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 is (a) included and (b) to be included in the cross-compliance requirements of the Mid-Term Common Agricultural Policy Review. [176646]

  Alun Michael
  The Carcinogens Directive, partly implemented in the UK by the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002, is not included in the final list of 19 Directives/requirements which form the list of Statutory Management Requirements (SMR) for cross compliance.

  The Carcinogens Directive was included in the original list of 38 possible SMRs. The UK supported the retention of Health and Safety Directives in cross compliance but as a result of the negotiations the European Commission reduced the list and the Health and Safety Directives, including the Carcinogens Directive, were removed. The Commission will undertake a review of cross compliance requirements in 2007.

  Cattle Passports
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much taxpayers' money was spent by the British Cattle Movement Service replacing sets of labels for cattle passports. [177197]

  Alun Michael
  The exercise referred to will lead to a net saving of £73,000 over the next two years. In April 2004, the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) issued new sets of labels printed with farm details to all cattle keepers to replace labels they already had, some of which were issued five years ago. This exercise cost £67,000 and the BCMS estimate that it will save £140,000 over the next two years by reducing the verification and error correction costs arising because faded ink on the old label could not be read properly by their scanning system. The exercise was part of a continuing drive to improve quality and reduce costs.

  Ceramics Industry
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she is expecting to make appropriate information available to enable the UK ceramics industry to decide whether to opt in or out of Phase I of the European Emissions Trading Scheme. [177451]

  Mr. Morley [holding answer 7 June 2004]
  The EU Emissions Trading Scheme provides for member states to apply for temporary exclusion from the first phase of the scheme for installations covered by national measures, provided that they satisfy the equivalence criteria set out in the Directive.

  The ceramics industry is currently covered by a Climate Change Agreement and therefore operators within this sector may potentially apply for temporary exclusion. We have approached the European Commission to ask for their views on an application for temporary exclusion for Climate Change Agreement holders. We are continuing to work with the ceramics industry and others, to settle outstanding issues regarding the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

  Correspondence
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she expects to reply to the letter to her of 17 February from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire; [165133]

  (2) when the hon. Member for West Worcestershire will receive a response to his letter of 30 March, reference 196782. [174750]

  Alun Michael
  My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (The Lord Whitty), responded to the hon. Member's letter of 17 February on Biofuels on 27 February. I responded to the hon. Member's letter of 17 February on the live export of horses and ponies on 2 April and to the letter of 30 March on the Single Farm Payments Scheme on 8 June.

  EC Water Framework Directive
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of surface waters will be covered by the Environment Agency's river basin characterisation report under the EC Water Framework Directive(a) within the Ribble catchment and (b) in England and Wales. [176918]

  Mr. Morley
  The Agency has taken a river catchment approach to characterisation and risk assessment. All river catchments have been assessed in England and Wales, including the River Ribble. This included 433 lakes, all groundwaters in aquifers and all coastal waters and estuaries.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to refine the Environment Agency's river basin characterisation report under the EC Water Framework Directive to ensure that it includes representative samples of small water bodies in each catchment. [176919]

  Mr. Morley
  The Agency will follow the guidance on small waters provided by the UK Technical Advisory Group on Water Framework Directive in refining the characterisation work on small water bodies. This refinement will happen progressively during the river basin planning process from January 2005.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether mechanisms to ensure full integration between land use planning and river basin management planning under the EC Water Framework Directive will be piloted in the Ribble; [176920]

  (2) how she will ensure that land use planning is sufficiently integrated with river basin management planning under the EC Water Framework Directive; and how conflicts will be resolved if the two statutory plans are at odds with each other. [176921]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra and the Environment Agency are currently working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Local Government Association on the relationship between land use planning and river basin management planning, including how conflicts between the two statutory plans could arise and how such conflicts might be avoided or resolved. EC Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (usually 612W
  referred to as the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive) will be an important vehicle for integration in this context.

  As part of this work the Environment Agency proposes to look at a number of case studies to help understand how the systems will interrelate: these may include the Ribble.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what mechanisms the Environment Agency has established to make use of data on the water environment held by non-governmental organisations as part of its characterisation and risk assessment process under the EC Water Framework Directive. [176922]

  Mr. Morley
  The draft outputs of initial characterisation will be published in September 2004 for public review. External stakeholders, including nongovernmental organisations, will be invited at that point to propose data for use in future refinement and validation of the characterisation work which will take place from 2004 onwards.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department plans to consult on the Environment Agency's river basin characterisation report under the EC Water Framework Directive; and what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive about its consultation process on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's characterisation report. [176923]

  Mr. Morley
  The risk assessment outputs from the Environment Agency's river basin characterisation process will be available for public review from September 2004. There will not be a formal consultation on this issue.

  Defra has been in discussion with the Environment Agency, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency with respect to the river basin characterisation report and the consultation process. The Scottish Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have decided to undertake a formal consultation, beginning in July 2004.

  Energy Efficiency
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outturn budget was that she and her predecessors supplied to fund the Energy Saving Trust in each year from 1997–98 to 2004–05, expressed in April 2004 money. [173464]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra outturn budgets (rounded to the nearest £ million) for the Energy Saving Trust in each year were converted to 2004–05 money using HM Treasury GDP Deflator.

  £ million

  1998–99

  22

  1999–2000

  26

  2000–01

  25

  2001–02

  26

  2002–03

  25

  2003–04

  25

  613W
  Figures for 1997–98 cannot be immediately provided. I will write to Mr. Baker as soon as this information is available. The EST's outturn for 2004–05 will not be known until after the end of the current financial year, but they have been offered Defra grant funding of about £24 million.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funds she supplied for the Warm Front programme in 2001–02, expressed in April 2004 money; and what the budget for the Warm Front programme is for 2004–05. [173466]

  Mr. Morley
  The Warm Front budget in 2001–2 was £152 million. Due to a carry over of £45 million from 2000–01, the final budget was £97 million.

  In 2004, the £152 million would equate to approximately £164 million and the £197 million to £214 million.

  Funding for the current financial year for fuel poverty will be around £166 million.

  Energy Efficiency (Stoke)
  Ms Walley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Stoke-on-Trent, North have benefited from the Home Energy Efficiency/Warm Front Scheme. [177637]

  Mr. Morley
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is now marketed as Warm Front. Between the launch of the scheme in June 2000 and the end of March 2004, approximately 3,300 households in Stoke-on-Trent, North received assistance from the scheme.

  Farm Subsidies
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what proportion of farm holdings in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Ireland are in (i) the moorland area of severely disadvantaged areas (SDA), (ii) the remainder of SDA and (iii) the rest of the country for the purposes of eligibility for single farm payments. [172461]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested is not currently available as entitlements to subsidy will be allocated on the basis of claims made by farmers in 2005. However, the latest information currently available for England is based on Integrated Administration and Control System Scheme applications in 2003, the figures are as follows:(i) Number and proportion of applications who have the majority of land within the moorland line within the Severely Disadvantaged Area equals 1,210 holdings, 1.81 per cent. of total number of holdings;
  (ii) Number and proportion of applications who have the majority of land within the Severely Disadvantaged Area equals 7,216 holdings, 10.79 per cent. of total number of holdings;
  (iii) Number and proportion of applications that have the majority of land outside the Severely Disadvantaged Area equals 58,427 holdings, 87.40 per cent. of total number of holdings.

  It should be emphasised that the criteria used here is where the majority of the applicant's land falls within one of the three categories. The procedures for the allocation to regions have still to be finalised.
  614W
  The information for other countries within the UK is a matter for their devolved assemblies.

  Fuel Poverty (Gas Supplies)
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate the Government have made of the effect of an extension of the mains gas network to areas of England without such provision on the extent of fuel poverty; and if she will make a statement. [178048]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department estimates that, based on figures for 2001, around 450,000 vulnerable, fuel poor households lacked access to mains gas, and that around 180,000 of those households might feasibly be connected to the mains gas network. The Department has been considering the possibility of funding for a programme to provide connection to deprived communities without mains gas. The Design and Demonstration Unit, which is based in DTI and designs and develops projects in support of White Paper objectives, has completed two pathfinder projects to provide gas connections to deprived communities, and is currently working on a third. It hopes to undertake more projects during 2004–05.

  Global Food Production
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect on global food production of global warming. [177414]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department funded an assessment of the impact of global warming on global food production using scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to characterise a range of possible global development pathways over the 21st century. A report was published in the journal "Global Environmental Change" in April 2004.

  The work showed that the development scenario leading to the greatest increase in global temperature resulted in the greatest decreases both regionally and globally in crop yields. The world appears to be able to continue to feed itself under these scenarios during the rest of this century, but only through production in developed countries compensating for declines projected mainly in developing nations. Regional differences in crop production are likely to grow stronger over time, with substantial increases in prices and risk of hunger among the poorer nations.

  There is considerable complexity in the world food supply system, and the impact of socio-economic developments could also be substantial, with the potential at the regional level to both increase or decrease yields.

  Copies of the journal issue containing the report have been placed in both Libraries.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether, for future growings of Chardon LL to take place in the
  615W
  UK, (a) farmers and (b) Bayer CropScience will be obliged to replicate not only herbicide use but also the herbicide concentrations, management practices and other parameters following the farm scale GM maize trials. [164975]

  Mr. Morley
  Chardon LL is a variety of GM maize carrying the GM event T25 from Bayer CropScience. In March the company announced that it was not proceeding with commercialisation of this variety in Europe, so it will not be grown in the UK.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the variations are in the conditions to the Part C consent for Chardon LL, which she has submitted for consideration by the French competent authority. [164976]

  Mr. Morley
  Chardon LL is a variety of GM maize carrying the GM event T25 from Bayer CropScience, which was granted a consent in 1998 under part C of Directive 90/220 by the relevant French competent authority on behalf of all EU member states.

  On 9 March 2004, officials wrote to the French Competent Authority seeking amendments to this consent to limit herbicide use with the crop in line with advice from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. A copy of the letter to the French Competent Authority has been published on the Defra website and placed on the GM public register.

  Official Vehicles
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of official vehicles used by her Department are run on(a) petrol, (b) diesel, (c) liquid petroleum gas and (d) compressed natural gas. [172779]

  Alun Michael
  The percentage breakdown of official vehicles used by Defra at 1 April 2003 was:(a) petrol— 5 per cent., (b) diesel—92 per cent., (c) liquid petroleum gas—3 per cent., and (d) compressed natural gas—0 per cent. Data are currently being collected on the situation at 1 April 2004. They will be placed in the Library of the House when they are available. Recent developments include use of electric vehicles, for instance.

  Pollutant Particles
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she has taken to improve the detection of the pollutant particles found in the PM2.5 range. [176924]

  Alun Michael
  Defra has monitored particles found in the PM2.5 range at seven locations in England since 1998. Results are available on Defra's air quality website: www.airquality.co.uk There are also a number of additional PM2.5 monitors in England funded by other organisations such as local authorities, the Highways Agency and electricity supply companies.

  The Department keeps under review PM2.5 monitoring and the need for possible improvements. The Air Quality Expert Group is due to publish a draft report for comment this summer on particulate matter in the UK. This will include an assessment of PM10 and PM2.5 levels in the UK and recommendations concerning monitoring.

  Pollution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated levels of(a) emissions and (b) removals were for (i) hydrofluorocarbons, (ii) perfluorocarbons and (iii) sulphurhexafluoride in each year from 1990 to 2002, expressed in (A) unit tonnes and (B) thousand tonne carbon dioxide equivalents. [176931]

  Mr. Morley
  The following tables show the estimated emissions for these gases in (A) tonnes and (B) thousand tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent, as published in the latest UK Greenhouse gas inventory, released in April 2004. There are no removals of these gases estimated in the UK inventory.

  (A) Emissions of HFCs, PFCs, SF6 in tonnes

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  HFC

  973.9

  1,022.8

  1,064.0

  1,231.0

  1,588.5

  2,155.3

  PFC

  204.0

  170.0

  81.8

  68.7

  67.5

  63.4

  SF6

  45.3

  47.3

  49.2

  51.0

  51.7

  54.0

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  HFC

  2,762.9

  3,644.9

  4,233.7

  3,822.8

  4,128.6

  4,646.9

  5,267.6

  PFC

  68.3

  61.1

  60.1

  60.2

  73.5

  60.2

  52.5

  SF6

  55.2

  53.4

  54.9

  61.6

  77.5

  61.0

  66.7

  (B) Emissions of HFCs, PFCs, SF6 in thousand tonne carbon dioxide equivalent

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  HFC

  11,375.4

  11,854.0

  12,323.5

  12,999.9

  14,009.7

  15,490.9

  PFC

  1,393.7

  1,164.2

  570.7

  485.2

  481.2

  457.4

  SF6

  1,081.9

  1,130.4

  1,176.2

  1,219.2

  1,235.0

  1,291.3

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  HFC

  16,720.1

  19,181.4

  17,268.0

  10,829.9

  9,081.3

  9,727.5

  10,418.3

  PFC

  496.3

  450.1

  441.1

  446.3

  541.4

  437.5

  383.5

  SF6

  1,318.6

  1,275.1

  1,311.8

  1,472.3

  1,852.1

  1,457.5

  1,594.0

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps her Department has taken to measure the leakage of(a) hydrofluorocarbons, (b) perfluorocarbons and (c) sulphurhexafluoride from appliances in the UK; [176932]

  (2) if the Department will take steps to improve the (a) quality and (b) quantity of independent monitoring of the leakage of hydrofluorocarbons. [176990]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra commissioned a study from AEA Technology as independent contractors to estimate annual UK emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. The final report was published in July 2003. The report estimated emissions from a range of appliances that contain these chemicals. Leakage rates were estimated drawing on information obtained through consultation with UK industry and NGOs and leakage rates published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  617W
  The report represents the best possible estimates of hydrofluorocarbons that could be made at that time. My Department will continue to keep under review the scope for obtaining better estimates and the timing of any such work.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken to improve the containment of fluorinated gases; what funding has been made available for such containment in each year since 1997; what reduction there has been in the leakage of these gases as a result of these steps; and how the effects of these steps have been(a) assessed and (b) recorded. [176991]

  Mr. Morley
  Reductions in emissions of fluorinated gases have to date largely been driven by technological development and voluntary action by industry. Based on best estimates, total UK emissions fell from 17,240 kt CO2 equivalent in 1995 to about 11,475 kt CO2 in 2000. Emissions are expected to increase again to about 13,242 kt equivalent by 2005 and then steadily decrease to about 10,369 kt CO2 in 2025.

  The proposed EC Regulation on fluorinated gases will introduce EU wide controls on certain uses of fluorinated gases, as well as provisions relating to containment and recovery.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress made by her Department in reducing the leakage of hydrofluorocarbons from refrigerators. [176992]

  Mr. Morley
  Based on information in a study commissioned by Defra and published in 2003, the percentage of new domestic refrigerators using hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) is expected to decrease to 10 per cent. by 2005 and to 5 per cent. by 2010, following a switch to hydrocarbon based refrigerants. HFCs in refrigerators are recovered for destruction under existing arrangements for disposing of waste fridges.

  The proposed EC Regulation on fluorinated gases will introduce EU wide provisions relating to leakage testing of commercial scale stationary refrigeration equipment. Subject to a text being finalised, further measures will address the need to repair detected leakage as soon as possible. Other provisions will require training and certification programmes to be established for those servicing refrigerators and for records to be kept. The Government believe that these provisions will provide a valuable framework for addressing HFC leakages in the commercial refrigeration sector.

  Water
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether all sites of special scientific interest within the Ribble area will be included in the Environment Agency's characterisation and risk assessment process under the EC Water Framework Directive. [176914]

  Mr. Morley
  If the SSSIs are water bodies or contain water bodies then they will be included in the characterisation and risk assessment process.

  Water Supplies (Aldershot)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research she has commissioned into the adequacy of water supplies in the Aldershot area to serve releases of Ministry of Defence land for residential purposes. [176777]

  Mr. Morley
  Aldershot is served by South East Water. Along with the other water supply companies, South East Water produces a water resources plan, which looks forward 25 years. The plan is updated annually by the company, and is reviewed by the Environment Agency for consistency with the national and regional water resources strategies. Any planned residential developments in the area will be factored into this process.

  World Environment Day
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs how(a) she, (b) her Department and (c) agencies for which her Department is responsible will be marking World Environment Day on 5 June; and if she will make a statement. [175103]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra and colleague Departments worked together with the Environment Agency on a campaign to mark World Environment Day. This included asking members of the public to sign "the Pledge to the Future" to identify ways they can improve their local environment, and a publicity campaign by the Environment Agency on how businesses can make their organisations more sustainable.

  Defra Ministers also participated in the launch of London Environmental Week to mark World Environment Day.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on preserved rights to concessionary television licences for people in sheltered and community housing. [178693]

  Estelle Morris
  Preserved rights for existing beneficiaries of the Accommodation for Residential Care concessionary television licence, in cases where their accommodation ceases to meet the existing qualifying criteria but continues to be provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development corporation, were introduced in April 2003.

  Digital Radio
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has in conjunction with Ofcom to facilitate transition to digital radio broadcasting. [178051]
  619W
  Estelle Morris
  Section 67 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 requires the Secretary of State to keep under review the development of digital radio for the purposes of considering how long it would be appropriate for sound broadcasting services to be provided in analogue form. As required by the Act, she has asked Ofcom and the BBC to provide reports by 31 October which look at the current position and future prospects for: the provision of radio multiplex services; the availability of digital sound programme services and existing analogue services in digital form; and the ownership or possession of equipment capable of receiving digital sound services. A number of other industry bodies have also been asked to submit any comments they wish to make.

  Libraries
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what impact the People's Network project has had on library visits; and if she will make a statement. [178223]

  Estelle Morris
  The People's Network has linked all but a handful of the UK's public libraries to the internet. Recent figures published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy show that visits to UK public libraries increased by nearly 5 million, over the previous year, to 323 million in 2002–03 (before provision of the People's Network had been completed). Alongside other activities that are attracting more users, such as dedicated reader development work, the introduction of the People's Network is already making major contribution to the increase in visits. Research suggests that many positive impacts are being felt in communities across the country: people are learning new basic skills, finding community information which would not otherwise be provided, and finding jobs.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money was spent on library(a) buildings and (b) books in (i) Merseyside and (ii) Crosby in each year since 1996. [177862]

  Estelle Morris
  Information on Merseyside's and Sefton borough council's expenditure on(a) buildings and (b) books is contained in the two tables. These figures are derived from the most recent information available in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy annual public libraries statistics, copies of which are held in the House of Commons Library.

  We are not able to provide a breakdown of expenditure for Crosby, as figures are not broken down beyond the level of individual library authorities, but we have included the figures for Sefton Library Authority, which encompasses Crosby.

  Expenditure on library premises

  £

  Merseyside

  Sefton

  1996–97

  2,656,851

  325,333

  1997–98

  2,859,199

  335,990

  1998–99

  3,056,140

  343,513

  1999–2000

  12,596,443

  343,706

  2000–01

  2,869,567

  306,555

  2001–02

  3,326,071

  341,015

  620W

  Expenditure on books

  £

  Merseyside

  Sefton

  1996–97

  23,147,541

  2539,131

  1997–98

  2,035,712

  508,464

  1998–99

  2,409,468

  510,092

  1999–2000

  12,077,856

  507,239

  2000–01

  2,930,521

  799,048

  2001–02

  2,651,235

  516.475

  1Figures for Knowsley Library Authority are not included in the 1999–2000 figures for Merseyside.

  2Figures for 1996–97 incorporate expenditure on a wider range of products and services defined as "book purchasing" than in subsequent years when this definition was refined.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been spent on the digitisation of content in libraries in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale since 1997. [178531]

  Estelle Morris
  This information is not held centrally.

  The New Opportunities Fund £50 million Digitisation of Learning Materials Programme has delivered 150 projects across the UK to enable resources which support learning of all kinds held in libraries as well as museums, archives and other public-sector institutions, to be made available online through the People's Network and the National Grid for Learning. This initiative has created a body of material containing over 2 million images, tens of thousands of sound and video clips and documents and over 1,000 learning packages. All projects can be accessed via the EnrichUK portal at http://www.enrichuk.net.

  Information on grants awarded to individual local authorities and their expenditure can be obtained from the relevant authority.

PRIME MINISTER

  Butler Inquiry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the report of the Butler Inquiry. [178717]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked the Review to report before the summer recess.

  Departmental Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what the total amount paid by his Office to employment agencies for the supply of temporary staff was in financial year 2003–04. [178910]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 March 2004,Official Report, column 1094W.

  G8 Summit
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in respect of(a) sustainable development, (b) climate change and (c) nuclear non-proliferation, were

  621W
  discussed at the G8 summit in Sea Island, Georgia; and if he will place in the Library papers circulated at the summit in respect of these matters. [178729]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I gave to the House on the G8 summit today.

  India
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what contact he has had with the new Prime Minister of India; and if he will make a statement. [178771]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 24 May 2004,Official Report, column 1365W.

  Iraq
  Clare Short
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the interim Iraqi authority will have the power to demand the withdrawal of UK troops at whatever time they might wish. [177087]

  The Prime Minister
  On 30 June, full sovereignty will be handed over to the Interim Iraqi Government and the Multinational Force will remain with the consent of that Government.

  UN Security Council Resolution 1546, passed unanimously on 8 June, makes clear that the Multinational Force mandate will be terminated if so requested by the Government of Iraq.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the Iraq Survey Group has investigated the accuracy of the Iraq Government's disclosure in December 2002 in response to UNSC Resolution 1441; and whether its final report will include an account of these investigations. [178889]

  The Prime Minister
  The Iraq Survey Group is examining information from a wide range of sources, including the declaration made by Iraq in December 2002. The work of the Iraq Survey Group is ongoing and a final report has yet to be produced.

  Meetings (Minutes)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to establish civil service-wide guidance on which meetings involving Ministers and civil servants should be minuted. [178345]

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office is currently updating existing guidance on private office records. The revised guidance will be issued to all Departments shortly, and will be placed on the Cabinet Office and The National Archives websites.

  Regulation
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings of the Panel for Regulatory Accountability(a) he has attended since March and (b) he is scheduled to attend in the next 12 months. [178837]

  The Prime Minister
  I have regular meetings and discussions with ministerial colleagues and others on a wide range of subjects, including on regulation and will continue to do so. As with previous Administrations it 622W
  is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Royal Bounty and Charity Funds
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what reserves are in the(a) Royal Bounty Fund and (b) Royal Charity Fund; [177657]

  (2) what disbursements have been made from the (a) Royal Bounty Fund and (b) Royal Charity Fund since 1997; and who the recipients were. [177658]

  The Prime Minister
  As at 31 December 2003, the assets of the Royal Bounty and Special Services Fund were £191,500, and the assets of the Royal Charity Fund were £1,400.

  Since 1 January 1997 payments of £201,300 have been made from the Royal Bounty and Special Services Fund, and £4,450 from the Royal Charity Fund.

  In accordance with exemption 12 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, details of recipients are exempt from disclosure in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects the Iraq Survey Group to complete its search for weapons of mass destruction. [178250]

  The Prime Minister
  The work of the Iraq Survey Group is ongoing.

  Yemen
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to meet the President of Yemen. [178783]

  The Prime Minister
  I met the President of Yemen with other G8 leaders at the recent G8 summit on Sea Island to discuss reform in the Middle East.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Strangers Bar
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will make a statement on the change in arrangements relating to the locking of the door between Strangers Bar and the Terrace; and what assessment he has made of the implications of the new arrangements for(a) convenience of access for hon. Members and (b) emergency evacuation in the event of a fire. [176395]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  As one of a number of measures to enhance security in the House of Commons, the Speaker instructed the Serjeant at Arms to lock the door between Strangers' Bar and the Terrace. A quick release lock is being fitted to the door as a matter of urgency; meanwhile, I understand that the Fire Safety Manager is content with the temporary arrangements in place for emergency evacuation in the event of a fire. Hon. Members may get to the Terrace by the entrance next to the Cafeteria.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Portcullis House
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission how many full-scale evacuations of Portcullis House have been held since the building was opened; and on what dates and at what times. [177201]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The number of fire evacuations of Portcullis House is 31. The dates and times are as follows:

  Date

  Time

  5 October 2000

  15:03

  13 October 2000

  11:08

  13 October 2000

  21:46

  7 December 2000

  16:48

  7 April 2001

  14:14

  1 June 2001

  06:51

  6 August 2001

  15:01

  22 October 2001

  08:07

  26 October 2001

  12:27

  4 December 2001

  10:20

  20 March 2002

  22:22

  November April 2002

  06:39

  13 April 2002

  03:08

  22 October 2002

  15:13

  28 October 2002

  19:22

  2 November 2002

  10:35

  23 November 2002

  16:59

  5 December 2002

  20:24

  16 December 2002

  09:36

  19 February 2003

  11:50

  27 March 2003

  08:38

  6 May 2003

  11:44

  14 July 2003

  20:00

  19 December 2003

  10:30

  09 January 2004

  18:25

  20 January 2004

  22:36

  7 February 2004

  09:47

  9 February 2004

  16:49

  3 March 2004

  13:51

  21 March 2004

  13:17

  1 April 2004

  05:19

  During the early months of occupation of Portcullis House a large number of evacuations were due to oversensitive sensors.

  The number of unnecessary alarms and evacuations have been reduced; so far in 2004, evacuations have been for genuine, if minor, incidents.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Archaeological Objects
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Solicitor-General what action she intends to take following the decision not to proceed with the case against Mr. Robert Duqueria for the alleged removal of objects from the scheduled site of Cunetio in Wiltshire; and if she will issue new guidance on prosecutions for such removals to the Crown Prosecution Service. [172211]
  624W
  The Solicitor-General
  I have already received and considered a detailed report from CPS Wiltshire concerning the case against Mr. Robert Duqueria who was charged with removing 25 Roman coins and three artefacts from a protected site following a police investigation including obtaining expert evidence. The CPS subsequently received a defence expert report which cast reasonable doubt on the evidence that the coins came from a protected site as opposed to a nearby site where permission may have been granted in any event.

  Prosecutions of this nature are relatively rare and may well demand appropriate expert evidence depending on the facts of the individual case. In this case all possible avenues were pursued and the case was correctly reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

  I am, therefore, satisfied that there is no need to take any further action in this case.

  In addition, there is no basis for concluding that the outcome of this particular case would have been affected by the availability of further guidance for prosecutions for such removals. The issues were clear and the case was dealt with correctly. Nevertheless, in view of its importance, I have asked the CPS to consider developing guidance on the subject as part of its electronic Legal Guidance.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many trained specialists there are in Merseyside Crown Prosecution Service dealing with victims of(a) domestic violence, (b) rape and (c) child abuse. [170339]

  The Solicitor-General
  All prosecutors in CPS Merseyside deal with domestic violence cases. Last year a compulsory refresher course was run, following the introduction of the new CPS policy on these cases. The training was delivered to 60 Crown prosecutors and to police officers with help from Sefton Women and Children's Aid. It focused on raising the awareness of the needs of the victim and the role of Women's Aid, as well as on the legal aspects of dealing with these cases.

  Like all CPS areas, Merseyside has a domestic violence co-ordinator, who is part of a national network which shares and disseminates policy and good practice across the CPS. In addition, each branch within CPS Merseyside has a branch co-ordinator whose responsibilities include liaison with local agencies and to assist in securing a consistency of approach across the area.

  All 22 prosecutors permanently assigned to the Crown court branch are rape specialists. Compulsory training for all prosecutors (including those in other branches) in sexual offences has just commenced.

  20 prosecutors are trained to deal with child abuse cases. Most of these are based in the Crown court branch, which deals with the vast majority of these cases.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many Crown Prosecutors have been recruited in each Crown Prosecution Service in each financial year since 1 May
  625W
  1997 for which figures are available, broken down by grade. [167304]

  The Solicitor-General
  The structure of the Crown Prosecution Service changed in 1999, following the implementation of the review conducted by Sir lain Glidewell.

  Annexe A: Table showing the number of Crown Prosecutors recruited in each CPS area since 1 May 1999

  Total

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Grand total

  Derbyshire

  2

  —

  4

  3

  5

  14

  Leicestershire

  1

  —

  5

  9

  4

  19

  Lincoln

  1

  —

  2

  4

  3

  10

  Northamptonshire

  2

  1

  3

  2

  —

  8

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  1

  7

  13

  11

  35

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  5

  1

  1

  7

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  2

  11

  Essex

  1

  1

  5

  5

  3

  15

  Hertfordshire

  2

  1

  —

  7

  3

  13

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  2

  2

  3

  7

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  1

  5

  1

  7

  London

  13

  7

  85

  71

  39

  215

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  5

  —

  6

  11

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  3

  5

  8

  West Midlands

  9

  14

  12

  21

  9

  65

  Cleveland

  1

  —

  4

  7

  1

  13

  Durham

  3

  —

  3

  3

  1

  10

  Northumbria

  2

  —

  7

  9

  12

  30

  Cheshire

  1

  2

  5

  6

  4

  18

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  4

  Greater Manchester

  4

  1

  23

  12

  14

  54

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  8

  —

  13

  21

  Merseyside

  2

  —

  6

  8

  9

  25

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  12

  2

  9

  23

  Kent

  2

  —

  6

  9

  3

  20

  Surrey

  2

  1

  5

  3

  2

  13

  Sussex

  3

  3

  8

  5

  5

  24

  Thames Valley

  1

  5

  6

  13

  11

  36

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  6

  9

  4

  8

  28

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  1

  2

  6

  3

  12

  Dorset

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  6

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  5

  Wiltshire

  —

  1

  1

  5

  2

  9

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  3

  Gwent

  —

  1

  7

  3

  —

  11

  North Wales

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  South Wales

  4

  1

  9

  3

  8

  25

  Humberside

  1

  1

  1

  3

  5

  11

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  5

  South Yorkshire

  3

  1

  4

  6

  10

  24

  West Yorkshire

  2

  1

  11

  14

  18

  46

  Total

  68

  52

  282

  278

  248

  928

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Solicitor-General what percentage of the(a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by her Department over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170813]

  The Solicitor-General
  In respect of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, it estimates, on the basis of checking existing stock and liaison with current suppliers, that(a) 100 per cent. of crockery, (b) 0 per cent. of cutlery and (c) 10 per cent. of glassware purchased by the Department was of British manufacture.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has not purchased any such items since its establishment on 1 October 2000.
  626W
  Consequently, the summary table at Annexe A only shows the number of Crown prosecutors that were recruited in each of the 42 current CPS Areas in each of the financial years since 1 May 1999, broken down by grade. Comparable figures for 1 May 1997 and 1 May 1998 are not available.

  The Crown Prosecution Service and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers procure very small quantities of crockery, cutlery and glass. Separate records of the source of these products are not kept.

  Family Law
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans she has to issue a Green Paper on the reform of family law; and if she will make a statement. [178079]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government plans to publish a consultation document on parental relationship breakdown. This will set out proposals for improving outcomes for children and the experiences of all those involved in

  627W
  parental separation, through improved services, help and support. Any legislative implications of these proposals will be addressed in the document.

  Lenient Sentencing
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases from each court where the sentence was judged to be unduly lenient were referred for review in each of the last three years. [168820]

  The Solicitor-General
  The tables show the numbers of cases received by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and the numbers of cases referred to the Court of Appeal in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

  2001

  Crown court

  Cases received by LSLO

  Cases referred to court of appeal

  Aylesbury

  1

  0

  Basildon

  1

  0

  Birmingham

  7

  3

  Blackfriars

  6

  3

  Bolton

  2

  2

  Bournemouth

  1

  0

  Bradford

  2

  1

  Bristol

  11

  8

  Burnley

  1

  0

  Caernarfon

  1

  0

  Canterbury

  3

  3

  Cardiff

  1

  1

  Carlisle

  2

  1

  Central Criminal

  14

  3

  Chelmsford

  0

  —

  Chester

  5

  4

  Chichester

  2

  1

  Croydon

  1

  1

  Derby

  2

  1

  Doncaster

  1

  1

  Durham

  3

  0

  Exeter

  3

  2

  Gloucester

  5

  3

  Grimsby

  2

  0

  Guildford

  4

  3

  Harrow

  0

  —

  Hove

  0

  —

  Hull

  1

  0

  Inner London

  2

  2

  Ipswich

  2

  2

  Isleworth

  1

  1

  Kingston

  2

  0

  Kingston upon Hull

  0

  —

  Knutsford

  1

  1

  Leeds

  7

  3

  Leicester

  3

  2

  Lewes

  4

  2

  Lincoln

  1

  0

  Liverpool

  7

  3

  Luton

  6

  5

  Maidstone

  7

  4

  Manchester

  14

  11

  Middlesex Guildhall

  0

  —

  Mold

  1

  1

  Newcastle

  5

  3

  Newport

  1

  1

  Northampton

  1

  1

  Norwich

  1

  1

  Nottingham

  4

  1

  Oxford

  2

  0

  Peterborough

  1

  1

  Plymouth

  0

  —

  Portsmouth

  4

  4

  628W

  2001

  Crown court

  Cases received by LSLO

  Cases referred to court of appeal

  Preston

  8

  3

  Reading

  5

  4

  Salford

  0

  —

  Sheffield

  5

  3

  Shrewsbury

  1

  1

  Snaresbrook

  5

  4

  Southampton

  1

  0

  Southwark

  2

  1

  Stafford

  1

  1

  St. Albans

  2

  —

  Stockport

  0

  —

  Stoke on Trent

  1

  0

  Swansea

  2

  1

  Swindon

  1

  1

  Taunton

  1

  0

  Teesside

  5

  3

  Truro

  0

  —

  Warrington

  0

  —

  Warwick

  2

  2

  Winchester

  6

  4

  Wolverhampton

  3

  2

  Wood Green

  3

  2

  Woolwich

  1

  1

  Worcester

  5

  3

  York

  3

  0

  Crown court

  Cases received by LSLO

  Cases referred to court of appeal

  Aylesbury

  0

  —

  Basildon

  2

  2

  Birmingham

  7

  2

  Blackfriars

  4

  1

  Bolton

  3

  0

  Bournemouth

  2

  0

  Bradford

  0

  —

  Bristol

  15

  6

  Burnley

  3

  1

  Caernarfon

  0

  —

  Canterbury

  4

  2

  Cardiff

  3

  1

  Carlisle

  6

  2

  Central Criminal

  10

  4

  Chelmsford

  0

  —

  Chester

  2

  1

  Chichester

  2

  1

  Coventry

  1

  0

  Croydon

  1

  1

  Derby

  6

  4

  Doncaster

  0

  —

  Dorchester

  1

  1

  Durham

  1

  0

  Exeter

  3

  0

  Gloucester

  1

  1

  Grimsby

  2

  2

  Guildford

  2

  2

  Harrow

  5

  5

  Hove

  0

  —

  Hull

  3

  1

  Inner London

  2

  0

  Ipswich

  1

  0

  Isleworth

  0

  —

  Kingston

  2

  0

  Kingston upon Hull

  0

  —

  Knutsford

  0

  —

  Leeds

  6

  2

  Leicester

  4

  3

  629W

  Crown court

  Cases received by LSLO

  Cases referred to court of appeal

  Lewes

  6

  3

  Lincoln

  2

  0

  Liverpool

  3

  1

  Luton

  2

  2

  Maidstone

  4

  4

  Manchester

  20

  10

  Middlesex Guildhall

  0

  —

  Mold

  1

  1

  Newcastle

  9

  2

  Newport

  0

  —

  Northampton

  3

  2

  Norwich

  7

  3

  Nottingham

  8

  4

  Oxford

  9

  3

  Peterborough

  0

  1

  Plymouth

  3

  2

  Portsmouth

  3

  1

  Preston

  9

  3

  Reading

  8

  5

  Salford

  0

  —

  Sheffield

  3

  1

  Shrewsbury

  1

  —

  Snaresbrook

  5

  3

  Southampton

  3

  1

  Southend

  1

  1

  Southwark

  1

  0

  Stafford

  1

  1

  St. Albans

  2

  0

  Stockport

  0

  —

  Stoke on Trent

  0

  —

  Swansea

  1

  0

  Swindon

  3

  2

  Taunton

  5

  2

  Teesside

  7

  2

  Truro

  2

  1

  Warrington

  0

  —

  Warwick

  1

  0

  Whitehaven

  1

  0

  Winchester

  6

  1

  Wolverhampton

  5

  2

  Wood Green

  0

  —

  Woolwich

  2

  2

  Worcester

  3

  1

  York

  0

  —

  Crown court

  Cases received by LSLO

  Cases referred to court of appeal

  Aylesbury

  4

  2

  Basildon

  1

  0

  Birmingham

  5

  2

  Blackfriars

  3

  1

  Bolton

  10

  0

  Bournemouth

  1

  0

  Bradford

  2

  1

  Bristol

  22

  10

  Burnley

  1

  0

  Caernarfon

  0

  —

  Cambridge

  1

  0

  Canterbury

  3

  0

  Cardiff

  3

  2

  Carlisle

  4

  1

  Central Criminal

  6

  3

  Chelmsford

  1

  0

  Chester

  1

  1

  Chichester

  0

  —

  Coventry

  0

  —

  630W

  Crown court

  Cases received by LSLO

  Cases referred to court of appeal

  Croydon

  1

  0

  Derby

  2

  1

  Doncaster

  2

  2

  Dorchester

  —

  —

  Durham

  0

  —

  Exeter

  1

  0

  Gloucester

  3

  3

  Grimsby

  3

  1

  Guildford

  3

  2

  Harrow

  1

  0

  Hove

  1

  0

  Hull

  2

  0

  Inner London

  6

  4

  Ipswich

  0

  —

  Isleworth

  1

  0

  Kingston

  7

  4

  Kingston upon Hull

  1

  1

  Knutsford

  0

  —

  Leeds

  3

  2

  Leicester

  3

  2

  Lewes

  2

  0

  Lincoln

  0

  —

  Liverpool

  7

  4

  Luton

  1

  0

  Maidstone

  7

  5

  Manchester

  24

  3

  Middlesex Guildhall

  2

  1

  Mold

  0

  —

  Newcastle

  3

  1

  Newport

  1

  0

  Northampton

  1

  1

  Norwich

  3

  2

  Nottingham

  3

  1

  Oxford

  2

  0

  Peterborough

  1

  1

  Plymouth

  2

  0

  Portsmouth

  1

  0

  Preston

  1

  0

  Reading

  10

  3

  Salford

  1

  0

  Salisbury

  1

  0

  Sheffield

  2

  0

  Shrewsbury

  2

  0

  Snaresbrook

  2

  2

  Southampton

  3

  0

  Southend

  0

  —

  Southwark

  2

  2

  Stafford

  0

  —

  St. Albans

  0

  —

  Stockport

  1

  0

  Stoke on Trent

  1

  0

  Swansea

  2

  1

  Swindon

  1

  0

  Taunton

  2

  1

  Teesside

  7

  3

  Truro

  1

  1

  Warrington

  1

  1

  Warwick

  1

  0

  Whitehaven

  0

  —

  Winchester

  9

  4

  Wolverhampton

  4

  0

  Wood Green

  3

  2

  Woolwich

  2

  0

  Worcester

  1

  0

  York

  1

  1

TREASURY

  Construction Industry Scheme
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Construction Industry Scheme certificates have been lost in each year since the Scheme's introduction; and what their total value is. [178016]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of tax certificates reported to the Revenue as lost in each year since the introduction of the scheme is set out as follows. The certificates themselves have no value, they simply allow the holder to receive payments without deduction.

  Number

  1999–2000

  1,523

  2000–01

  1,597

  2001–02

  1,238

  2002–03

  1,507

  2003–04

  1,042

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated total annual cost to the Inland Revenue is of running the Construction Industry Scheme. [178017]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated annual cost to the Inland Revenue of running the Construction Industry Scheme is £27 million, as set out in the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Reform of the Construction Industry Scheme published at the time of Budget 2004.

  Employment
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of adults aged 25 to 49 years are in employment in the UK; and what the comparable figures are for other EU countries. [177910]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. David Willetts, dated 14 June 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about employment in the UK and other EU countries for 25–49 year olds. I am replying in his absence. (177910)

  The attached table gives the latest available figures for each EU member state.

  The UK figure refers to December 2003-February 2004 and is taken from the latest UK Labour Force Survey. The other figures are the latest available European LFS data taken from Eurostat's New Cronos database. The figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Employment rate for 25–49 year olds for the UK and EU

  Country

  Latest reference period available

  Employment rate

  Austria

  April-June 2003

  85.5

  Belgium

  October-December 2003

  79.4

  Cyprus

  April-June 2003

  83.3

  Czech Republic

  October-December 2003

  81.3

  Denmark

  October-December 2003

  84.2

  Estonia

  October-December 2003

  79.7

  Finland

  October-December 2003

  81.6

  France

  October-December 2003

  79.9

  Germany

  April-June 2003

  78.8

  632W

  Employment rate for 25–49 year olds for the UK and EU

  Country

  Latest reference period available

  Employment rate

  Greece

  October-December 2003

  73.9

  Hungary

  October-December 2003

  75.5

  Ireland

  October-December 2003

  77.7

  Italy

  October-December 2003

  71.9

  Spain

  October-December 2003

  73.3

  Latvia

  October-December 2003

  78.9

  Lithuania

  October-December 2003

  79.4

  Luxembourg

  January-March 2003

  77.6

  Malta

  October-December 2003

  63.7

  Netherlands

  October-December 2003

  83.5

  Poland

  October-December 2003

  70.5

  Portugal

  October-December 2003

  82.5

  Slovak Republic

  October-December 2003

  76.6

  Slovenia

  October-December 2003

  85.4

  Sweden

  October-December 2003

  83.2

  United Kingdom

  December 2003-February 2004

  81.2

  Endowment Mortgages (Mis-selling)
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance has been provided to those making claims of mis-selling of endowment mortgages against small independent financial advisers about the information to be included in a claim. [178224]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information for policyholders is available from both the Financial Services Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service to help people who want to make a complaint about an endowment mortgage. The FSA factsheet "Endowment mortgage complaints" has been produced and distributed since October 2000 and has been regularly updated. The FSA also produces a more detailed guide to making a complaint which includes an example of how to write a complaint letter. Where a policyholder is not satisfied with the outcome of a complaint they can refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service who can provide further assistance to policyholders in writing or over the phone.

  Gas Network (Treasury Support)
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to his Department by Government Departments and other agencies and individuals seeking Treasury support to fund extension of the mains gas network to areas of England without such provision. [178047]

  Ruth Kelly
  The DTI has committed, in the Energy White Paper, to explore options for pilot projects on gas network extension.

  The Treasury has spoken to a range of Departments, organisations and individuals on this issue.

  Illegal Food Imports
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantity of illegal food imports were seized in each month of the last three years. [177960]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise reported in their spring departmental report 2004 (Cm 6224) that they seized 119,278 kg of illegal imports of products of animal origin for the period 1 April to 31 December 2003.
  633W
  The following table shows the monthly breakdown for these seizures:

  Month

  Total weight of products of animal origin seized (kg)

  April

  3,281

  May

  25,111

  June

  5,517

  July

  9,106

  August

  20,238

  September

  14,109

  October

  11,768

  November

  13,474

  December

  16,674

  Total

  119,278

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest kilogramme.

  Statistics relating to seizures of illegal imports for the 2001–02 and 2002–03 financial years were published in Defra's "Annual Review of Imports of Animal Product: April 2002—March 2003", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  A monthly breakdown of the statistics for those years, and for seizures made by other agencies between 1 April and 31 December 2003, would be available only at disproportionate cost; Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Large Business Office
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated tax yields from the Inland Revenue Large Business Office were for each year from 1997; and what the actual tax yield outcome was in each year. [174945]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Large Business Office was only formed in 1997 so there was no basis to make a forecast until 1998–99. The forecast was included in the board's report.

  An overall forecast for 1999–2000 for the Department was made but the make up of this figure is not available. For subsequent years no forecast of compliance yield was made.

  The additional tax yield figures from the LBO for 1999–2000 to 2002–03 as adjusted are set out in the board's reports which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Those for 2003–04 are being audited for inclusion in the report for 2003–04 which will be published later this year.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 27 April 2004,Official Report, column 869W, on overseas aid, if he will list (a) countries which contribute a higher percentage than the UK of gross national income to overseas aid and (b) those countries which have set a timetable to reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national income on overseas aid. [177723]
  634W
  John Healey
  The UK's ratio of overseas aid to gross national income (GNI) stood at 0.34 per cent. in 2003 and is set to rise to 0.40 per cent. in 2005–06, the highest level since 1981.

  Information on countries contributing higher percentages than the UK to overseas aid and those with timetables to reach 0.70 oda/GNI is available on the OECD Development Assistance Committee website at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/63/31508396.pdf.

  Pensions
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pension schemes approved by the Inland Revenue have fewer than 50 members. [176825]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not held centrally. However, table 2.1 of the "Occupational Pension Schemes 2000—Eleventh Survey by the Government Actuary", which covered occupational pension schemes with two or more members, indicates that between 86,000 and 98,000 pension schemes approved by the Inland Revenue might have less than 50 members.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to pension schemes with fewer than 50 members of his proposed requirement on those schemes to secure all pensions with annuities. [176826]

  Ruth Kelly
  The cost of annuitising pension benefits for pension schemes with less than 50 members as opposed to paying benefits directly from the scheme will vary from case to case. Relevant factors will be the level to which scheme benefits are funded and the relative ages and benefit entitlements of the scheme members.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the minimum size of purchase of Premium Bonds since 1979 in(a) cash terms and (b) constant prices. [177904]

  Ruth Kelly
  The minimum purchase values for each purchase of Premium Bonds by adults for themselves since 1979 are as follows:

  £

  Date

  Cash value

  Current value1

  January 1979

  5

  18

  July 1985

  10

  20

  July 1989

  100

  162

  May 2004

  100

  100

  1Adjusted to May 2004 prices using the RPI.

  Sefton
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mean household income was in Sefton in(a) 2000 and (b) 2003 as a percentage of UK mean household income; and if he will make a statement. [177916]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  635W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 14 June 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the mean household income in Sefton. (177916)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not compile statistics on mean household income.

  ONS has published gross disposable household income (GDHI) at current prices at the NUTS1,2 and 3 sub-national geographies. These estimates were last published on 26 March 2002. The data for the period 1995 to 1999 are consistent with the 2001 National Accounts. Sefton is a NUTS3 area and forms part of the NUTS2 region of Merseyside, for which GDHI per head figures are available on an annual basis and are given in Table A attached.

  For the smaller areas, survey sample sizes are only large enough for ONS to publish estimates of household income on a 3 year average basis. These are presented as indices for Sefton, Merseyside, and the North West relative to the UK average in Table B attached.

  Table A: Gross disposable household income per year

  £ per head

  Area

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Merseyside

  8,710

  8,844

  9,342

  United Kingdom

  9,513

  9,696

  10,142

  Table B: Index1 of gross disposable household income (GDHI)per head

  Average over period 1997–99

  Area

  GDHI index

  North West

  93

  Merseyside

  92

  Sefton

  110

  1Index value is 100 for the UK as a whole.

  Tax Credits
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families are benefiting from the working tax credit in Stoke-on-Trent, North; and if he will make a statement. [177629]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An estimate can be derived from "Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical analyses. January 2004", which can be found on the Inland Revenue website at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/menu.htm. All in-work families receiving these tax credits, except those receiving child tax credit at or below the family element, were benefiting from the working tax credit. The estimates are subject to sampling uncertainty.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the number of Inland Revenue staff acting as appointees of applicants for tax credits. [177955]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

DEFENCE

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships have called at Gibraltar since 1 January. [161197]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 24 May 2004 Official Report, columns 1350–52W, to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell).

  Alcohol Consumption (Service Personnel)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what orders were in force concerning the consumption of alcohol(a) on-base and (b) off-base by British troops based in Baghdad during the Christmas and New Year period in 2003–04. [176334]

  Mr. Ingram
  In common with all overseas military deployments, orders on the consumption of alcohol would be at the discretion of the individual commanders and will vary with the operational circumstances. When alcohol is permitted, the normal limit is two cans of beer per man per day.

  Apache Helicopters
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1632W, on Apache helicopters, how many AH-64 Apache helicopters have been accepted into service; how many are in storage at RAF Shawbury; when he expects the full complement to be fully operational; and if he will make a statement. [177168]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has accepted delivery of 67 aircraft. There are at present 19 Apache in storage at RAF Shawbury, which will reduce to zero when all three Attack Helicopter Regiments are formed by late November 2006.

  Army HQ (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the relocation of Army Headquarters Northern Ireland from Thiepval Barracks in Lisburn to Aldergrove; and if he will make a statement. [178854]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans for the relocation of the Headquarters Northern Ireland from Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn to Aldergrove. Lisburn is listed in the security normalisation annex of the Joint Declaration, as one of the locations where, in the context of a peaceful society, the regular garrison in Northern Ireland might be based.

  Asbestos
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 15 March 2004,Official Report, column 44W, on asbestos, what his Department estimated the cost would be of compiling a central register of surveyed buildings occupied by departmental staff including agencies which require remedial work on asbestos or the removal of asbestos. [176798]
  637W
  Mr. Caplin
  For the defence estate, asbestos information is held locally at each establishment/site. It has been estimated that gathering the current data from within the Department, its agencies and trading funds (including information currently held on each establishment's asbestos register) would cost approximately £45,000.

  Civilian Internees (Compensation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with the Home Office about the status of British passport-holders who were excluded from the ex gratia compensation scheme for civilian internees of the Japanese. [177808]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Home Office was consulted by and subsequently represented on the interdepartmental working group chaired by the Cabinet Office when the definition of "British" was being clarified in relation to the eligibility of former civilian internees under the ex gratia payment scheme.

  Databases
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the fields of the(a) Defence Procurement Agency Corporate Management Information Systems, (b) the Civilian Personnel Management Information System and (c) the Long Term Costings database. [176385]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am placing the information requested in the Library of the House.

  Deepcut Barracks Inquiry
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the implementation of each of the recommendations made by Surrey police following their inquiry into the deaths at Deepcut Barracks. [177719]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement in the House on 24 May 2004,Official Report, columns 1306–19.

  We are increasing the level of assurance that we have in the way in which the armed forces train, and in managing the risks to which our young recruits are exposed. As a positive and substantive response to the concerns expressed by the Surrey police, we are expanding our relationship with the Adult Learning Inspectorate to provide independent oversight of all armed forces training. Any recommendations they may make and our responses to them will be exposed fully to public scrutiny.

  Defence Assistance Fund
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of the Defence Assistance Fund was for each of the last four years; and how much of those costs in each year was used to promote military exports. [176430]

  Mr. Ingram
  Defence Assistance Fund (DAF) expenditure was £19.9 million in 2000–01; £7.2 million in 2001–02; £9.7 million in 2002–03 and £10.4 million in 2003–04. Of this, the amount spent on supporting defence exports was £4.7 million in 2000–01; £5 million 638W
  in 2001–02; £4.2 million in 2002–03 and £6 million in 2003–04. The drop in the DAF total between 2000–01 and 2001–02 reflects the transfer of funds to the Conflict Prevention Fund.

  Defence Bodies
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the balance sheet of the(a) Chief of Defence Logistics and (b) Defence Storage and Distribution Agency management group for financial year 2000–01; [176131]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the balance sheet of the Chief of Defence Logistics Management Group non-disaggregated funds for financial year 1999–2000. [176153]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have already published the balance sheet for the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency for 2000–01 and the Chief of Defence Logistics Management Groups. I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 21 August 2003, reference: D/MIN(AF)/2185N/03/L to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Defence Intelligence Budget
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Defence Intelligence Budget was in(a) 1997, (b) 2000 and (c) 2004; and what budget is projected for the next three financial years. [173961]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 May 2004]: There is no defence intelligence budget as such. While the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) operates as a discrete unit, other elements of the defence intelligence community are integral parts of a range of budgetary areas.

  The DIS's budgets for 2000–01 and the current financial year (2004–05) are as follows:

  Financial year

  £million

  2000–01

  1151.7

  2004–05

  2198.4

  1Cash at outturn prices.

  2"Near-cash" at 2004–05 prices.

  Notes:

  1. In 2000–01, the Department was still budgeted in cash terms. Under Resource Accounting and Budgeting, it is now controlled in terms of Resource and Capital Departmental Expenditure Limits (DELs).

  2. "Near-cash" comprises Resource and Capital DELs, less charges for cost of capital and depreciation, and changes in provisions.

  In 2000–01, the Department was controlled in cash, whereas the figure for 2004–05 reflects the move to Resource Accounting and Budgeting. The two figures are not therefore directly comparable. I will write to the hon. Member about the DIS's budget for 1997–98.

  Planning assumptions about the content and timing of the defence programme in future years form part of internal advice to Ministers on the overall affordability of defence, and in some cases anticipate decisions to be taken by Ministers. I am therefore withholding budgetary information on future years under

  639W
  Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The defence budget beyond 2005–06 will be agreed in the 2004 Spending Review.

  Departmental Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff were employed in the Department to work in the communications field, and what the total expenditure on communications for the Department was, broken down by(a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others, in (A)1994–95, (B) 1996–97, (C) 1997–98 and (D) 2001–02. [168680]

  Mr. Caplin
  Information for 1994–95, 1996–97 and 1997–98 is no longer available.

  During the financial year 2001–02, a total of 150 military and civilian personnel were employed within the communications organisation in the Ministry of Defence Headquarters. This included 21 members of the Government Information and Communication Service (GICS). Of the remainder, eight worked in the Press Office and the others were employed on a wide range of tasks, including design, publicity, marketing, internal communications and strategic planning.

  The cost of these staff for 2001–02 was £5.3 million, of which around £0.90 million was for the members of the GICS.

  The figures relate to those employed within the Ministry of Defence's Headquarters Communications department at any time during the year.

  Details of staff employed in communications elsewhere in the MOD are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  There are two special advisers in the Ministry of Defence, neither of whom are members of the communications organisation. The Special Adviser's Code of Conduct sets out the sort of work a special adviser may undertake on behalf of their Minister and this includes communications activity. Details of the costs of special advisers are given on an annual basis. Information for the financial year 2003–04 will be published in due course.

  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations he has received from QinetiQ about the Typhoon's software and computer programmes; [176474]

  (2) what representations he has received from the companies involved in the Typhoon programme about that aircraft's software and computer programmes; [176476]

  (3) what representations he has received from the RAF about the Typhoon's software and computer systems. [176477]

  Mr. Ingram
  No representations have been received about Typhoon's software and computer programmes. However, reports on all aspects of the Typhoon, including the software and computing, have been commissioned by the Ministry of Defence from both 640W
  the companies involved in the programme and the Independent Assessor (QinetiQ in this case). This is the normal process for all new aircraft types entering service. It is the responsibility of MOD to take into account these reports and establish whether an aircraft meets the necessary safety requirements. Typhoon has been assessed to meet those requirements, allowing the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff to authorise the aircraft's Release to Service permitting operation under RAF safety procedures.

  Firearms Rules
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules govern the import by army personnel of captured weapons to the UK as souvenirs; what measures are taken to enforce these rules; and how many individuals have been subject to disciplinary action for infringements in the last five years.[176026]

  Mr. Ingram
  All armed forces personnel are subject to the 'Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939' and the 'Import of Goods (Control) Order 1954'. This legislation prohibits the importation of all goods including military operational memorabilia, firearms and cultural objects into the United Kingdom unless under the authority of a licence issued by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Service police search all equipment, vehicles and containers returning from operational theatres, and members of the RAF are provided with guidance on the search of equipment and baggage loaded onto aircraft.

  Over the last five years, a total of eight service personnel have been reported by the Royal Military Police for infringements.

  Iraq
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom UK forces in Iraq will answer in the event of allegations of war crimes or misconduct after 30 June; and if he will make a statement. [176809]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: United Kingdom forces, wherever they operate in the world, are subject to UK military law which includes criminal liability for offences committed overseas as set out in the Service Discipline Acts. This has always been the case in Iraq and will continue to apply for as long as British forces are present. As in the UK or in other operational theatres, the responsibility for enforcing the law lies with the Service police.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has examined in relation to civilian deaths cause by UK forces in the city of Amara between 3 and 6 April. [177585]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence examines information from a variety of sources to keep abreast of all developments in Iraq. In the week in question, nine Iraqis were confirmed killed in Al Amara, although the total number of fatalities cannot be confirmed. The deaths occurred during attacks on 1 Light Infantry in incidents while they were on patrol and during a demonstration. Those confirmed killed were directly involved in armed attacks on United Kingdom forces.
  641W
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he first made representations to his US counterpart regarding the International Committee of the Red Cross report on maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US forces in Iraq. [174592]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 24 May 2004, Official Report, column 1353W.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) private contractor interrogators and (b) advisers on interrogation techniques of any nationality have been allowed access to (i) prisons and (ii) other places of detention under British control in Iraq. [174666]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 26 May 2004]: No.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those matters in respect of security policies implemented by Coalition forces in Iraq which are(a) his responsibility, (b) the responsibility of his United States counterpart and (c) matters for which responsibility is joint. [175073]

  Mr. Ingram
  The actions of United Kingdom forces are the responsibility of the UK. The United States is responsible for the actions of US forces. As is the case with many multinational operations the UK commander reports to the Multinational Force commander whilst remaining under British national control, through the Permanent Joint Headquarters to the Ministry of Defence. The other members of the Multinational Force have their own national chains of command.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether interrogators used by the British armed forces are permitted to make direct physical threats to those held in custody. [175066]

  Mr. Ingram
  No. All United Kingdom interrogators must successfully complete a stringent course prior to undertaking any operational interrogations. During the course they are specifically instructed that individuals being questioned must be treated at all times in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Use of physical threats could amount to mental torture or coercion, both of which are banned by the Conventions.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the number of Iraqi civilians killed in consequence of military operations carried out by British forces since the invasion of Iraq began. [171520]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have no reliable means of ascertaining the numbers of Iraqi civilians killed during major combat operations between 19 March and 1 May 2003.

  Since 1 May the United Kingdom Units have reported all confirmed fatalities of which they are aware arising from incidents in which they were involved and we have put in place a mechanism for central collation of unit reports. However it is not always possible to confirm whether fatalities or injuries have occurred during a particular incident. For example, in some incidents we believe Iraqi dead and/or injured may have been taken away by their compatriots before UK forces could investigate. In other incidents UK forces have
  642W
  been forced to withdraw before any Iraqi fatalities and/or injuries could be confirmed. Consequently we have no viable means of assessing the completeness of the information.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of Iraqi civilians killed(a) during the war, (b) since President Bush declared an end to hostilities and (c) in early April in Fallujah; and if he will make a statement. [171853]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: We have no reliable means of ascertaining the numbers of Iraqi civilians killed during major combat operations between 19 March and 1 May 2003.

  Since 1 May, United Kingdom Units have reported all confirmed fatalities of which they are aware arising from incidents in which they were involved and we have put in place a mechanism for central collation of unit reports. However it is not always possible to confirm whether fatalities or injuries have occurred during a particular incident. For example, in some incidents we believe Iraqi dead and/or injured may have been taken away by their compatriots before UK forces could investigate. In other incidents UK forces have been forced to withdraw before any Iraqi fatalities and/or injuries could be confirmed. Consequently we have no viable means of assessing the completeness of the information.

  We are not in a position to comment on civilian casualties allegedly caused by other coalition partners.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Ministers were first informed that some prisoners in UK custody were being mistreated in Iraq. [172996]

  Mr. Hoon
  Ministers were informed that the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police had commenced an investigation into the alleged ill-treatment and false imprisonment of Iraqi civilians on 22 April 2003. The investigation concluded that there was no case to answer.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific training has been given to British servicemen and women in respect of(a) interviewing and (b) managing civilian detainees in Iraq; and if he will place a copy of the manual used in such training in the Library. [173340]

  Mr. Ingram
  Specialist training for personnel responsible for interviewing detainees is provided through a series of up to three courses based upon the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Armed Conflict.

  British forces personnel in Iraq have the authority to detain persons who pose a threat to their safety or security. All members of the Army therefore receive training on prisoner handling. In the case of soldiers this is during their Phase 1 training and for officers at RMA Sandhurst. This training is supplemented annually in the form of Individual Training Directives (Army) (ITD(A)). ITD(A)s are mandatory for all Army personnel and provide annual training on the law of armed conflict and include direction on prisoner handling. Those deploying on operations must also complete mandated Pre-Deployment Training (PDT)

  643W
  which includes guidance on the procedures for handling prisoners. Personnel are advised that such training is equally applicable to detainees.

  I shall place a copy of the relevant ITD(A) and 'A Soldier's Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict' in the Library. In respect to the other manuals used in such training, I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information which relates to defence, security and international relations.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list independent observer groups which have visited United Kingdom-run prisons in Iraq holding Iraqi prisoners during the last 12 months. [174000]

  Mr. Ingram
  The International Committee of the Red Cross visits the United Kingdom's Divisional Temporary Detention Facility at Shaibah on a regular basis.

  The House of Commons Defence Select Committee have visited the facility but did not meet any detainees.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his oral statement of 27 May 2004, on Iraq, whether the sovereign interim Government of Iraq will be party to the consideration of disposition of forces required in Iraq until elections in 2005. [177504]

  Mr. Ingram
  The relationship between the Multinational Force and the sovereign Government of Iraq is described in the exchange of letters referred to in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546, which the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary placed in the Library of the House on 7 June. As the Resolution itself makes clear, the Security Council would terminate the mandate of the Multinational Force at any time if so requested by the Government of Iraq.

  Israel
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what bilateral military relations the United Kingdom has with Israel. [178587]

  Mr. Ingram
  Our current bilateral relationship with Israel includes maintaining professional contacts through our Defence Attaché in Tel Aviv as well as some exchanges on technology and some equipment procurement. We have formal agreements covering research and security but these are subject to certain restrictions. We also hold military talks that cover a wide range of issues.

  Lance Corporal William Graham
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what date Lance Corporal William Graham of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Scots Regiment was released from prison; on what date he resumed military duties; and what duties he has performed since January; [175969]

  (2) what factors underlay the decision to retain Lance Corporal William Graham as a member of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Scots Regiment following his conviction and imprisonment; [175970]
  644W
  (3) what payments were made to Lance Corporal William Graham of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Scots Regiment between the date of his criminal conviction to the date of his release from prison; [175971]

  (4) what measures were taken by the 1st Battalion of the Royal Scots Regiment to retrain Lance Corporal William Graham in the use of firearms following his release from prison; [175972]

  (5) what role Lance Corporal William Graham of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Scots Regiment played in the parade of honour and other public events at (a) Linlithgow, (b) Peebles, (c) Haddington, (d) Penicuik and (e) elsewhere in April. [175975]

  Mr. Ingram
  Lance Corporal Graham was released from prison on 9 January 2004. He resumed military duties on 10 January 2004. The Queen's Regulations for the Army define the exceptional reasons which would make the retention of a soldier desirable if he has been sentenced by a civil court or by court-martial to imprisonment, detention or any other form of custodial sentence. Where there are circumstances that make retention of a soldier desirable then the case is to be submitted with valid and explicit reasons to the Director of Manning (Army) Ministry of Defence for a decision. The circumstances will vary from case to case. From the date of his criminal conviction to the date of his release from prison LCpl Graham did not receive payment.

  In common with all personnel in Regular Army and TA Units, LCpl Graham must complete his personal weapon training and pass his personal weapon and weapon handling tests.

  LCpl Graham did not take part in any parade in April.

  I am withholding personal data relating to LCpl Graham under Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, unless the relevant conditions are met.

  Lockheed-Martin
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with Lockheed-Martin about inward investment into the UK. [177125]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ministers meet regularly with Lockheed-Martin, which employs about 800 staff at over 10 sites in the UK, to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

  Priory Hospital, Bristol
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on psychiatric treatment for current and former Service personnel at the Priory Hospital at Bristol; and how many personnel have received such treatment in the last year. [178014]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: In 2003–04, the Ministry of Defence spent £169,789.99 on treating 21 serving members of the armed forces at the Priory Hospital in Bristol. The MOD does not refer former Service personnel to the Priory Group for treatment. On leaving the Services, responsibility for their medical care falls to the NHS.

  RAF Scampton
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel are required to carry out those of RAF Boulmer's functions which are to be moved to RAF Scampton; and how many RAF personnel will be required to carry out the functions at RAF Scampton. [178221]

  Mr. Ingram
  Some 700 RAF personnel with civilian support, currently carry out those functions at RAF Boulmer whose relocation is being considered. A similar number would be required for the same functions were they to be located elsewhere. If they were subject to more efficient basing however, there would be economies in the number of their support personnel.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has changed(a) the proposal to move No. 1 ACC from RAF Boulmer to RAF Scampton and (b) the timing of any planned move; and if he will make a statement. [178222]

  Mr. Ingram
  No decisions have been made on this issue as a final decision on the review of Air Combat Service Support Units and Minor Unit Basing has not yet been taken as consultation with the Trades Unions is still ongoing. As part of a contingency planning exercise to alleviate current accommodation problems at RAF Boulmer, staff have been considering whether it is feasible to provide an interim facility for 1 ACC elsewhere.

  Remembrance Events
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions(a) he, (b) his Department and (c) the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has had with the French authorities regarding low-level tourist overflights of British and Commonwealth military cemeteries and memorials. [178590]

  Mr. Caplin
  There have been no discussions between either the Ministry of Defence or the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the French authorities about low level tourist overflights of British and Commonwealth military cemeteries and memorials in France. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission has no recollection of any representations raising concerns about such matters.

  Royal Air Force (Turkmenistan)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the collision between a RAF Hercules based at Lyneham in Wiltshire and an un-named jet aircraft over Turkmenistan on 22 May. [177035]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: An RAF Hercules C130J aircraft was on a routine flight between Kabul and Bucharest on 22 May when there was a collision with a Turkmen aircraft which damaged one of the C130J's propellers. The C130J landed safely at Baku airport. There were no injuries to personnel on board. The RAF is conducting a Unit Inquiry. The Turkmenistan authorities have also convened a Board of Inquiry.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) the Department of Trade and Industry, (b) shipbuilders and (c) trade unions to identify the minimum numbers of (i) workers and (ii) designers necessary to maintain a strategic capacity of naval shipbuilding in the United Kingdom. [175575]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: We remain committed to maintaining a strategic capacity and capability for naval shipbuilding in the United Kingdom. Ministry of Defence and Department of Trade and Industry officials and representatives from the shipbuilding industry meet on a monthly basis to discuss the future programme. These meetings are being taken forward in a positive and constructive manner. Additionally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met with Kevin Curran, General Secretary of the GMB on 4 May.

  We are building on the solid base that the Defence Industrial Policy has established and are actively exploring practical ways of achieving its objectives. In the shipbuilding area, we are comparing our requirements against capacity and, where possible, evaluating the options to smooth out large peaks and troughs.

  Special Investigations Branch
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training is undertaken by the Special Investigations Branch of the Royal Military Police in the investigation of serious incidents; and what computer system is available to the Special Investigations Branch of the Royal Military Police to assist in the investigation of serious incidents. [176016]

  Mr. Ingram
  All members of the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police are required to attend and pass the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Course. Some members also attend external training courses in the investigation of serious or series crime. Senior members of the Special Investigation Branch are trained as Senior Investigating Officers and attend Home Office accredited training courses.

  The Special Investigation Branch have the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System (HOLMES) Version 2 to assist in the investigation of serious incidents.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the past two years members of the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch have been subject to military discipline; and for what offences. [176029]

  Mr. Ingram
  All members of the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch are subject to military discipline.

  In the past two years, four members of the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch have been subject to military disciplinary action. The offences were:

  Rape/Indecent Assault

  647W

  Possession of Obscene Articles

  Publication of Obscene Articles

  Impaired Driving

  Traffic Accidents in Military Transport.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mechanisms are available to consider complaints against members of the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch; and how many complaints have been made in each of the past two years. [176030]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are various types of complaints, which may be related to either authorised policing activities or the conduct of investigations; they may be made at any stage of an investigation:applications for Redress of Complaint are considered in accordance with the Army Act 1955 by the commanding officer of the complainant's unit;
  complaints that an RMP Investigator has breached the Service Police Codes of Practice, and complaints following the completion of an RMP investigation are considered by the commanding officer of the relevant RMP unit. The Special Investigation Branch (SIB) will investigate complaints of serious malpractice or negligence;
  in accordance with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, any complaints about the use of covert investigation techniques are matters for the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

  Since 2002, the following number of complaints have been made against members of RMP SIB for alleged professional misconduct:

  Number

  2002

  2

  2003

  2

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what body has responsibility for overseeing the operation of the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch; and to whom it reports. [176031]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Military Police (RMP) Special Investigation Branch (SIB) is commanded by the Adjutant General and is under operational control of the Provost Marshal (Army). The SIB is subject to inspection in accordance with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Surveillance Commissioner undertook an inspection in 2003 and made no substantive comments. The Interception Commissioner is expected to undertake an inspection later this year. In addition, all major SIB investigations are reviewed by external civilian police forces in accordance with Home Office Guidelines. No other external body has responsibility for oversight of RMP SIB operations. All reports are made to the Provost Marshal (Army).

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent estimate he has made of the number of rapes committed by members of armed factions in Afghanistan against women. [176602]
  648W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Due to the reluctance of victims to speak out and the limited capacity for monitoring and data collection in Afghanistan, the number of rapes against women committed by members of armed factions in Afghanistan remains unclear. The German NGO Medica Mondiale is piloting a scheme to provide shelters for rape victims in Afghanistan in collaboration with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with representatives of the World Food Programme about the impact on local commerce of providing free externally produced wheat to the western regions of Afghanistan. [177109]

  Hilary Benn
  A recent evaluation of the United Nations World Food Programme (UNWFP) activities in Afghanistan has found that there is no evidence of any significant impact of providing free externally produced wheat on the local commerce. There was a significant decrease in wheat price last year but it is believed that it was mainly due to the bumper crop that Afghanistan had after several years of drought.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the funds allocated by his Department for reconstruction in Afghanistan in 2003–04 were disbursed. [177110]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID allocated £75 million for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan in 2003–04, and disbursed £77.6 million, 3.5 per cent. over budget.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development who represented his Department at the international conference on reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan in Berlin on 31 March and 1 April; and what conclusions for the Department's policy have been drawn. [177113]

  Hilary Benn
  On 31 March senior officials from DFID represented the Department. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and officials from the FCO also attended on 31 March. I represented DFID on 1 April.

  The conference emphasised the need for donors to remain focused on the needs of Afghanistan in the long term, and to continue to support the Afghan Government in their battle against narcotics and insecurity. These are all areas to which the UK Government are fully committed.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made by provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan in building(a) police stations, (b) roads and (c) bridges. [177121]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Mazar-e Sharif has focused on security sector reform and building local government capacity, and not on rebuilding physical infrastructure. However, DFID through the PRT has funded local and international NGOs to build some police stations and bridges. In the city of Mazar-e Sharif, one police station has been rebuilt and work is underway on two more.
  649W
  Two bridges have been rebuilt in Sar-e Pol Province. DFID does not have this information for PRTs led by other nations.

  Much more work is being done in these areas through other mechanisms such as the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund and bilateral development programmes. Figures published at the April Afghanistan Development Forum show that US$532.5 million had been allocated for road infrastructure this financial year and US$5.5 million for building police stations and headquarters.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made with the development of micro-enterprises as part of the sustainable livelihoods strategy for Afghanistan. [178019]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is actively supporting the Microfinance Investment Support Facility for Afghanistan. US$15 million worth of contracts have been signed with five microfinance institutions through which around 35,000 loans have been provided to the poor to start their own micro-enterprises. The number of beneficiaries is expected to increase to 75,000 by March 2005. More than 90 per cent. of beneficiaries are women.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many experts have been seconded by his Department to provincial reconstruction teams to assist development in the regions of Afghanistan; and what the results have been of their work to date. [178020]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has seconded four development advisers to Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Mazar-e Sharif, Bamian, Gardez and Kandahar. This work is ongoing and has concentrated so far on security sector reform and local government capacity building. DFID will carry out a full evaluation of its engagement with PRTs in October this year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in strengthening the domestic revenue base of the Afghan Transitional Administration. [178021]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is supporting the Ministry of Finance in undertaking both customs and tax reform over the next three years with the aim of increasing domestic revenues.

  Since July 2002, DFID has provided technical assistance in customs policy and administration. This assistance has supported the development of a five-year customs modernisation plan. The plan lays out in detail the key reform areas, time frames and costs, to achieve the ultimate goal of facilitating trade and investment in Afghanistan and maximising revenue streams. DFID is supporting the customs department to strengthen its institutional capacity to formulate and implement policy in order to achieve the objectives set out in their Five-year Plan.

  DFID has also been involved in tax policy formulation and setting up the Large Taxpayers Unit. DFID is now supporting the Government's fiscal management strategies through effective revenue mobilisation and professional administration that is
  650W
  supported and trusted by businesses and the community in order to achieve the objectives set out in their reform plan.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the size was of the ordinary and recurrent budgets of the Afghan Transitional Administration in 2003–04; and what it is in 2004–05. [178022]

  Hilary Benn
  The ordinary and recurrent budget are the same thing. It was US$ 550 million for 2003–04 and is US$ 608.5 million for 2004–05.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the financial contribution was of his Department to the ordinary budget of the Afghan Transitional Administration in(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [178023]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID provides financial assistance through the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF), a multilateral donor trust fund, which is managed by the World Bank. The ARTF finances the Afghan Transitional Administration directly strengthening the legitimacy and accountability of the government and ensuring that resources are allocated to national priorities. It helps fund the essential recurrent budgetary expenditures required for the government to function effectively.

  DFID contributed $30 million to the ARTF in 2003–04. DFID has committed $45 million for 2004–05 of which $25 million has already been disbursed.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the performance was of the Afghan Transitional Administration against its benchmarks for reform of public administration in 2003–04. [178024]

  Hilary Benn
  There were no benchmarks set for reform of public administration for 2003–04.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money his Department has spent on translations into local languages in Afghanistan in each of the last two years. [178025]

  Hilary Benn
  In the last two years DFID have spent £11,169 on translations into local languages. This money financed the translation of a report, published last year, on Afghanistan's Constitutional and Political Development. The report was translated into Afghanistan's two main official languages, Pashto and Dari.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps have been taken by his Department to improve the collection of data on development in Afghanistan. [178026]

  Hilary Benn
  In May this year, the Afghan Government and donors agreed a Statistical Master Plan for Afghanistan prepared with funding from DFID, the World Bank and the Asia Development Bank. DFID is now working with partners to determine how the plan will be implemented. Last year DFID also provided the Central Statistics Office with 50 personal computers.
  651W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much has been raised in domestic revenue in each of the last two years by the Afghan Transitional Administration. [178027]

  Hilary Benn
  In the period from the fourth quarter of Solar Year 1380 to the end of 1382 (January 2002 to March 2004), the Afghan Transitional Administration collected US$ 349 million in domestic revenue.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people have been employed under the National Emergency Employment Programme in Afghanistan; and what its cost has been to date. [178029]

  Hilary Benn
  To date some 200,000 people have been employed to undertake one month's work under the National Emergency Employment Programme in Afghanistan, and the cost of this has been around US$27.3 million.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost to date has been of the National Solidarity Programme in Afghanistan; and what its results have been. [178030]

  Hilary Benn
  The total contract value of the National Solidarity Programme is US$42,252,342.

  The programme is planned to cover all 20,000 villages in Afghanistan within four years. To date, over 5 million rural women and men have participated in electing 4,000 community development councils in 4,000 villages. As of 31 March 2004, block grants valuing $4,694,629 have been disbursed to fund projects identified by these councils including roads, water supply systems, schools and facilities for weaving and tailoring.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money has been(a) committed and (b) spent by his Department to support security and the rule of law in Afghanistan. [178031]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has allocated £5 million for its work through Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), which support security and the rule of law in Afghanistan. Since July 2003, £411,000 has been spent. In addition, the joint DFID/FCO/MOD Global Conflict Prevention Pool allocated £16 million for the Afghanistan strategy in 2003–04, of which £12 million was spent, and this financial year has spent £6 million of an £18 million allocation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money has been(a) committed and (b) spent by his Department to support governance and public administration in Afghanistan. [178033]

  Hilary Benn
  A total of almost £7 million has been committed and spent on public administration reform and governance since 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how much money has been(a) committed and (b) spent by his Department in each of the last three years in Afghanistan on (i) refugee return, (ii) education and vocational training, (iii) health and nutrition, (iv) livelihood and social protection and (v) cultural heritage, media and sports; [178034]
  652W
  (2) how much money has been (a) committed and (b) spent by his Department in each of the last three years in Afghanistan on (i) transport and communications, (ii) water and sanitation, (iii) energy, (iv) urban development and (v) natural resource management. [178035]

  Hilary Benn
  Prior to the Tokyo conference in 2002 DFID did not have fixed allocations for Afghanistan. At Tokyo DFID pledged £200 million over five years from 2002–03. Since then DFID have allocated £75million per year for Afghanistan and disbursed £75.8 million in 2002–03 and £77.6 million in 2003–04. At the Berlin Conference this year DFID increased its five-year pledge to £500 million.

  The UK funds Afghanistan's development process from our humanitarian and reconstruction budgets and through contributions to the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF). The following table shows the breakdown of DFID's bilateral humanitarian and reconstruction aid and contributions to the Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund in each of the last three years in Afghanistan:

  £ million

  Humanitarian assistance

  ARTF

  Reconstruction assistance

  2001–02

  46 4

  —

  —

  2002–03

  44.7

  15

  16.1

  2003–04

  8.1

  30

  39.5

  DFID's Afghanistan programme focuses on Public Administration Reform and Economic Management, Rural Livelihoods, Political Process and Security. UK contributions to the ARTF cannot be traced to specific projects within the Afghan development budget. DFID also funds a significant number of interventions that contribute to a range of areas. It is not possible therefore to set out how much money the UK has committed and spent in the specific areas you have identified.

  From our humanitarian budget DFID have given the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) £3 million in 2001–02, £6.5 million in 2002–03 and £4.5 million in 2003–04. This has helped to fund refugee camps to provide shelter and basic health and education services and also assisted refugee return. Contributions to the World Food Programme have provided food aid to the most vulnerable groups.

  The reconstruction budget includes DFID's livelihoods programme, which has provided to £0.1 million in 2002–03, £6 million in 2003–04 and has allocated around £13 million for 2004–05 to fund a mixture of practical research, income generation projects, natural resource management related projects and capacity building in key line ministries.

  Payments to the ARTF cover recurrent costs along with a range of activities prioritised within the national development budget including areas such as health, education, urban development, water and sanitation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many ex-combatants in Afghanistan have been demobilised; and what proportion of them have been reintegrated into public life. [178036]
  653W
  Hilary Benn
  According to the Afghanistan New Beginnings Programme, the UN organisation responsible for disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration in Afghanistan, 6,819 former combatants had been demobilised by 27 May, and 5,768 of those had passed through the reintegration process.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the consultative group mechanism, leading to the Afghanistan development forum, for the co-ordination of donor assistance. [178037]

  Hilary Benn
  As a mechanism the Consultative Groups (CG) work well in bringing together various donors and the Government to ensure co-ordination of assistance. DFID works hard in the Groups, of which it is a part, to ensure that they are as effective as possible. An Afghan Government Ministry chairs each CG and, since the inception of the CG process, the capacity of many Ministries has increased, helping to improve the effectiveness of the process. DFID, and the rest of the international community, will continue to work with the Afghan Government to make sure the system continues to be as effective as possible.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what has been the life expectancy in Afghanistan in each year since 1979; [178038]

  (2) what the literacy rate has been in Afghanistan in each year since 1979. [178041]

  Hilary Benn
  Due to conflict and political instability, reliable data is not available between 1978 to 2001, but there are many reasons to believe that social indicators such as life expectancy and literary rates, have deteriorated during this time.

  The most recent figures from the World Health Organisation show that the average life expectancy in Afghanistan is 42.6 years.

  The most recent figures from the UN show adult literacy rates at 36 per cent.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of people in Afghanistan consume less than the minimum daily calorific requirement. [178040]

  Hilary Benn
  According to the last national vulnerability assessment report in Afghanistan for 2003, it is estimated that 20–24 per cent. of the population get less than the minimum daily calorie requirement.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his estimate is of the proportion of the population in Afghanistan who live on less than one dollar per day. [178042]

  Hilary Benn
  The latest World Bank figures show that the majority (53 per cent.) of the population in Afghanistan live below the poverty line, surviving on less than $1 per day. 70 per cent. live below $2 per day. The principal cause of such poverty is prolonged violence and conflict in Afghanistan. Severe drought during the 1990's further worsened the position of many Afghans.
  654W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the latest(a) child and (b) maternal mortality rate in Afghanistan is. [178043]

  Hilary Benn
  The most recent figures from the World Health Organisation show infant mortality rates at 165 per 1,000 live births: under 5 mortality rates 257 per 1,000 and maternal mortality 820 per 100,000 live births.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department has taken(a) with the Afghan Transitional Administration and (b) with the private sector to support the development of sustainable livelihoods for poor Afghans. [178044]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is working with the Afghan Government and other international donors to support the development of sustainable livelihoods through the Natural Resource Management and Livelihoods and Social Protection Consultative Groups. DFID's livelihoods programme is concentrating resources on development priorities as set out by the Afghan Transitional Administration in the National Development budget.

  DFID is funding a mixture of practical research, income generation activities, community development projects and technical assistance and training in the Ministries of Rural Rehabilitation and Development and Agriculture and Animal Husbandry.

  DFID is also an active participant in the Consultative Group on Trade and Investment, the donor and Government consultative group that drives trade and investment and private sector development strategy in Afghanistan and is in dialogue with members of the Afghan business community. In addition, DFID currently financially supports (£3 million over three years) the Microfinance Investment and Support Facility Afghanistan (MISFA), which provides financial services to poor and low-income households, to enable them to invest in enterprise activities, meet emergency needs, reduce vulnerability, and build assets.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had with the Afghan Transitional Administration about the effectiveness of humanitarian aid provided by his Department. [178045]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID staff in Kabul are in regular contact with the Afghan Government discussing a range of issues, including humanitarian assistance. In mid-June a team will hold discussions with the Afghan Government and other agencies about the effectiveness of past humanitarian support, and the priorities that exist for programming funds in the current financial year. In addition to this, DFID is participating with a number of donors in a joint evaluation to assess the effectiveness of their humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Afghanistan since 2001.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his most recent estimate is of Afghanistan's annual gross domestic product per capita. [178046]

  Hilary Benn
  The International Monetary Fund's most recent estimate of gross domestic product per capita is US$186.
  655W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the level of private sector investment in Afghanistan was in each of the last three years. [178053]

  Hilary Benn
  Until the formation of the Afghan Investment Support Agency (AISA) in 2003, there was no way to track the amount or level of investment in Afghanistan. AISA figures show that by the end of 2003, $22 million had been invested by 24 companies, 70 per cent. of whom were foreign companies. In the half year from January 2004, the number of new investors increased to 369 with total investment amounting to around $360 million.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money was(a) committed and (b) spent by his Department on the national development framework in Afghanistan in each of the last two years. [178055]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID provide around half of our annual development assistance through the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF), which funds the National Development Budget.

  In the last two financial years, DFID have delivered the funds committed to the ARTF. In 2002–2003 DFID provided $15 million through the ARTF, and in 2003—2004 this increased to $30 million. DFID will provide a further $45 million to the ARTF for 2004—05, of which $25 million has been disbursed.

  Apart from DFID's ARTF contributions, the majority of DFID's bilateral programme also focuses on priority programmes in the National Development Framework.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the nature is of the technical support provided by his Department for the political transition process in Afghanistan. [178056]

  Hilary Benn
  No technical assistance has been provided directly by DFID for the political transition process in Afghanistan. In 2003, DFID contributed £1 million to support the constitutional process in Afghanistan through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). DFID also funded a political and constitutional study, which was translated into Dari and Pashto. The new constitution was agreed in December 2003.

  DFID has contributed a total of £14.6 million to the elections process so far. This includes support for voter registration provided through UNDP, civic education through Swiss Peace and building the capacity of the Afghan media through the BBC.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps have been taken by his Department to improve economic and financial management in Afghanistan. [178057]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is working closely with the Ministry of Finance to enhance domestic revenues. Domestic revenues generated from customs revenues and domestic taxation amounted to US$ 200 million for Solar Year 1382. This constituted a small proportion of 656W
  the US$ 2.2 billion budget. Increasing the government's capacity to generate domestic revenues is vital if Afghanistan is to cease being aid-dependent in the future. DFID is supporting the Ministry of Finance in undertaking both customs and tax reform over the next three years.

  DFID is also supporting the Afghan Government in modernising its budget formulation process. DFID is assisting the Afghan Transitional Administration in formulating the budget on good budgeting principles which focus on achieving service delivery. The introduction and implementation of good budgetary practices will in time lead to a full Medium Term Budget Programme which will have a unified current and capital budget based on available resources allocated to priority programmes.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps have been taken by his Department to develop public administration in Afghanistan. [178058]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID plays a key role in addressing the public administration needs of Afghanistan. As well as the three capacity building projects in the Ministry of Finance, DFID is providing $2.5 million to the World Bank lead Second Emergency Public Administration Project (total grant value $10.9 million), which will support the Independent Administrative Reform and Civil Service Commission (IARCSC) to manage administrative reform in Afghanistan and to recruit and manage a professional and ethical civil service into the future. The IARCSC will use a merit-based recruitment process, which should contribute both to a professionalisation of the civil service and to a decrease in the destabilising tendency toward ethnic concentration in ministries and Departments.

  DFID is to date the largest single donor to the Afghanistan Stabilisation Programme (ASP), which aims to re-establish governance and public administration throughout the provinces and districts of Afghanistan. The total value of this programme is £173 million, to which DFID has contributed £20 million. The ASP will reconstruct district administration buildings where necessary, establish communications and support the recruitment and management of effective personnel. This will contribute to an improvement in public services to provinces and districts, as well as to strengthening the centre's relations to the populations outside Kabul and the bigger cities.

  DFID is also contributing £1 million to the development of an effective cabinet secretariat, which will facilitate rational decision-making at the centre of Government.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will provide a breakdown of his Department's expenditure on the UK Delivery Plan in support of the Afghan national strategy. [178060]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK Drugs Delivery Plan is costed for the first three years of the strategy. DFID's contributions are in the area of alternative livelihoods and are broken down in the following table.
  657W

  Amount (£ million)

  2003–04

  1.6

  2004–05

  1.9

  2005–06

  1.9

  In addition to the money allocated under the UK Drugs Delivery Plan, DFID disbursed just over £5 million for livelihoods programmes and projects in 2003–04, and has allocated a further £12 million in the current financial year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what targets were set for his Department's work with the Aga Khan Foundation in Badakhshan on Integrated Rural Rehabilitation to improve livelihoods and curb poppy cultivation; and what results have been achieved. [178062]

  Hilary Benn
  The objective of the Aga Khan Foundation project in Badakhshan is to provide support for sustainable economic and social incentives to make food production and off-farm employment an attractive alternative to opium cultivation. DFID has agreed with the Aga Khan Foundation, a range of activities and outputs for the project, including the stimulation of rural incomes and improved agricultural production through training, agricultural inputs such as seed and fertilizer, and improved veterinary facilities. Progress against these is regularly monitored but it remains too early in the project to assess results.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the role of his Department has been in implementing the Development of Sustainable Agricultural Livelihoods project in Eastern Hazarajat; and what the results of the project have been. [178063]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is funding the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation £3.8 million over four years to implement the Development of Sustainable Agricultural Livelihoods project in Eastern Hazarajat. The project has now been under implementation for 10 months.

  The project has established a management and administration unit in Eastern Hazarajat. Surveys of existing livelihood systems and of local institutional capacity have been carried out. The project is now working with farmer-based organisations, the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry and local NGOs to select communities for piloting measures to improve food security and create opportunities for income generation and employment. It is intended to scale up successful experience from these pilots more widely in the region.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total sum of short-term bridging funding has been by his Department for micro-credit initiatives through BRAC; and what the results have been. [178064]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID provided a bridging fund of £203,931 to BRAC for its micro-credit project in Afghanistan. DFID's grant assisted BRAC to open branch offices in 14 districts of four provinces, establish 388 Village Organisations, and disburse more than US$650,000 of loan to around 7,000 women borrowers.
  658W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total sum of short-term bridging funding has been by his Department for the development of livelihoods monitoring through the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development and the Afghan Research and Evaluation Unit; and what the findings of the monitoring have been. [178065]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID provided £50,000 to fund the Afghan Research and Evaluation Unit in 2003–04 to assess the information generated by the Vulnerability Assessment Mapping review in 2002 and the contribution that information made to the programming of humanitarian interventions and its potential value to 2003.

  DFID is also providing £538,536 funding to a consortium of NGOs consisting of ACF, GOAL and Save the Children (US) to pilot a standardized round of data collection, analysis and dissemination for the National Surveillance System in seven provinces.

  The piloting phase focused on testing methodologies and data collection techniques appropriate for the Afghanistan context, building capacity and structures at the provincial level to collect and manage data and use the findings to advocate for programs and/or target resources for already existent programs, and providing information on the feasibility of running an effective national level system. It also provided in depth information on livelihoods, food security and nutrition situation in the seven provinces where government surveillance units were active. To further develop a national methodology, implement a second round of data collection and link results to programming, and further develop capacity of key government staff at district and provincial levels.

  The completion of these activities will lay the groundwork for an EU funded four-year project for the 2004 National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment to be implemented through the Vulnerability and Analysis Unit of the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development. This is scheduled to start in July-August 2004.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the extent to which the constitutional consultation process in Afghanistan is taking account of the views and interests of women. [178066]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID contributed £650,000 to support the public consultation on the constitution and preparations for the Constitutional Loya Jirga which was held in December 2003.

  Women's rights were explicitly protected in Afghanistan's constitution. The final charter avoids making any explicit reference to Shari'a, the traditional Islamic law that is often interpreted to discriminate against women. It guarantees that "any kind of discrimination and privilege between the citizens of Afghanistan are prohibited. The citizens of Afghanistan—whether man or woman—have equal rights and duties before the law."

  Female delegates at the Constitutional Loya Jirga also argued successfully to double the number of seats for women in the Wolesi Jirga (House of People). Women will now comprise 25 per cent. of this body. The

  659W
  constitution also requires that 50 percent of presidential appointments to the Meshrano Jirga (House of Elders) will be women.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance has been provided by his Department to the Public Information Unit of the Afghan Transitional Administration to improve communication with the population. [178067]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is providing £1.5 million over three years to build the public information capacity of the Office of the President. The project will be administered by the United Nations Development Programme and will begin later this year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the extent to which the national education budget of Afghanistan is meeting needs; and what advice has been provided by his Department. [178068]

  Hilary Benn
  Since the fall of the Taliban, donors have been working through the Afghan Education Consultative Group to improve access to education and increase enrolment. The results look encouraging. More than four million children have returned to school, 37 per cent. of them girls. There are now 70,000 teachers (one third are women) and 6,500 schools.

  DFID is not a member of the Afghan Education Consultative Group. In line with the Transitional Administration's National Development Framework which is designed to coordinate assistance from donors and multilateral organisations, the British Government has concentrated our assistance on areas where DFID can have most impact. DFID's focus has been on helping to put in place an economic management framework, improving livelihoods in rural and provincial areas, security sector reform and counter narcotics.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the extent to which donors to Afghanistan have provided the technical assistance required to establish a sustainable health system. [178069]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has made no specific assessment of technical assistance (TA) being provided by the international community.

  DFID is currently providing two consultants to the Ministry of Health (MoH). Their Terms of Reference are for them to work very closely with Health Ministers. Although one of these consultants will not be visiting Afghanistan until next month, the other one has been working with the MoH for the last two years and feedback that we have from the MoH is that this assistance has been of very high quality.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent input has been made by his Department to the development of health policy in Afghanistan. [178070]

  Hilary Benn
  Over the last two years DFID has been providing strategic support to the Ministry of Health (MoH). DFID has supported development of their interim health strategy and provided consultants to start mapping out policy options in budgeting, health financing, human resources and hospital management.
  660W
  DFID has also agreed to help implement the MoH's Priority Reform and Restructuring programme in the: (i) Liaison Office of Provincial Health; (ii) 32 Provincial Health Offices; (iii) Policy and Planning Department; and (iv) Health Care and Promotion Department. This will be over three years.

  DFID's assistance has been and will continue to be coordinated through the Health Sector Consultative Group.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department is taking to enable the Afghan Transitional Administration to tackle its capacity constraints. [178071]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is financing three capacity building projects within the Afghan Ministry of Finance. The three-year project to support the Afghan Customs Department will strengthen the institutional capacity of the Afghan Customs Department to formulate and implement policy, to manage human resources, define and deliver on training needs, to organise its workload effectively and ethically.

  The three-year project to support the Afghan Tax Administration will increase capacity within the General Presidency of Revenue (GPR) to implement strategic policy through modernisation of revenue administration, development of a comprehensive legislative base for taxation policy and administrative reform, training and capacity building of the workforce.

  The three-year Budget Formulation Project will strengthen the capacity of the Ministry of Finance to lead and co-ordinate the budget formulation process, and strengthen the capacity of Afghan ministries to formulate their budgets on good budgeting principles eventually leading towards the implementation of a Medium Term Budget Programme.

  DFID is also supporting the overall capacity constraints that face the Transitional Afghan Administration by supporting the Independent Administrative Reform and Civil Service Commission (IARCSC) to develop and implement a system for managing a skilled, professional and ethical civil service. Together with the World Bank, DFID is contributing a total of $10.9 million, of which $2.5 million is a contribution by DFID. This grant will increase the ability of the IARCSC to manage the capacity needs of the future.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the size is of Afghanistan's current debt to international financial institutions. [178073]

  Hilary Benn
  Following the clearance of the arrears to multilateral institutions, Afghanistan's current debt outstanding is US$49.5 million to the World Bank and US$9.2 million to the Asian Development Bank.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total financial allocation was of his Department's Asia division to Afghanistan in 2003–04. [178074]
  661W
  Hilary Benn
  The total financial allocation from Asia division to Afghanistan in 2003–04 was £75 million.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool was spent in Afghanistan in 2003–04. [178075]

  Hilary Benn
  In 2003–04, £12 million was spent in Afghanistan from the Afghanistan Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) strategy, and £8.4 million from the Counter Narcotics GCPP strategy.

  Funding to Afghanistan in 2003

  £millions

  Recovery and reconstruction

  2003 committed

  2003 contracted

  2003 contracted percentage

  Aid to uprooted people

  *

  —

  —

  Reconstruction support first tranche

  79.5

  73

  —

  Reconstruction support—second tranche

  79.5

  42

  —

  Food security

  30

  5.5

  —

  Rapid reaction mechanism

  —

  —

  —

  Return of Afghan nationals

  7

  3.5

  —

  Reallocation of ALA under-committed funds to Afghanistan

  50

  50

  —

  Total reconstruction support

  246

  174

  70

  Humanitarian ECHO

  55

  50.4

  92

  Total humanitarian and development

  301

  224

  75

  These figures are available on the EU website at http://europa.eu.int

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his latest assessment is of progress in the implementation of the Bonn Agreement in relation to Afghanistan. [178077]

  Hilary Benn
  Good progress has been made towards implementing the Bonn Agreement in Afghanistan, most recently the adoption of a new constitution at the Constitutional Loya Jirga in December last year. The next big challenge will be elections, which are due to be held in September this year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the programme management responsibilities are of his Department's office in Afghanistan. [178078]

  Hilary Benn
  Responsibility for management of DFID's programme in Afghanistan is split between the DFID office in Kabul and the DFID Afghanistan desk in London. The Afghanistan programme is presently working towards full devolution of programme management to Kabul, the timing of which will depend on the security situation in Afghanistan.

  Africa
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with UK industry on facilitating the use of alternative energy technologies in Africa. [176833]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID recognises the importance of improving access to affordable and sustainable energy services in Africa, in support of livelihoods and in the provision of social services. This is particularly difficult in rural areas where conventional technologies, such as grid-connected electricity, are expensive or impractical. Decentralised options using alternative
  662W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total amount was of EU Development Assistance to Afghanistan in 2003–04; and if he will give a breakdown of the expenditure. [178076]

  Hilary Benn
  In 2003, the European Commission delivered over €300 million (including extra €50 million to promote security by supporting police salaries and training, and €55 million from the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO). The breakdown of this funding is shown below.

  technologies, including those based on renewable energy, may help provide a solution to meeting energy requirements.

  DFID is working with international networks such as the Global Village Energy Partnership and the EU Energy Initiative to promote access to energy services, drawing on the full menu of technology options. This is a commitment in the UK Energy White Paper of February 2003. DFID is also working with other Government Departments, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, to ensure that their efforts to promote alternative technologies and the interest of UK industry is consistent with our poverty reduction objectives.

  In addition, DFID maintains contact with UK business groups such as the Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE), which was established in 2001 to promote sustainable energy, including the greater global use of renewable energy.

  Cameroon
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what his Department's expenditure was on forestry-related projects in Cameroon in(a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003 and (d) 2004; what the projected spending is for (i) 2005 and (ii) 2006; and if he will make a statement; [177983]

  (2) what plans his Department has to support efforts to (a) combat trade in illegal timber and (b) promote reform of the forestry sector in Cameroon; and if he will make a statement; [177984]

  (3) what action the Government is taking to support efforts to (a) combat the trade in illegal timber and (b) reform the forestry sector in Cameroon; and if he will make a statement on his Department's objectives for work in the country; [177985]
  663W
  (4) what analysis his Department has undertaken of the state of the forestry sector in Cameroon; [177986]

  (5) what his Department's commitments are to funding community development projects in Cameroon; and if he will make a statement. [177987]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development's (DFID) expenditure on forestry-related projects in Cameroon over the past three financial years has been:(a) 2001, £2.6 million (b) 2002, £2.4 million; (c) 2003, £1.0 million1. The planning figure for 2004–05 is £3 million. DFID's future forestry support of Cameroon will be focused on the African Forestry Law Enforcement and Governance initiative. DFID plans to commit £11 million over the next four years in support of the Cameroon Government's Forest and Environment Sector Programme (FESP).

  The FESP is being implemented by the Government with support from DFID, the World Bank, the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), the Canadian International Development Institute (CIDA), the European Union (EU) and the French Development Agency (AFD). The programme aims to implement wide ranging institutional reform and an effective strategy to control illegal logging, and to take measures to consolidate the rights of communities and protect the community forests from industrial exploitation. In particular, community development will be supported through the redistribution of a proportion of forestry revenues to rural communities. DFID also plans to develop a related initiative to strengthen the contribution of civil society and the private sector to forest sector reform.

  Extensive analysis of the forestry sector has been undertaken by the Government, DFID and other donors as part of the FESP appraisal process, including a thorough social, economic and environmental assessment. In addition, DFID and the World Bank have commissioned reviews of over 10 years of fiscal and community forest reform.

  DFID is strongly committed to stopping illegal logging and international trade in illegally produced forest products. One of the central aims of the reform programme is to stop illegal logging through (i) strengthening the capacity of government regulatory agencies (ii) introducing new forest management standards and regulatory systems (iii) encouraging increased community involvement (iv) encouraging private sector involvement in the management and (v) maintaining the independent monitor of forest operations.

  Specifically, DFID has funded an independent body (Global Witness) to monitor the conduct of forest operations for the past three years in order to improve governance and transparency in the forest sector. DFID also strongly endorses the EU Forest Law and Governance Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan. We are encouraging the Government of Cameroon to develop a Voluntary Partnership Agreement with the EU to support its reforms and prevent illegal exports of timber. Such an agreement would strengthen government efforts to stop illegal logging and promote sustainable forestry.
  664W
  In addition to Community Development support through the FESP, DFID funds various community development projects. The Small Grants Scheme, operating through the British High Commission, supports a wide range of development proposals from different Non Governmental Organisations and Community Based Organisations on a annual basis (e.g. in Human rights, Education, Health, Water and Sanitation). DFID also supports a Capacity Building Programme run by the Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV) to strengthen civil society organisations in the forest sector. Assistance is also provided to the Cameroon Mountain Conservation Foundation (CAMCOF), to provide funding to enable communities to be engaged in biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use, thereby improving livelihoods.

  1 Rounded to the nearest £100,000

  DAC/OECD Taskforce
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the role of the UK Government with regard to the DAC-OECD Task Force. [176794]

  Hilary Benn
  A senior DFID official chaired the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Task Force on Donor Practices and Aid Harmonisation. The Task Force produced the DAC Guidelines 'Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery' which set out good practices for improving harmonisation. At the DAC High Level Forum in Rome, February 2003, the representatives of 51 multilateral and bilateral development agencies, including DFID, and 28 developing countries endorsed the Guidelines and committed themselves to taking forward this agenda. DFID produced a Harmonisation Action Plan in February 2003 that we are due to report on (at the DAC) in early July.

  Following the Rome Declaration, the DAC Working Party on Aid Effectiveness and Donor Practices was established to further the work of the DAC Task Force. DFID is represented at official level on the Working Party and its sub-groups; the Task Team on Harmonisation and Alignment, Joint Venture on Public Financial Management, Joint Venture on Managing for Development Results, Procurement Capacity Building and Aid Untying. DFID staff members have attended meetings of all five subgroups since their inception, making a significant contribution to their work programmes. A second High Level Forum will take place in Paris in March 2005, to take stock of progress and accelerate action in key areas.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what approach the UK Government is taking with regard to the regulation of aid-giving policies encouraged by the DAC-OECD Task Force, with specific reference to Africa. [176795]

  Hilary Benn
  The main output of the OECD Development Assistance Committee Task Force on Donor Practices was a report in 2003 on "Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery". Rather than seeking to regulate aid donor behaviour, it sets out good
  665W
  practices for donors to follow. DFID has adopted an Action Plan to promote Harmonisation, which aims to reinforce on-going changes within DFID (as well as encouraging similar reforms in other donor agencies). These changes make procedures simpler and more flexible, so that we can more easily harmonise with other donors, align our assistance with national poverty reduction strategies, and make greater use of partner government systems (rather than separate parallel channels) where this is appropriate. DFID is also aligning its own internal incentives to ensure that they encourage staff to promote these good practices.

  Harmonisation is a particularly high priority for African governments which find dealing with a large number of donor agencies burdensome. DFID supports many country-led harmonisation initiatives like Uganda's Partnership Principles and Rwanda's Partnership Framework, and has led donor efforts to harmonise budget support in several countries including Ethiopia, Ghana and Mozambique. DFID also plays a leading role in the Strategic Partnership with Africa which is a World Bank-chaired forum bringing

  Table A: DFID

  Percentage

  Grade

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Senior civil service

  Women

  N/A

  18.4

  17.5

  14.3

  16.0

  16.7

  20.6

  22.7

  Ethnic minorities

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  6.7

  11.4

  9.1

  10.6

  A1

  Women

  N/A

  11.7

  12.2

  19.2

  24.2

  25.0

  24.5

  29.1

  Ethnic minorities

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  1—

  7.4

  8.0

  12.5

  A2

  Women

  N/A

  26.4

  26.7

  27.7

  33.3

  39.2

  40.2

  43.8

  Ethnic minorities

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  4.9

  6.9

  7.9

  8.9

  A3

  Women

  N/A

  39.7

  43.8

  50.0

  50.0

  49.1

  54.2

  52.3

  Ethnic minorities

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  5.7

  9.1

  10.0

  12.2

  B1

  Women

  N/A

  38.5

  36.8

  40.3

  42.2

  44.0

  45.9

  45.9

  Ethnic minorities

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  4.7

  11.6

  9.3

  18.0

  B2

  Women

  N/A

  49.1

  49.2

  50.0

  51.9

  54.1

  52.5

  52.4

  Ethnic minorities

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  9.6

  13.0

  13.9

  14.5

  C1

  Women

  N/A

  65.4

  66.1

  70.0

  68.2

  67.3

  66.9

  66.8

  Ethnic minorities

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  14.2

  16.6

  17.6

  13.6

  C2

  Women

  N/A

  55.9

  58.1

  55.6

  56.7

  51.1

  56.7

  51.8

  Ethnic minorities

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  9.8

  10.0

  9.2

  16.7

  1Not known.

  Table B: CDC Group plc

  Percentage

  Women

  Ethnic Minorities

  1997

  N/A

  N/A

  1998

  32.8

  5.3

  1999

  33.8

  4.8

  2000

  33.8

  4.8

  2001

  32.3

  4.7

  2002

  32.3

  6.5

  2003

  35.8

  6.4

  2004

  61.4

  7.6

  666W
  together representatives of major donors and African governments to challenge and help donors to improve their performance.

  Departmental Staff
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of(a) his Department's and (b) Commonwealth Development Corporation staff were (i) women and (ii) from ethnic minorities in each year since 1997, broken down by grade. [177055]

  Gareth Thomas
  Details of the percentages of women and ethnic minorities (i.e. where ethnicity has been declared) in DFID's civil service staff, by grade from 1998 onwards, are set out in table A.

  Comparable gender data is not available for 1997, and ethnicity data is not available prior to 2001.

  Details of the percentages of women and ethnic minorities in the CDC Group Plc (known as the Commonwealth Development Corporation until 1999) have been obtained directly from the CDC Group Plc and are set out in table B.

  Extractive Industries
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of state for International Development if he will make it his policy to support each of the recommendations of the World Bank's Extractive Industries Review. [177718]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on 1 March 2004,Official Report, column 619W.

  Faayab (Development Assistance)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with his colleagues in the European Union about the EU Development Assistance project in Faayab that was interrupted in April 2003. [177119]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID officials have regular contact with European Union colleagues about assistance to Afghanistan. However, they are not aware of any discussions about this particular project.

  India
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid his Department has provided to India in each year since 1997. [176975]

  Hilary Benn
  Total annual DFID1 bilateral programme expenditure in India from 1996–97 to 2003–04 was as follows:
  1DFID came into being in May 1997. Expenditure in 1996–97 was by the Overseas Development Administration (ODA).

  £ million

  1996–97

  92.04

  1997–98

  80.36

  1998–99

  88.78

  1999–2000

  102.12

  2000–01

  116.91

  2001–02

  184.97

  2002–03

  160.87

  2003–04

  1198.05

  1 Estimated spend.

  Source:

  Statistics for International Development (various years).

  Indonesia
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance is being offered to Indonesia following the evacuation of 20,000 people from villages on Sangihe Island. [178311]

  Hilary Benn
  None. The Indonesian authorities, working with local NGOs, are managing the evacuation well and have not asked for international assistance. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is monitoring the situation and is prepared to provide assistance, and co-ordinate international support, if needed. DFID is providing financial support for OCHA operations in Indonesia, and this will be available for evacuees from Sangihe Island, should it be required.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will place in the Library a list of(a) allocations made so far and (b) decisions for allocations not yet disbursed, and the sum involved in each case, by the Coalition Provisional Authority Programme Review Board in respect of the Development Fund for Iraq. [177676]

  Hilary Benn
  As of 4 June 2004, total disbursements from the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) amounted to $11.0 billion, as shown in the following table.
  668W
  An estimated $3.7 billion in outstanding commitments is expected to be disbursed by the end of 2004.

  The main expenditure areas are: the wheat purchase program, the currency exchange program, the electricity and oil infrastructure programs, equipment for Iraqi security forces, and for Iraqi civil service salaries and ministry budget operations.

  A detailed breakdown of expenditures under the DFI and the minutes of the Programme Review Board (PRB) meetings are publicly accessible and regularly posted on: www.iraqcoalition org/budqet

  Development Fund of Iraq as at June 2004

  Disbursements since inception ($)

  Baghdad Central

  2,635,799.40

  Central Bank of Iraq

  23,482,105.44

  CJTF#7

  12,146,904.60

  Coalition Military Assistance Training Team

  18,787,188.14

  Commanders Emergency Response Program

  386,583,988.00

  Communication Support Office

  1,659,897.06

  Comptrollers Office

  2.100,000.00

  CPA Front Office

  2.160,290.16

  Governance

  10,000.00

  Ministry of Agriculture

  20,097,406.30

  Ministry of Communications

  2,080,000.00

  Ministry of Culture

  20,000.00

  Ministry of Education

  1,100,000.00

  Ministry of Electricity

  155.353,242.74

  Ministry of Finance

  7,956,060,416.57

  Ministry of Housing and Construction

  405,031.66

  Ministry of Interior

  46,851,310.60

  Ministry of Justice

  1,000,219.50

  Ministry of National Security and Defence

  3,130,506.39

  Ministry of Oil

  1,551,233,904.96

  Ministry of Planning

  5,558,698.00

  Ministry of Public Works

  26,116.00

  Ministry of Trade

  129,381,909.68

  Ministry of Transportation

  1,706,687.00

  Office of Security Cooperation

  10,711,762.32

  Private Sector Development

  13,665.00

  Program Management Office

  17,920,000.00

  Rapid Regional Response Program

  195,251,744.69

  Regional Projects—CPA South

  28,924,414.64

  State Oil Marketing Organisation

  20,178,353.52

  Strategic Communications

  361,000.00

  US Army Corps of Engineers

  302,979,304.13

  World Food Programme

  143,376,100.00

  Total

  11,043,287,966.50

  Source:

  www.iraqcoalition.org

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the response of the Coalition Provisional Authority Programme Review Board has been to the inquiry of the International Advisory and Monitoring Board in respect of the Development Fund for Iraq about why the fund had paid Halliburton for uncontested contracts; how much money is involved in such contracts; which companies were the beneficiaries; what the position of the UK representative on the Review Board was; and if he will make a statement. [177677]

  Hilary Benn
  The International Audit and Monitoring Board (IAMB) has sought clarification on the use of non-competitive bidding procedures for some contracts funded from the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) and has requested access to US Government Agency audits of sole-sourced contracts funded by the DFI. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)
  669W
  Administrator has reported that the CPA is liaising with US Government Agencies to obtain copies of the audit reports.

  The DFI Program Review Board assesses and approves expenditure proposals only for the DFI, not contractors. The UK representative on the Programme Review Board (PRB) does not, therefore, take a position on specific contractual decisions. Neither DFID, nor the IAMB, have a comprehensive breakdown of the value and allocation of sole-sourced DFI contracts. A complete picture of the value of sole-sourced DFI contracts awaits the analysis of the audit reports.

  The UK fully supports the role of the IAMB.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the members of the Coalition Provisional Authority Programme Review Board responsible for the Development Fund for Iraq; who appointed them; and whom they represent. [177678]

  Hilary Benn
  The voting members of the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority Program Review Board (PRB) are representatives of: the Iraqi Minister of Finance; the Iraqi Ministry of Planning and Development Co-operation; the CPA's Economic Affairs, Governance and Security Policy Offices, and Office of Infrastructure and Operations; the Coalition Military (Combined Joint Task Force 7); the Iraqi Council for International Co-operation; U SAID; and the Governments of the United Kingdom and Australia. Members are appointed by the CPA Administrator.

  National Area-Based Development Programme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will provide a breakdown of his Department's contribution to the National Area-Based Development Programme; and what assessment he has made of the results of the programme. [178061]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID provided £1 million to the National Area-Based Development Programme in 2002. The programme has implemented a number of recovery projects, through NGOs, in 17 provinces in the education, infrastructure, health, irrigation, shelter and water supply sectors. Capacity building activities have also been undertaken in the lead Government Ministry, and the Ministry of Rural Reconstruction and Development (MRRD) to ensure they are able to successfully implement the programme.

  Nepal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the work of the Pahar Trust in Nepal. [178059]

  Gareth Thomas
  Although DFID is aware of the work of the Pahar Trust in school construction and friendship links between schools in the UK and Nepal, there has been no DFID assessment made of their work.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent donor governments meeting held in Geneva to discuss what help should be made available for Darfur, Sudan. [178002]

  Hilary Benn
  On 3 June, a meeting of donors took place in Geneva to discuss the donor response to the humanitarian situation in Darfur, Sudan. The UK was represented by Alan Goulty, UK Special Representative for Sudan.

  The meeting was co-chaired by the UN (Jan Egeland), EU (Tom Kitt, Minister for Development and Human Rights, Ireland) and Constanza Adonolfi, (Director of ECHO), and the US (Andrew Natsios, Administrator USAID). It was well attended by high level representatives of donors, UN agencies, NGOs and the Government of Sudan.

  The UN presented a 90 day plan for Darfur, and highlighted the unmet requirements of the Darfur and Chad appeal ($236 million). Pledges in response to this request amounted to approximately $57 million Additionally, the US pledged $188 million to be disbursed from 4 June to the end of 2005.

  The UK representative noted our commitment of over £19.5 million ($36.6 million) and anticipated that a further substantial commitment would be made during my visit to Sudan. I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on Wednesday 9 June, (column 275) where I stated that I had announced further funding of £15 million ($28.3 million).

  At the meeting in Geneva, donors and humanitarian agencies including the UK stressed to the Government of Sudan the need to ensure the protection and security of its citizens, to respect human rights, and to actively implement the provisions of the Ceasefire agreed on 8 April. All parties to the conflict should provide full and unfettered access to humanitarian organisations.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance the Government is providing to(a) the Government of Sudan and (b) non-governmental organisations operating in Sudan, indicating in each case (i) the amount and (ii) the use to which funds are being put; and if he will make a statement. [175873]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID does not provide any direct financial assistance to the Government of Sudan. However, our embassy in Khartoum engages with the Government on a wide range of technical issues including human rights, debt relief, poverty reduction strategies, security reform, the rule of law and good governance. This engagement is supported in some instances by the provision of technical assistance and capacity building support to Government of Sudan and Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) officials.

  DFID's support to non-governmental organisations since the beginning of April 2004 is listed as follows.
  671W

  Assistance provided by DFID to non-governmental organisations in Sudan since 1 April 2004

  NGO

  Project

  £

  Action centre la Faim(ACF)

  Food security and surveillance programme in Bentiu, Rob Kona and Unity state to detect and treat malnourished among the vulnerable and war displaced

  316,426

  ACF

  To provide emergency treatment for severe malnutrition in the Red Sea

  202,593

  ACF

  Emergency Nutrition Programme in North Darfur

  250,000

  CARE

  NG0 initiative to strengthen, coordinate and facilitate local and international' NGOs efforts to influence and support the establishment and consolidation of a just and lasting peace

  374,544

  Concern

  Supplementary and Community Therapeutic Care Emergency Nutrition to reduce the high malnutrition rates through targeted feeding for children under the age of five and pregnant and lactating mothers

  300,000

  Debt Relief International

  To increase the knowledge of the Sudanese parties particularly the SPLM on debt issues and the HIPC process

  150,000

  Foundation Hirondelle

  Assessment mission on the development of a project to establish a radio network as part of the peace process

  21,413

  GOAL

  To assist in disease prevention, Primary health care and flood relief in Kassala

  96,000

  GOAL

  Emergency Assistance to Population in Kutum Province, North Darfur—through a combined Health, Nutrition and Shelter Intervention

  575,963

  International Rescue Committee

  Support towards increasing the ability of Sudanese communities and civil societies to be powerful actors in peace building, reconstruction and development

  750,000

  Medair

  Emergency Nutrition project to target 20,000 Murle people and 900 internal displaced people

  114,500

  Médecins Sans Frontiéres(MSF)

  Health care Services in Jonglei to control main morbidity and mortality in the target areas

  1,200,000

  MSF

  Health intervention to reduce morbidity and mortality from the main diseases amongst the displaced and conflict-affected population of the Wadi Sali, Mukjar, Mahalias, South Dar fur State, Nyala and Mahalia areas

  1,342,552

  MSF

  To control main morbidity and limit mortality in the target population through the provision of health care services

  480,000

  MSF

  Health assistance for the residents and displaced populations in Jonglei and Upper Nile

  424,000

  MSF

  Support to human trypanosomiasis to provide quality treatment for affected patients from Mundri counties

  250,000

  MSF

  Three health interventions to reduce mortality and morbidity in Gederaf, Malkal and Wau states

  350,000

  MSF

  Primary Health Programme to improve the overall health status of the population of Akop. Ananatak and Luacjang Payams in Tonj County Support to Primary Health Care in Tonj

  265,439

  MSF

  Emergency Assistance to IDPs in Darfur—through increasing access to health care in conflict areas

  491,369

  MSF

  Dar fur Components of Emergency Health Interventions in Northern Sudan Project

  650,000

  Oxfam

  Emergency Food and Nutrition intervention in Red Sea State to provide treatment for severe malnutrition

  637,220

  Oxfam

  Public Health Humanitarian Response Darfur (Water/Sanitation Programme)

  2,193,161

  Rift Valley Institue

  Training course to increase participants effectiveness and to deepen understanding of the operating environment in Sudan

  38,110

  RVI

  A survey to identify and mobilise the skills that exist in South Sudan and identify how they can be harnessed to perform key functions in the public sector in the transition to peace

  198,220

  RVI

  A baseiline study to provide a baseline record and a preliminary contextual analysis of the peace process in Sudan

  58,096

  Save the Children

  Case resolution of and the eradication abduction of women and children in Sudan

  500,000

  Save the Children

  Emergency Response to Conflict Related Internal Displacement in North Darfur

  500,000

  Skills for Sudan

  Good Governance and policy issues workshop to assist the SPLM prepare good policies for Southern Sudan following the implementation of the peace process

  74,490

  Skills for Sudan

  A survey to identify and mobilise the skills that exist in South Sudan and identify how they can be harnessed to perform key functions in the public sector in the transition to peace

  198,220

  Tear Fund

  Nutrition and capacity building programme to improve health status

  149,686

  Tear Fund

  To reduce high malnutrition rates in Aweil West through targeted feeding

  618,584

  Tear Fund

  Emergency Nutrition, Health and Food Security: to continue to provide health care and to reduce, malnutrition

  586,531

  Tear Fund

  To improve health status as indicated by lower morbidity and mortality rates related to nutrition maternal and childhood diseases among the risk populations of IDP camps in Khartoum State

  122,046

  World Vision

  Emergency Nutrition in Tonj County to set up 10 supplementary dry distribution centres and two therapeutic feeding centres

  513,706

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions have taken place between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Sudan regarding reports of ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region of Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [176607]

  Hilary Benn
  The report of the Office of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights identifies disturbing patterns of massive human rights violations in Darfur perpetrated by the Government of Sudan and the 672W
  Janjaweed militia, many of which may constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. The report makes no conclusion as to ethnic cleansing, though it notes that repeated attacks on civilians by Government of Sudan military and its proxy militia forces appear to have been largely ethnically based.

  DFID is in very close contact with the Government of Sudan about Darfur. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Africa, and I made very strong representations to the Sudanese Foreign Minister

  673W
  when he visited London on 11 May. Since then I have had detailed discussions with the several Sudanese Government Ministers, including during my visit to Sudan on 6 to 8 June. The Sudanese Government can be in no doubt about the seriousness with which we view the situation.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether any of the money the UK is spending on the Darfur region of Sudan is being paid directly to(a) the UN co-ordination effort and (b) via any part of the Sudanese Government; and if he will make a statement. [177715]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is as follows.

  a (a) The UK has contributed £12.6 million to UN agencies engaged in Darfur since September 2003 (see

  Date

  Agency

  Description

  Total cost

  Agreed commitment to UN agencies October to December 2003

  UNHCR

  Supplementary Appeal for Emergency Assistance to Sudanese Refugees in Eastern Chad—2003

  1,000,000

  March 2004 to January 2005

  UNHCR

  Emergency Assistance to Sudanese Refuges in Eastern Chad

  1,000,000

  November 2003 to March 2004

  WFP

  Additional Contribution to 2003 UN Appeal, due to Crisis in Darfur, to Provide Emergency Food Assistance to Sudanese Populations Affected by War and Natural Disasters

  2,000,000

  March to December 2004

  WFP

  Emergency Distribution of Food Aid Commodities to Sudanese Refugees in North East Chad

  1,000,000

  May to December 2004

  WFP

  Emergency purchase and distribution of Food Aid for internally displaced Sudanese in Darfur.

  2,000,000

  February to December 2004

  UNICEF

  Emergency Assistance to Humanitarian Crisis in Darfur for Health; Water Supply; Water and Environmental Sanitation; Relief and Shelter Items; and the Protection of Children

  1,000,000

  May to December 2004

  UNICEF

  Additional support to humanitarian assistance for crisis in Darfur; emergency nutrition; emergency health care and the protection of children

  1,500,000

  May to November 2004

  WHO

  Emergency primary health care and response to communicable diseases in Darfur; support to measles vaccination programme

  1,500,000

  May to July 2004

  UN Joint Logistics Centre

  Support to enable UNJLC to co-ordinate the logistics of an effective humanitarian response in Sudan

  250,000

  Support to the ICRC

  November to December 2003

  ICRC

  Contribution to the ICRC 2003 Emergency Appeal for Sudan

  1,000,000

  June to December 2004

  ICRC

  Contribution to the ICRC 2003 Emergency Appeal for Sudan

  2,000,000

  Agreed Commitment to NGOS

  October 2003 to September 2004

  SC-UK

  Emergency Response to Conflict Related Internal Displacement in North Darfur

  500,000

  January to April 2004

  MSF-F

  Emergency Assistance to IDPs in Darfur--through increasing access to health care in conflict areas, disease prevention, halting nutritional deterioration and treating malnourished children

  491,369

  June to December 2004

  MSF-F

  Emergency Assistance to IDPs in Darfur- -through increasing access to health care in conflict areas, disease prevention, halting nutritional deterioration and treating malnourished children

  1,006,860

  January to December 2004

  MSF-H

  Darfur Components of Emergency Health Interventions in Northern Sudan Project

  650,000

  February to November 2004

  GOAL

  Emergency Assistance to Population in Kutum Province, North Darfur—through a combined Health, Nutrition and Shelter Intervention

  575,963

  March to December 2004

  ACF

  Emergency Nutrition Programme in North Darfur

  250,000

  March to November 2004

  ACF

  Emergency Nutrition Programme in North Darfur

  623,326

  April to December 2004

  OXFAM

  Public Health Humanitarian Response Darfur (Water/Sanitation Programme)

  2,193,161

  May to October 2004

  MSF-Belgium

  Emergency Health Care for IDPs in North Darfur

  671,300

  May to October 2004

  CARE

  Logistics operation to improve access to shelter and non-food items for IDPs in Greater Darfur

  603,195

  June 2004 to March 2005

  International

  Provision of Environmental Health, Primary Health and Child Rescue Protection Services for War Affected Communities in North Darfur Committee

  728,849

  Secondments

  March to June 2004

  OCHA

  Secondments of four staff (one Khartoum, three in Darfur)

  218,759

  May to July 2004

  UNJLC

  Secondment of three staff to UNJLC

  125,000

  Non-food Items

  May to June 2004

  WFP

  Provision of 264,800m of rope, 31,500 tarpaulins and 86,000 blankets

  1,008,000

  Total Humanitarian Assistance (DFID) Committed to Darfur since September 2003

  23,895,782

  674W
  following table). This includes direct support to the UN Co-ordination effort of:

  four secondees to OCHA to assist in UN oversight of the response
  —250,000 and three secondees to the UN Joint Logistics Centre, to improve their co-ordination of the humanitarian response We are also considering further support to the UN Coordination through contributions of personnel, equipment and logistics to OCHA and WFP.

  (b) None of the UK contribution to the humanitarian responses in Darfur is paid via any part of the Sudanese Government. A detailed breakdown of our agreed funding commitments is shown as follows.

  I refer the hon. Member for Cambridge to the Statement I made to the House on my return from Sudan on 9 June 2004, Official Report, column 275.
  675W

  Date

  Agency

  Description

  Total cost(£)

  Africa Conflict Prevention Pool

  May 2004

  AU Monitoring Mission

  Support for swift deployment of AU monitors (from Africa Conflict Prevention Pool)

  2,000,000

  Total UK Response to Darfur to date

  25,895,782

  Mr. Drew:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions he had during his recent visit to Sudan on (a) ethnic cleansing in Darfur and (b) breaches in the ceasefire; and what access he had to internally displaced persons; [178008]

  (2) whether he met Mr. Jan Egeland, the UN Emergency Relief Co-ordinator in Darfur during his recent visit; and what assessment he has made of Mr. Egeland's recent statements on the possibility of hundreds of thousands of people dying as a result of the situation in Sudan; [178009]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the health of people in Darfur, Sudan, following his recent visit. [178010]

  Hilary Benn:
  I discussed the security situation in Darfur with the Sudanese Government including the First Vice President, the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and the Minister of Finance. I stressed to them the importance of respecting the terms of the 8 April ceasefire and the need to rein in the Janjaweed and stop attacks on internally displaced persons (IDPs) and civilians. In my statements I also called on rebel groups to respect the ceasefire. The recent UN report on human rights in Sudan, while identifying disturbing patterns of human rights violations, stopped short of calling the conflict ethnic cleansing.

  I met with the first African Union (AU) monitors in El Fasher, North Darfur. The All Js preparing to deploy 120 monitors across Darfur to support the terms of the 8 April ceasefire and the UK has contributed £2 million to the mission. We expect the deployment of ceasefire monitors to have a positive effect on the security situation.

  Mr. Egeland was not in Sudan during my visit. I met with Kevin Kennedy, Acting UN Resident Coordinator/Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Sudan and Tom Vraalsen, UN Secretary General's Envoy on Humanitarian Affairs.

  The security situation remains a real concern with attacks on civilians continuing. The scale of need is enormous and there are significant gaps in the delivery of humanitarian assistance. The onset of rains will hinder delivery and increase the vulnerability of the internally displaced persons. The re is no doubt that urgent action is required by all parties. I echo Mr. Egeland's statements about the need for more donor assistance to Darfur. During my visit I announced a further allocation of £15 million for Darfur, taking the total UK allocation for humanitarian response to £34.5 million. DFID is also urging other donors to give more.

  During my visit to Sudan I saw first hand the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding in Darfur. This is the most serious humanitarian emergency in the world
  676W
  today and many lives are at risk. The UN estimates that over one million people have had to flee their homes and that a further 130,000 refugees have crossed into Eastern Chad. During my time in Darfur, I visited three camps for internally displaced people. I visited a Medecins Sans Frontiéres feeding centre for young children at Kalma camp, near Nyala in South Darfur, which has approximately 20,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs). At El Meshtel, near El Fasher in Northern Darfur, I visited a temporary camp where many people have no shelter and are waiting for transfer to Abu Shouk. I then visited Abu Shouk, which has 30,000 IDPs already there.

  I also spoke with representatives of UK funded NGOs and UN agencies engaged in provision of health care, including Medecins Sans Frontiéres the World Health Organisation and UNICEF. My visit and these discussions confirmed to me the gravity of the situation in Darfur, including that of the health of IDPs. There are high levels of malnutrition, and the lack of sanitation and adequate shelter is contributing to high child mortality rates. With the onset of rains, the risk from communicable diseases from poor sanitation will become more acute.

  Trade Negotiations
  Mr. Bercow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will publish the influencing strategy on trading opportunities for developing countries referred to on page 189 of the 2004 Departmental Report. [174115]

  Hilary Benn:
  I have placed copies of a document that sets out the main elements of DFID's Doha Development Agenda strategy 2004–2005 in the Libraries of both Houses. The document is entitled 'DFID Doha Development Agenda Strategy 2004–05'.

  Water
  Mr. Don Foster:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action has been taken on the recommendations made in the NAO report "Maximising impact in the water sector", published in January 2003, that his Department (a) should ensure that good quality information is available to assess progress towards poverty targets in those countries where it uses budget support to assist the water sector and (b) should give due weight to sanitation in developing its country assistance programmes. [177484]

  Gareth Thomas:
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Where DFID provides general budget support, our assistance to sectors such as water can best be assessed in terms of the proportion of budget going to particular sectors and in consultation with other donors. However, in terms of impact, progress in the sector is

  677W
  best assessed by the data returned by the country departments themselves, supported where appropriate by technical assistance. For example, DFID have provided a water adviser to work with the Ministry of Finance in Uganda to assist in measurement of investment and impact in water and sanitation. Internationally, DFID provide support to the Joint Monitoring Programme of UNICEF and WHO, which assemble data on coverage by country, and DFID are currently supporting work to establish a better evidence base linking water and sanitation improvements to progress against the full range of poverty indicators using one of our Resource Centres.

  (b) It is correct that sanitation often does not get the prominence it deserves, particularly at the national government levels. But there are some good examples of how greater importance can be focused on sanitation. In Bangladesh for example DFID is supporting WaterAid in raising the profile of water and sanitation in the Poverty Reduction Strategy and national sanitation strategy, as well as provided financial assistance in holding a regional sanitation conference for South Asian countries at the end of 2003 resulting in a declaration signed by ministers from nine countries. These examples show what can be done and how a higher profile for sanitation can be achieved. DFID are working with other countries and donors and our research centres to build on these lessons.

  Mr. Bercow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of water scarcity in (a) Yemen, (b) North West India, (c) Western China and (d) parts of Mexico. [177404]

  Gareth Thomas:
  In general terms, DFID agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg the target for all countries to develop Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency plans by 2005, with support to developing countries. DFID support the "Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment" reports of the UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Programme which include water availability data and work under the Global Water partnership on integrated water resource management.
  678W
  These reviews assist in developing frameworks for better assessment, allocation and monitoring of water use, particularly in the water scarce areas mentioned.

  (a) In Yemen recent DFID visits confirm that there continues to be very poor management of the water resource and a lack of action by government and others to prevent what is expected to be a severe water crisis in the next few years. The donor community has tried to intervene in this sector with little success due to the poor institutional arrangements. DFID is funding community based water supplies through its contributions to the Social Fund for Development and is considering more direct engagement in the sector once our Yemen programme is more established.

  (b) In India DFID currently works in four focus states, none of which are in north-west India, as human development indicators for the NW states are relatively better than for other states where DFID work. As a result, DFID has not conducted specific examination of water scarcity in NW India nor undertaken specific projects there. However, our support to other programmes, notably through DFID-supported work with UNICEF, includes specific work on water scarcity in Rajasthan.

  (c) There are substantial shortages of water in China, particularly in the west and north. In China as a whole, per capita water availability is a quarter of the world average. Almost one third of the world's population without access to safe drinking water and sanitation live in China. Water scarcity is increasingly seen as a factor limiting overall economic growth. DFID has developed a significant water related programme with a total commitment of around £30 million. This includes assistance in revising the national water law to promote more sustainable use; improving water demand management in the two provinces in the north-west and north-east; improving irrigation water use; and rural water supply and sanitation programmes in the southwest. DFID has a close collaboration with the World Bank and others in this area.

  (d) DFID has no active water bilateral programme in Mexico although our support to international water programmes includes assistance to Mexico.

HEALTH

  Abortion Clinics
  Mr. Amess:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many abortion clinics have failed inspection by the National Care Standards Commission in the last 10 years; [163161]

  (2) how many doctors employed in abortion clinics have been the subject of General Medical Council disciplinary proceedings since 1990; [163162]

  (3) what safeguards are in place to ensure that abortions performed under section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended) take place within the 24-week time limit. [163164]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  No approved independent sector abortion clinics have been closed by the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC), through lack of compliance with the Private and Voluntary Healthcare (England) Regulations 2001 (the Regulations), since it came into being on 1 April 2002. Following the 2002–03 inspection, however, one clinic chose to close voluntarily in order to give the provider time to comply with the requirements set.

  (a) Expenditure on 'Agency Nurses' by Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals National Health Service Trusts—1997–98 to 2002–03

  £

  Trust name

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Royal Hull Hospitals NHS Trust

  89,678

  205,393

  128,634

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,796

  15,354

  91,737

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  91,474

  220,747

  220,371

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NILS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  159,045

  0

  309,187

  551,525

  (b) Expenditure on 'Agency Nurses' by Hull and East Riding Community Health NHS Trust—1997–98 to 2002–03

  £

  Trust name

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  East Yorkshire Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  14971

  132709

  24356

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Hull and Holderness Community Health NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  14,971

  132,709

  24,356

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Hull and East. Riding Community Health NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  21,487

  163,007

  281,161

  923,245

  Note:

  'Agency Nurses' = Non NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff.

  Source:

  Annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  Accident and Emergency
  Mr. Lansley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage change in accident and emergency attendees was between 2001–02 and 2002–03. [173843]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The percentage change in the number of accident and emergency attendees between 2001–02 and 2002–03 was less than 0.01 per cent. Total attendances at accident and emergency departments in England in 2002–03 were 14,04:5,575. In 2001–02 the equivalent figure was 14,044,018.
  680W
  Prior to 1 April 2002, abortion clinics were inspected separately by health authorities and the Department. In the last 10 years, one clinic had its registration under the Registered Homes Act 1984, and its approval under the Abortion Act 1967, withdrawn.

  The General Medical Council is an independent, statutory body. The Department does not hold information on doctors that have been the subject of General Medical Council disciplinary proceedings.

  Practitioners are legally required to send a notice of each termination performed in England to the chief medical officer. This notification must include details of the number of complete weeks of gestation and the grounds on which the abortion was carried out. Notifications are checked by the Department to ensure that the forms have been correctly completed. Statistics are published annually.

  Agency Nurses
  David Davis:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent on agency nurses in (a) Hull and East Riding Hospitals NHS Trust and (b) Hull and East Riding Community Health NHS Trust in each year since 1997. [172758]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Dentistry
  Sir Paul Beresford:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what method he proposes using to enable NHS dentists to know for which patients they have responsibility for NHS dental treatment; [177016]

  (2) when he proposes publishing the new base contract for NHS dentists with his proposed contract values. [177019]
  681W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: Drawing on the learning from personal dental services pilots and the field site programme being managed by the Modernisation Agency, to ensure a smooth transition to local commissioning, we will be working closely with the British Dental Association and the national health service to develop a simple and robust base contract that all primary care trusts (PCTs) and practices will be able to put in place from 2005. Details of the base contract are still under discussion.

  The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 puts a new duty on all PCTs to provide or commission primary dental services "to the extent it considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements" in its area. This is the same general duty as for other NHS services.

  Under transitional arrangements, the new base contract will be made available, but dentists and PCTs who wish to develop this further will be able to do so. The transitional arrangements will provide protection of dentists' gross earnings for three years to enable them to come off the treadmill of item of service, to see their patients at intervals appropriate to their oral health needs and to modernise and adjust their workload.

  The current statement of dental remuneration describes the care available on the NHS. We expect a similar range of care to be provided under the new system. As now, the care dentists offer must be necessary to secure oral health and dentists will be expected to provide all proper and necessary treatment which a dentist usually undertakes and which the patient is willing to undergo.

  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for dentists to move onto the new NHS contract. [174454]

  Mr. Hutton:
  We are implementing the biggest reform of national health service dentistry since 1948 and we have been consulting widely with the profession and others to get the detail right. We have just completed a consultation on our "Framework Proposals for Primary Care Dental Services in England". We are currently considering all the responses to the consultation, including whether any revision to the original timetable of April 2005 is necessary.

  Endometriosis
  Mr. Salter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much investment has been allocated to Reading Primary Care Trust for the care and management of endometriosis in each of the last five years. [177656]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  Following the Department's 'Shifting the Balance of Power' initiative, funding is allocated to primary care trusts (PCTs) on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. It is for PCTs, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Ethical Recruitment
  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the Medway Care Agency was included on the Government's approved list of recruitment agencies who have signed up to the code of practice on ethical recruitment; [176293]

  (2) when the approved list regarding those agencies who had signed up to the Government's code of practice on ethical recruitment was made available to the South Essex Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust; and how they were made aware of its existence; [176294]

  (3) whether Mr. Tawanda Machigura was recruited directly from Zimbabwe by the Medway Care Agency; between what dates hi was on Medway Care Agency's lists; and what work he had undertaken prior to signing up with Medway Care Agency. [176394]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: The Medway Care Agency is not on the Government's approved list of agencies which adhere to the Code of Practice for International Recruitment. The Code was issued to all Trusts in October 2001. From inquiries made by the Department, it is understood that Mr. Tawanda Machigura was recruited by the Medway Care Agency in England, not from Zimbabwe. It is not known what work he had undertaken prior to signing up with the Medway Care Agency or between what dates he was on their lists.

  Food Labelling
  Keith Vaz:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will urge food manufacturers to label their foods more precisely in order to avoid serious allergic reactions with particular reference to anaphylactic shock. [176580]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  New European Union rules on ingredients listing for pre-packed foods have been agreed recently (Directive 2003/89/EC); they will require declaration of all ingredients on the label, with only a small number of exemptions allowed. No exemptions are allowed for 12 specified food allergens and their allergenic derivatives: these include those allergens most often associated with anaphylactic shock. This will help those with food allergies identify products they may need to avoid. The now rules will come into effect in November 2005. In the meantime, the Food Standards Agency has issued advice encouraging voluntary declaration of specified allergens.

  Glue Sniffing
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the prevalence of glue sniffing among teenagers in (a) England and (b) each region in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [164867]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Health Service (Stoke)
  Ms Walley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on health in Stoke-on-Trent, N orth in each of the last seven years. [177624]
  683W
  Dr. Ladyman:
  The information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure per weighted head of the population in the Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority (SHA) area. which includes the constituency of Stoke-on Trent North, has increased from £604.42 in 1997–98 to £910.52 in 2002–03, the latest year available. This does not represent the total expenditure per head, as an element of health expenditure cannot be identified by SHA area.

  Ms Walley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been to NHS waiting list times in the last seven years for residents of Stoke-on-Trent. North. [177625]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The information is not available in the form requested. The tables show the number of patients waiting for in-patient treat meat and outpatient appointments at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire National Health Service Trust (formerly North Staffordshire Hospital NITS Trust) in each year since 1997.

  Months waiting to be seen

  As at March

  Total number of patients

  0–2

  3–5

  6–8

  9–11

  12–14

  15–17

  1997

  6,988

  3,697

  1,858

  958

  382

  93

  0

  1998

  9,877

  4,984

  2,333

  1450

  718

  376

  16

  1999

  7,051

  3,502

  1,575

  898

  557

  360

  159

  2000

  7,134

  3,421

  1,623

  882

  647

  450

  111

  2001

  5,583

  2,907

  1,371

  623

  335

  261

  86

  2002

  7,365

  3.806

  1,996

  1,067

  496

  0

  0

  2003

  8,049

  3,926

  2,217

  1,311

  595

  0

  0

  2004

  6,237

  4,065

  1,615

  557

  0

  0

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health KH07.

  Out-patient waiting lists by provider for the trust serving Stoke-on Trent, North—General practitioner ref coral to consultant waiting list in weeks

  As at March

  Not seen 13 to 25

  Not seen 26 plus

  1997

  2,586

  1,380

  1998

  3,369

  2,845

  1999

  4,129

  3,910

  2000

  4658

  3537

  2001

  4,134

  2,861

  2002

  3,197

  0

  2003

  1,724

  0

  2004

  540

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health QM08.

  Ms Walley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many senior citizens in Stoke on-Trent, North have access to free eye tests. [177626]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  Data for the number of sight tests by constituency or by the number of senior citizens are not collected centrally.

  The total population for those aged 60 and over in Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is about 320,450 All people aged 60 and over are eligible for national health service sight tests.
  684W
  The total number of NHS sight tests paid for by Shropshire and Staffordshire SHA in the year 2002–03 for the 'aged 60 and over' category was 138,040.

  Ms Walley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on funding allocated through the LIFT programme to improve primary care in Stoke-on-Trent, North. [177627]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  Funding for premises development, whether through local investment finance trusts (LIFT) or other means, is not allocated directly to projects by the Department. It is allocated to groups of primary care trusts (PCTs), which must decide what their priorities are and how they intend to spend their allocation.

  My hon. Friend's constituency is served by North Stoke PCT, which is one of four PCTs collaborating in the North Staffordshire LIFT project. North Stoke PCT will be able to provide new primary care centres in Bucknall, Cobridge and Packmoor. The North Staffordshire LIFT project has an estimated capital value of £20 million, of which some £5.8 million is accounted for by the North Stoke elements.

  In addition, the Department has made available capital funding to help kick start LIFT projects. The North Staffordshire LIFT project has been allocated £5.4 million to date. North Stoke PCT is using its share of these funds to purchase sites for the health centres at Bucknall, Cobridge and Packmoor. It has also used them to purchase temporary premises to serve the people of Packmoor until the permanent health centre there is operational. These temporary premises opened in April 2003 and have already significantly improved access to health services for local people.

  Hospices (London)
  Tom Cox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much financial assistance his Department has provided to hospices in the Greater London area in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [177824]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Hearing Aid Technicians
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for hearing aid technicians in the NHS in England; and how many there were in 2003–04, broken down by region. [178425]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Specific information is not collected on the number of vacancies for hearing aid technicians; they are included in the physiological measurement staff group. The table shows the number of vacancies lasting three months or more for physiological measurement staff by Government office region as at March 2003.
  685W

  Department of health vacancies survey, March 2003; qualified physiological measurement staff by Government office region: three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  Qualified physiological measurement

  Three month vacancy rate percentage March 2003

  Three month vacancy number

  Staff in post ( whole- time equivalent) September 2002

  Staff in post (headcount)

  —

  England

  19

  66

  3,526

  4,018

  A

  North East

  1.6

  3

  218

  236

  B

  North West

  14

  9

  707

  806

  D

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  2.3

  9

  385

  444

  E

  East Midlands

  0.3

  1

  283

  319

  F

  West Midlands

  0.3

  1

  397

  445

  G

  East Of England

  2.2

  5

  257

  289

  H

  London

  4.7

  21

  481

  548

  J

  South East

  3.1

  10

  349

  415

  K

  South West

  1.3

  6

  449

  516

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March 2003.

  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies which Trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents).

  3. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post.

  4. Three month vacancy rates are calculated using staff in post from the Vacancy Survey, March 2003.

  5. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  6. Staff in post data is from the Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2002

  Sources:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2003.

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2002.

  IT Systems
  Dr. Murrison:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the cost of implementing the National Programme for IT in strategic health authorities. [174107]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The contracts let by the national programme for information technology amount to a cost of £6.2 billion over 10 years. The £2.3 billion allocated in the 2002 spending review will implement core services across all trusts and general practitioner practices, including electronic booking, electronic transfer of prescriptions, a basic national health service care records service and the new national network.

  Strategic health authorities are the planning and performance monitoring bodies for the NHS and as such will not incur direct implementation costs for the key applications and systems that will be delivered in trusts and general practitioner practices. The local service providers are currently working with NHS trusts to develop local implementation plans. These will help to profile the NHS effort and resource, for example, training costs over the implementation period.

  Increase over the six year period

  Staff group

  September 1997

  September 2003

  Number

  Percentage

  Clinical oncology consultants

  287

  1358

  71

  25

  Respiratory medicine consultants

  309

  1570

  261

  84

  Radiographers (therapeutic and diagnostic)

  11,771

  13,344

  1,573

  13

  Cardiothoracic surgeons

  156

  1217

  61

  39

  Nurses

  318,856

  386,359

  67,503

  21

  1December 2003 data.

  686W

  Lung Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures he is taking to increase the number of (a) oncologists, (b) respiratory consultants, (c) radiographers, (d) thoracic surgeons and (e) nurses specialising in lung cancer within the NHS; [177878]

  (2) how many (a) oncologists, (b) respiratory consultants, (c) radiographers, (d) thoracic surgeons and (e) nurses in the NHS specialise in lung cancer. [177879]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The Department does not collect numbers of oncologists, respiratory consultants, radiographers. thoracic surgeons or nurses in the national health service who specialise in lung cancer.

  We are implementing a range of measures to recruit more healthcare professionals into the NHS. These include improving pay and conditions, encouraging the NHS to become a better, more flexible and diverse employer, increasing training, investing in childcare and continuing professional development, attracting back returners and running national, international and local recruitment campaigns.

  The table shows the general increase in each specific staff group since September 1997. It is for trusts to determine staffing configurations for the treatment of lung cancer at a local tevel.

  Medical Errors (London)
  Tom Cox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have died or been injured as a result of errors in medical treatment in NHS hospitals in the Greater London area in each of the last three years. [177825]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Information is not available in the format requested. Information is collected on the number of patients injured or fatally injured as a result of errors in medical treatment and where an initial inquiry has been made or a claim for negligence has been received, in national health service hospitals within the five London strategic health authorities (SHAs) and is shown in the tables.

  Patients injured as a result of errors in medical treatment, where a claim or inquiry was received for negligence, in NHS hospitals in the five London SHAs

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Numbers injured and a claim received

  775

  921

  625

  Numbers injured and initial inquiry made but no claim received

  48

  99

  241

  Total number of incidents queried and claims received

  823

  1,020

  866

  Number of patients fatally injured as a result of errors in medical treatment, where a claim or inquiry was received for negligence, in NHS hospitals in the five London SHAs

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Number fatally injured and a claim received

  92

  113

  75

  Number fatally injured and initial inquiry made but no claim received

  5

  9

  27

  Total number of incidents queried and claims received for fatalities

  97

  122

  102

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Todd:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what audit he has made of the compliance of mental health services trusts with their obligations (a) to produce integrated care plans for service users with severe mental illness, (b) to ensure that service users have a written care plan and (c) to establish assertive outreach for those at risk of losing contact with services. [177010]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The national service framework for mental health states that all service users on the care programme approach should have a copy of their written care plan.

  Data collected in 2002–03 to monitor this model of best practice indicated that 77 per cent. of patients on enhanced care programme approach had a copy of their written care plan—104,458 out of 135,699 nationally.Data for 2003–04 has not yet been fully validated.

  Mental health trusts are also assessed by the Healthcare Commission using a performance indicator on the implementation of comprehensive care programme approach systems and another one on the numbers of people on enhanced care programme approach with their own care plans.
  688W
  The Department monitors trusts' performance with establishing assertive outreach teams through local delivery plan returns which show 273 teams providing assertive outreach services to 12,469 people in the fourth quarter of 2003–04.

  Microwaves
  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated to ascertain whether there is leakage of (a) dioxins, (b) carcinogens and (c) xenoestrogens when microwaving food in plastic containers. [177480]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Government's research programme into the migration of substances from food contact materials and articles in the specific area of plastic containers used in microwave ovens has included work to establish methodologies for determining such migration; and to establish actual migration of some specific substances within the groups of substances in question.

  Details of this research has been placed in the Library. Further information is available on the Food Standards Agency website at www.foodstandards.gov.uk/safety/foodpackaging.

  Mixed-Sex Wards (London)
  Tom Cox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals in the Greater London area which use mixed-sex wards. [177826]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Department does not collect information on the number of either single sex or mixed sex wards in use in national health service hospitals.

  Guidance issued to NHS trusts on the achievement of the Department's single sex accommodation objectives made it clear that a variety of ward layouts and designs can be used to deliver separate sleeping accommodation, including the use of single sex wards, or combinations of single sex bays and individual rooms. Single sex bays, together with increasing numbers of single rooms, are common features of modern hospital design both here and abroad and can provide acceptable levels of privacy and dignity.

  Multi-disciplinary Teams
  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is provided for NHS staff on how to work effectively in multi-disciplinary teams. [177880]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: We are committed to working with partners in education, statutory and professional bodies to develop programmes of inter-professional and common learning through which different health and social care professionals can learn together and from each other. There are a number of current successful programmes in undergraduate and pre-registration education and for qualified staff, which are designed to help national health service staff work effectively in multi-disciplinary teams.

  NHS Treatment Statistics
  Mr. Lansley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many out-patients were treated in the NHS in England in each year from 1991 to 2003. [178888]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The following table shows the first, subsequent and total out-patient attendances in the national health service in England for the years 1991–92 to 2002–03.

  First attendances

  Subsequent attendances

  Total attendances

  1991–92

  8,941,526

  27,952,184

  36,893,710

  1992–93

  9,342,280

  28,184,758

  37,527,038

  1993–94

  9,680,593

  28,519,690

  38,200,283

  1994–95

  10,362,877

  28,942,923

  39,305,800

  1995–96

  10,989,334

  29,128,357

  40,117,691

  1996–97

  11,294,069

  29,578,700

  40,872,769

  1997–98

  11,529,432

  30,105,837

  41,635,269

  1998–99

  11,777,780

  30,376,617

  42,154,397

  1999–2000

  12,136,405

  30,904,294

  43,040,699

  2000–01

  12,466,233

  31,103,107

  43,569,340

  2001–02

  12,713,988

  31,294,374

  44,008,362

  2002–03

  13,032,192

  31,565,368

  44,597,560

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH09.

  Nurses' Pay (London)
  Tom Cox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the average weekly earnings of a qualified nurse working in a hospital in the Greater London area. [177827]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The information necessary to make an estimate is not collected centrally.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Simon Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the decision by the Office of Fair Trading not to include the impact of local authorities' purchasing power on the financial viability of nursing homes in its investigation into nursing homes. [178140]

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified diagnostic radiographers in England by Government office region. Strategic health authority area and organisation as at 30 September each specified year

  Whole-time equivalent

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  England total

  8,626

  8,860

  9,009

  9,169

  9,264

  9,489

  9,642

  A

  North East total

  481

  496

  509

  521

  528

  547

  579

  009

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear SHA total

  268

  281

  291

  291

  289

  302

  327

  Cheviot and Wansbeck NHS Trust

  RLK

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  RLN

  50

  55

  51

  56

  53

  51

  55

  Freeman Group of Hospitals NHS Trust

  RAB

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gateshead Health NHS Trust

  RR7

  —

  41

  43

  44

  40

  43

  57

  Gateshead Hospitals NHS Trust

  RE2

  39

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newcastle City Health NHS Trust

  RNM

  9

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  RTD

  —

  96

  123

  119

  121

  125

  136

  North Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust

  RLC

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

  RTF

  —

  58

  51

  48

  50

  56

  52

  Royal Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  RCK

  72

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Tyneside Healthcare NHS Trust

  RE9

  22

  22

  23

  24

  26

  28

  27

  690W
  Dr. Ladyman:
  The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) operates independently from Government under clear terms of reference and associated powers. It is for the OFT and its board to decide what it will and will not investigate.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to question reference 176394 tabled by the hon. Member for Billericay. [178860]

  Mr. Hutton:
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

  Primary Care Trust Funding
  Mr. Lidington:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average sum allocated to primary care trusts in England (a) per unweighted head of population and (b) per weighted head of population was in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [178182]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The average sum allocated to primary care trusts in England per head of population, weighted and unweighted, was 916 for 2003–04 and 1,003 for 2004–05.

  Mr. Lidington:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the funding allocations (a) per unweighted head of population and (b) per weighted head of population for 2004–05 for each primary care trust in England. [178183]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Radiographers
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) headcount and (b) whole-time equivalent (i) diagnostic and (ii) therapeutic radiographers have been employed by the NHS in each year since 1997, broken down by (A) region, (B) strategic health authority and (C) NHS trust. [176751]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. Between September 1997 and 2003, the number of radiographers employed in the national health service has increased by 1,573, or 13 per cent.
  691W

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified diagnostic radiographers in England by Government office region, Strategic health atahority area and organisation as at 30 September each specified year

  Whole-time equivalent

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  QI0

  County Durham and Tees Valley SHA total

  213

  215

  218

  230

  239

  246

  252

  Bishop Auckland Hospitals NHS Trust

  RLA

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  County Durham And Darlington Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  RXP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  80

  Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust

  RLB

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hartlepool and East Durham NHS Trust

  RRY

  25

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Durham Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  RLE

  29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Durham Healthcare NHS Trust

  RR9

  —

  27

  29

  33

  33

  31

  —

  North Tees and Hartlepool NHS trust

  RVW

  —

  —

  58

  60

  63

  62

  67

  North Tees Health NHS Trust

  RCH

  32

  33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northallerton Health Services NHS Trust

  RCA

  14

  14

  15

  16

  18

  —

  —

  South Durham Healthcare NHS Tryst

  RTA

  —

  43

  45

  47

  48

  50

  —

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  RCJ

  69

  73

  71

  75

  77

  —

  —

  South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust

  RTR

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  102

  105

  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) headcount and (b) whole-time equivalent NHS vacancies there were for (i) diagnostic and (ii) therapeutic radiographers in each year since 1997 (A) in total and (B) broken down by positions vacant for (1) 0–3 months, (2) 3–6 months, (3) 6–9 months, (4) 9–12 months, (5) 12–15 months, (6) 15–18 months and (7) over 18 months. [176753]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The only information held centrally on vacancies is numbers of whole-time equivalent vacancies lasting three months or more. Information on the number of whole-time equivalent radiographer vacancies lasting three months of more since 1999, the first year vacancy information was collected centrally, are shown in the table.

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March each specified year—vacancies in England for qualified radiography staff—

  Three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff-in-post

  September 2000

  Staff-in-post (whole-time equivalent)

  9,165

  Staff-in-post (headcount)

  11,032

  Therapeutic radiographers March 2001

  Three month vacancy rate (%)

  8.0

  Three month vacancy (number)

  114

  19991

  Radiographers

  March 1999

  Three month vacancy rate (%)

  1.3

  Three month vacancy (number)

  131

  September 1998

  Staff-in-post (whole-time equivalent)

  10,189

  Staff-in-post (headcount)

  12,114

  2000

  Radiographers

  March 2000

  Three month vacancy rate (%)

  3.6

  Three month vacancy (number)

  332

  September 1999

  Staff-in-post (whole-time equivalent)

  9,005

  Staff-in-post (headcount)

  10,835

  Therapeutic radiographers

  March 2000

  Three month vacancy rate (%)

  7.1

  Three month vacancy (number)

  103

  September 1999

  Staff-in-post (whole-time equivalent)

  1,358

  Staff-in-post (headcount)

  1,491

  2001

  Diagnostic radiographers

  March 2001

  Three month vacancy rate (%)

  4.4

  Three month vacancy (number)

  420

  692W

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March each specified year—vacancies in England for quali fie.I radiography staff—

  Three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff-in-post

  September 2000

  Staff-in-post (whole-time equivalent)

  9,165

  Staff-in-post (headcount)

  11,032

  Therapeutic radiographers

  March 2001

  Three month vacancy rate (%)

  8.0

  Three month vacancy (number)

  114

  Staff-in-post (whole-time equivalent)

  1,309

  Staff-in-post (headcount)

  1,453

  2002

  Diagnostic radiographers

  March 2002

  Three month vacancy rate (%)

  5.5

  Three month vacancy (number)

  531

  September 2001

  Staff-in-post (whole-time equivalent)

  1,391

  Staff-in-post (headcount)

  1,543

  2003

  Diagnostic radiographers

  March 2003

  Three month vacancy rate (%)

  6.1

  Three month vacancy (number)

  599

  September 2002

  Staff-in-post (whole-time equivalent)

  9,489

  Staff-in-post (headcount)

  11,489

  Therapeutic radiographers

  March 2003

  Three month vacancy rate (%)

  10.7

  Three month vacancy (number)

  169

  September

  Staff-in-post (whole-time equivalent)

  1,374

  Staff-in-post (headcount)

  1,542

  11999 vacancy survey is unable to split between diagnostic and

  693W

  Three month vacancy notes:

  1. Three month vacancy information is at 31 March each specified year.

  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies which Trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents).

  3. Three month Vacancy Rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff-inpost.

  4. For 2002 and 2003 three month Vacancy Rates are calculated using staff-in-post from the Vacancy Survey.

  5. For earlier years three month vacancy rates are calculated using staff-in-post from the non-medical workforce census the previous September.

  6. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  7. Figures for 1999–2002 exclude health authority staff.

  Staff-in-post notes:

  1. Staff-in-post data is from the Non-Medical Workforce Census, September each specified year.

  General notes:

  1. Vacancy and staff-in-post numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  2. Calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  3. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Sources:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March each specified year.

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census, September each specified year.

  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 19 April 2004, Official Report, column 221W, on radiographers, what action his Department is taking towards developing an attractive career path for radiography staff. [176755]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The national radiography recruitment and retention strategy will encourage the national rollout of a new career escalator model for radiographers, building on the knowledge and skills framework of 'Agenda for Change'. This will enable individuals to step on or step off the escalator during their careers, until they reach a level which is appropriate for them and their service. There will be opportunities to practice from assistant right through to consultant practitioner level. With the implementation of the 'Improving Working Lives' standard, there is greater opportunity for radiographers to work flexibly, access childcare and still extend and progress their roles.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Chaytor:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to (a) strategic health authorities and (b) acute trusts in respect of waiting times for (i) MRI scans and (ii) nerve conduction tests. [177605]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Data on waiting times for diagnostic tests, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and nerve conduction studies are not collected centrally.

  However, the Government are committed to improving access to diagnostic services and the Department is working in partnership with strategic health authorities (SHA) and other stakeholders to secure a more responsive service. Each SHA is responsible for developing and implementing local improvement programmes for diagnostic services and to monitor progress against any locally agreed objectives.

TRANSPORT

  "Salvage and Intervention"
  Mrs. Lawrence:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government have taken to implement Recommendation 7 in the report of Lord Donaldson's review, Salvage and Intervention and their Command and Control, published in 1999. [178098]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  This recommendation concerns amending the Water Resources Act 1991, responsibility of which is a matter for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However I have agreed with the Minister for the Environment (Mr. Morley) that my Department will take this recommendation forward and my officials are currently investigating using a Regulatory Reform Order to do this.

  Air Passengers' Health
  Mr. Damian Green:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to implement the recommendations of the European Civil Aviation Conference Working Group on Air Passenger Health Issues; and if he will make a statement. [177994]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The European Civil Aviation Conference Working Group on Air Passenger Health Issues has prepared a manual on health issues, the first draft of which Directors General approved at their meeting on 17 March 2004. A number of the issues raised will need to be addressed at a European level. The UK inter-departmental Aviation Health Working Group will discuss the remaining issues at its meeting on 10 June in order to determine how to take forward the recommendations.

  Aircraft Medical Emergency Kits
  Mr. Damian Green:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has given to UK airlines on carrying a full medical emergency kit on all flights. [177993]

  Mr. McNulty:
  UK airlines are required to meet the Joint Aviation Requirements—Operations (JAR-OPS) 1.755 on emergency medical kits. An operator must ensure that an aeroplane with more than 30 seats and where the planned route is more than 60 minutes flying time from an aerodrome at which qualified medical assistance could be expected to be available, is equipped with an emergency medical kit. The items that should be included in the emergency medical kit are also specified.

  Bus Services (Rochdale)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rural bus services in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale are supported by rural bus grants. [178560]

  Mr. McNulty:
  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) is paid to local transport authorities, in the case of Rochdale this is the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (PTE). It is for the authority, to decide which services should be supported with the grant. We understand from the PTE that one bus service in Rochdale is provided by RBSG.

  Crime (Public Transport)
  Mr. Damian Green:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatalities have resulted from crimes on (a) railways and (b) buses in each year since 1997, broken down by type of crime. [175463]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have provided the following information on fatalities which have resulted from crimes recorded on the railways since 1999; information is not readily available for earlier than 1999.

  Offence

  Fatalities

  1999

  Murder

  3

  Manslaughter

  3

  2000

  Murder

  3

  Manslaughter

  2

  Death by dangerous driving

  1

  2001

  Murder

  2

  Manslaughter

  2

  2002

  Murder

  4

  Manslaughter

  3

  2003

  Murder

  0

  Manslaughter

  13

  20042

  Murder

  2

  Manslaughter

  5

  1 In addition the 43 fatalities from Potleis Bar, Ladbroke Grove and Hatfield were recorded in this year

  2 January to March.

  No data are held centrally on the number of fatalities resulting from crimes on buses broken down by type of crime.

  Cycling
  Mr. Greenway:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice is given by his Department to local authorities about the advisability of cycling on footpaths. [178310]

  Mr. Jamiieson:
  Cyclists have no right to cycle on footpaths and it is illegal to cycle on the footway (the pavement adjacent to the carriageway).

  Procedures do however exist to the Highways Act 1980 to convert footways to cycle tracks and in the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 to convert footpaths to cycle tracks.

  The decision to convert a footpath or footway to a cycle track is for individual local highway authorities to determine after careful consideration of all the issues. The Department has issued advice on the design and criteria for shared use facilities in Local Transport Note 2/86 "Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians" and, with our partners, in "Cycle-friendly infrastructure" available from the Institution of Highways and Transportation. We are also currently consulting on
  696W
  updated advice in a draft Local Transport Note on "Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Cyclists and Pedestrians".

  Shared use facilities can have a role to play in providing improved facilities for cyclists but in the main they are best suited to lightly trafficked pedestrian areas, to links in cycle routes or where facilities for cyclists cannot be provided on the road. The conversion of footways and footpaths should not be introduced at the expense of pedestrians and should not be seen as area wide solution to providing improved facilities for cyclists. Local highway authorities should always consult widely on any such proposals at an early stage.

  Electric Cars
  Mr. Sheerman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many recharging points for electric cars there are in (a) car parks and (b) on the street in (i) the UK, (ii) Kirklees, (iii) west Yorkshire and (iv) London. [178104]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  According to information from the Energy Saving Trust, there are 16 car park recharging points in London but at present no on street charging points. Across the rest of the UK, there are no public recharging facilities although there are a number of private charge points for commercial and city council fleet vehicles.

  Flight Time Limitations
  Mr. Lazarowicz:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what his policy is regarding the proposed subparts of JAR-OPS parts 1 & 3 on Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements (Subpart Q) contained within the proposals now being considered by the European Council of Ministers on flight time limitations in Europe; [177610]

  (2) what representations he has made to the European Council of Ministers regarding the proposals for flight time limitations in Europe; [177611]

  (3) what representations he has received from the Civil Aviation Authority regarding the proposed flight time limitations; and what assessment he has made of the proposals before the European Council of Ministers. [177612]

  Mr. McNulty:
  JAR-OPS 1 and 3 do not contain any requirements on flight and duty time limits as the Joint Aviation Authorities were unable to agree requirements when they were adopted in 1996. The draft Regulation currently under consideration transposes JAR-OPS 1 into Community law, together with flight and duty time requirements proposed by the European Parliament in September 2002.

  We recognise the need for harmonised flight and duty limits to ensure a high level of safety and a level playing field in the single aviation market. We can therefore support the proposal provided that it achieves an acceptable level of safety. The Civil Aviation Authority has reviewed the proposal and advises that while the proposal in its original form was unacceptable, with a number of relatively small amendments it could form an acceptable baseline European flight time limitation requirement, supported by additional requirements in

  697W
  each member state. We have subsequently worked with our European colleagues to agree suitable amendments to the proposal. The CAA is satisfied that, the current text of the proposal taken as a whole will allow it to ensure an acceptable level of safety for UK airlines.

  Greenaway Review
  Mr. Grogan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to respond to the Greenaway review into the motor insurance industry. [177441]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  We are currently studying Professor Greenaway's report on uninsured driving and his recommendations. We will be publishing the report together with the Government response as soon as possible.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Drew:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the implementation of UN/ECE 48 and UN/ECE 104 with regard to conspicuity marking on heavy goods vehicles; [178456]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the heavy goods vehicle industry on the introduction of conspicuity marking. [178457]

  Mr. Jamieson:
  Conspicuity markings conforming to UNECE Regulation 104 are now an optional requirement for vehicles approved to UNECE Regulation 48. Fitment is already permitted in the UK provided they comply with the colour requirements but, as they are optional in UNECE 48, the Government could not unilaterally mandate them.

  A German proposal has been made to the UNECE working party on Lighting and Signalling to mandate UNECE 104 tape in UNECE 48 for all new vehicles over 12 tonnes. The Department of Transport will need to weigh up the road safety benefits and the costs before reaching a view on the proposal.

  A current European Commission study is investigating the costs and benefits of fitting the tape to new and existing heavy vehicles. The Department will also be commissioning research to provide an updated cost-benefit analysis for the UK.

  Representations have been received from both the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association.

  Local Transport Plan
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public funding has been spent in Crosby from the Local Transport Plan. [177945]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The borough of Sefton forms part of the Merseyside joint Local Transport Plan (LTP) area. £28 million of the total Merseyside LTP funding allocated since 2000 went directly to Sefton MBC. An unspecified proportion of the £82 million allocated to Merseytravel over the same period has been or will be spent on transport improvements in Sefton.

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

  North London Line
  Jon Cruddas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a copy of the joint Strategic Rail Authority/Transport for London/Docklands Light Railway study assessing options for future use of the North London Line between Canning Town and Stratford. [176287]

  Mr. McNulty
  This report was commissioned by the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London and remains incomplete. Some further work is being done and the joint sponsors will consider publication when this is complete.

  Rail Services (Rochdale)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effect of investment in railway improvements over the next 10 years upon residents of the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale. [178561]

  Mr. McNulty
  Residents of Rochdale will benefit from the new TransPennine Express franchise, which commenced in February. The franchise secures investment of around £260 million, which will include the introduction of a new fleet of 100 mph diesel trains leading to increased capacity, improved service quality and performance across the region. A new Northern franchise, which will include local and regional services through Rochdale, has been tendered competitively. Work continues on the West Coast Main Line upgrade, which will see a reduction in journey times on services to/from the North West and an increase in service frequency.

  Railways (Investment)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total private sector investment in the rail industry that has been indirectly funded by the public sector through franchise payments and access charges has been in each financial year since 1996–97. [177210]

  Mr. McNulty
  Details of annual levels of rail investment and subsidy are set out in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 of the September 2003 edition of the Strategic Rail Authority's quarterly statistics bulletin "National Rail Trends", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All investment recorded in Table 5.2, for each year since 1996–97, is private sector investment, but the investment funded by direct grants to Railtrack, Network Rail and London and Continental Railways in 2001–02 and 2002–03 was directly funded by the public sector. The amount of investment funded indirectly by the public sector cannot be accurately assessed because, for example, some access charges are paid by unsubsidised train operators.

  Rolling Stock
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new rail rolling stock vehicles have been ordered since 1997; and of these, how many have been(a) wholly manufactured in the UK and (b) wholly manufactured abroad. [177098]
  699W
  Mr. McNulty
  It is rare for railway rolling stock to be built wholly in a single country using only components also manufactured wholly within that country. However, of the 4,433 passenger-carrying railway vehicles ordered since 1997, 3,332 (75 per cent.) have been or are being built by UK-based manufacturers. All the remaining 1,101 vehicles are likely to incorporate at least some UK-manufactured components.

  Tractor Drivers
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what class of driving licence is required by tractor drivers who are(a) contractors or their employees and (b) farm workers. [178094]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The category of entitlement required of tractor drivers is determined by the nature of the work for which the vehicle is being used.

  Category F entitlement covers farm workers driving tractors mainly off road and in connection with agricultural or forestry work. If tractors are driven solely off road on private farmland no driving licence is required.

  If a tractor is used for any other purpose and is driven primarily on the road, depending on its weight, category B (car), category Cl (medium goods vehicle) or category C (large goods vehicle) entitlement is required. More detailed information is provided in leaflet D100, available from post offices and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) local offices.

  Transport (South-east Hampshire)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies are under way to identify transport problems and solutions in south east Hampshire; and what their completion dates are. [177282]

  Mr. McNulty
  Consultants have recently completed a scoping study to consider the strategic role of the A34 transport corridor from south Hampshire to the Midlands. The final report was published on 14 April and copies a re available on the Government Office for the South East website www.go-se.gov.uk.

  As part of the work associated with the development of the South East Plan local authorities have completed an initial piece of work aimed at identifying issues, including transport, that may need to be addressed on a sub-regional basis within south east Hampshire. This work was commissioned by the South East England Regional Assembly.

  Hampshire county council, as the local highway authority, will be responsible for other more local transport studies.

  West Coast Mainline
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a commitment that full local services, of at least the same frequency as existed in the winter 2003–04 timetable, will be reinstated upon the West Coast mainline by May 2005. [177710]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) intends that the timetables for local services on the West Coast Main Line will be restored when the West Coast 700W
  Route Modernisation works are completed and when driver training and rolling stock enhancements for Central Trains services are completed. This is currently estimated to be in May 2005. The level of service will be substantially that in the winter 2003–04 timetable but the SRA will be discussing with stakeholders changes to these timetables to reflect developments in travel patterns.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cattle Diseases
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cattle tested positive for(a) brucellosis and (b) tuberculosis in Northern Ireland in 2003. [R] [178386]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information is as follows.

  (a) In 2003, a total of 743 cattle tested positive for brucellosis in Northern Ireland.

  (b) In 2003, a total of 16,066 cattle tested positive for tuberculosis in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much compensation was paid to farmers for cattle removed from farms in Northern Ireland due to(a) brucellosis control and (b) tuberculosis control in 2003. [R] [178387]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information is as follows.

  (a) In 2003, compensation payments issued to farmers for cattle removed from farms in Northern Ireland due to brucellosis totalled £9.2 million.

  (b) In 2003, compensation payments issued to farmers for cattle removed from farms in Northern Ireland due to tuberculosis totalled £16.7 million.

  Flags
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what flags his Department has directed should be flown from police stations in Northern Ireland; and on what designated days. [178402]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Police Emblems and Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 set out what flags may be flown from police stations. A copy of the Regulations is available in the Library of the House.

  It is for the Chief Constable to decide when the service flag may be flown. I am given to understand that the flag is flown daily only at PSNI Headquarters Brooklyn and PSNI Training Centre Garnerville. Requests for the use of the service flag for any other reason or purpose including use at or on any other part of the PSNI estate is decided on an individual basis by the Chief Constable's Office.

  Long Service Medals
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the(a) venue, (b) seniority of presenting officers and (c) arrangements for accompanying families are for (i) regular officers and (ii) full-time reserve officers receiving Police Service of Northern Ireland long service medals. [178233]
  701W
  Mr. Pearson
  All presentation ceremonies for the Long Service and Good Conduct medal take place at the PSNI Training College at Garnerville.

  In respect of regular officers, the Long Service and Good Conduct medals are presented by the Chief Constable or, in his absence, the Deputy Chief Constable. Families are invited at the choice of the recipient.

  No medals have been presented to full-time reserve officers since the service name changed in November 2001. The Royal Warrant is currently being revised to allow for the issue of the 'Police Reserve Long Service Medal'. The format of the presentation ceremonies is currently being considered.

  Marches/Parades
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what mechanisms are in place to implement security assessments relating to marches and parades and their public order implications; and what advice he has received on this matter. [177190]

  Mr. Pearson
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is kept informed of the current situation with regard to the forthcoming marching season. There is no information which would suggest this marching season will be significantly different from 2003. The policing of parades is an operational issue which is entirely a matter for the Chief Constable.

  Police Service
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many serving Police Service of Northern Ireland officers have relatives with criminal convictions; and for what offence in each case. [176686]

  Mr. Pearson
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Widows
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding has been made available from the Police Fund to police widows whose husbands were killed on duty prior to 1981 in non-terrorist incidents; and how many individuals this involved. [173597]

  Mr. Pearson
  In accordance with the scope and recommendations contained in the Steele Report, the Northern Ireland Police Fund does not ordinarily make any direct grant assistance to police widows whose husbands were killed on duty prior to 1981 in non-terrorist incidents.

  However, the Steele Report also recommended that the Police Fund should assume the responsibility for the £1,000 that the RUC Benevolent Funds pays annually to each widow who was bereaved prior to 25 November 1982. It has transpired that the list, administered by the RUC Benevolent Fund, includes 11 widows whose husbands were killed on duty in non-terrorist incidents. Thus the Police Fund has indirectly provided funding to these widows totalling –33,000.
  702W
  While these widows will continue to be eligible to receive their annual award from the RUC Benevolent Fund, I have been advised that the Police Fund are taking steps to recoup this over-payment from the RUC Benevolent Fund.

  Real IRA
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he plans to amend Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 in the light of the ruling on 26 May by Mr. Justice Girvan in the case of Mullan and others. [177393]

  Mr. Pearson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on 8 June 2004,Official Report, column 343W.

CABINET OFFICE

  Better Regulation Taskforce
  Andrew George
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment his Department's Better Regulation Taskforce has made of the cost to(a) each of the local authorities in Cornwall and (b) the Council of the Isles of Scilly of meeting its obligation of monitoring, inspection, reviews and assessment by, for (i) the Audit Plan, (ii) the Audit Commission, (iii) the Social Services Inspectorate, (iv) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools, (v) Ofsted, (vi) the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate, (vii) Best Value, (viii) comprehensive programme assessments, (ix) the preparation of statutory plans/strategies and (x) other inspections and reviews. [176731]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The Better Regulation Taskforce does not make an assessment of costs to any individual local authority. Its terms of reference are to advise the Government on action to ensure that regulation and its enforcement meet the principles of good regulation. The taskforce's principles—which the Government fully supports—are proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and targeting. More information on these principles and on the work of the taskforce can be found on the Task Force's website at www.brtf.gov.uk

  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate the Better Regulation Taskforce has made of the costs to(a) Waverley borough council and (b) Surrey county council of their obligations to monitoring, inspection, reviews and assessment required by central Government, their agencies and commissions. [177221]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Better Regulation Taskforce does not make assessments of costs on any individual local authority. Its terms of reference are to advise the Government on action to ensure that regulation and its enforcement meet the principles of good regulation. The taskforce's principles—which the Government fully support—are proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and targeting. More information on these principles and on the work of the taskforce can be found on the task force's website at www.brtf.gov.uk.
  703W
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many civil servants were recruited in each of the last six months. [177194]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: Information on numbers of civil servants recruited in each of the last six months is not held centrally but only by individual Departments and i heir agencies. This information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  A breakdown of numbers of civil servants recruited is published annually in Civil Service Statistics. Civil Service Statistics are available in the Library and at www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics.

  Computer File Formats
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what his Department's policy is in respect of the computer file formats used for the(a) distribution and (b) archiving of publicly available documents. [173357]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office's policy is to meet the Government Web Guidelines. This states that documents be made available on the Internet wherever possible in the following formats:

  Hypertext Markup Language

  Portable Document Format

  Microsoft Word format

  Rich Text Format

  Plain Text Format

  Comma Separated Variable format (for spreadsheets)

  Microsoft Excel format (for spreadsheets)

  The archiving of Cabinet Office web information has been addressed by the creation of an "archive section". This is now publicly available at http://archive. cabinetoffice.gov.uk and has been created in compliance with the latest version of the Office of the e-Envoy Guidelines. Again, wherever possible, documents are available in the formats listed above.

  This archive is an extension of the National Archive's UK Central Government Web Archive initiative which deals with cross-Government "web harvesting". Further details on this can be found at http://www. pro. gov.uk/webarchive/default. htm

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what mechanisms exist to distinguish between those matters which are his Department's responsibilities and those which are directly those of the Prime Minister. [176655]

  Mr. Alexander
  The allocation of ministerial portfolios is a matter for the Prime Minister. Details are set out in the "List of Ministerial Responsibilities", copies of which are available in the Library.

  EU Legislation
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the occasions when representations have been made to his Department highlighting possible over-implementation of EU legislation, stating in each 704W
  instance (a) the EU directive, (b) the individual or organisation making the representation and (c) the aspect of over-implementation; and if he will make a statement on the Government's response. [177735]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The Cabinet Office maintains a close dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders on the handling of European legislation. The Cabinet Office does not hold records of all the discussions that have taken place, which might have included representations on over-implementation.

  Representations on the possible over-implementation of individual EU directives would usually have been made to the Department responsible for consulting on and introducing the implementing legislation.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if he will list the travel costs incurred by(a) his Department and (b) each Minister within his Department for each of the last 10 years; [175650]

  (2) how many journeys were made by helicopter by each Minister in his Department and its predecessors in each of the last 10 years; and what the journey length was in each case. [175730]

  Mr. Alexander
  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 reports contain 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

  In respect of domestic travel, owing to changes in the accounting system within the Cabinet Office, the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Older People
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office for what(a) initiatives, (b) campaigns and (c) advisory bodies relating to older people his Department (i) is responsible and (ii) has provided funding since 2001; and what the cost in each year was for each one. [166239]

  Mr. Alexander
  As part of its commitment to provide internet access to all the Office of the e-Envoy (OeE) ran a national 'Get Started' campaign in June 2003, to promote internet access among primarily disadvantaged groups including older people. Nearly 37,000 people took advantage of a free internet starter session and the OeE's partnership with Age Concern was particularly effective introducing over 11,000 older people to the internet. £1 million was spent on the Get Started Campaign.
  705W
  The Directgov site (www.direct.gov.uk), managed by the OeE, brings together information about government services into one place. There is a section with information especially targeted at the over 50s. These include information on health and well-being, employment, pensions and education.

  Opinion Research
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will place in the Library Government guidelines on the publication and use of opinion research by Government Departments. [177670]

  Mr. Alexander
  Opinion research is used by Government Departments to assess public response to the policies or services for which the Department is responsible, to develop policy and track delivery. Publication is a matter for individual Departments.

  The propriety of this work is covered by the Civil Service Code, and if appropriate, the Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service which is available in the Library.

  Good practice guidance on the technical aspects of social research and evaluation in policy making is currently being prepared and will be published on The Policy Hub (www.policyhub.gov.uk). Some chapters are available already. A full copy of the guidance will be placed in the Library once it is completed. Advice is also available from professional social researchers working in most Departments and where necessary they can consult the Government's Chief Social Researcher.

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) how many(a) ordinary written and (b) named day questions his Department received in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) this parliamentary session, broken down by month; [171174]

  (2) what proportion of (a) ordinary written questions to his Department were answered within five sitting days of tabling, and (b) questions for written answer on a named day received a substantive answer on that day in (a) the 2002–03 parliamentary session and (b) this parliamentary session, broken down by month. [171175]

  Mr. Alexander
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  We endeavour to answer all parliamentary questions within the parliamentary deadlines whenever possible. In addition I refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 3 March 2004, Official Report, column 907W.

  Month

  Number due for answer

  Number answered on day named

  Percentage answered on day named

  Named day parliamentary questions

  Session 2002–03

  November 2002

  11

  11

  100

  December 2002

  7

  7

  100

  January 2003

  21

  14

  67

  February 2003

  5

  4

  80

  March 2003

  9

  7

  78

  April 2003

  1

  1

  100

  May 2003

  2

  1

  50

  706W

  Month

  Number due for answer

  Number answered on day named

  Percentage answered on day named

  June 2003

  7

  7

  100

  July 2003

  5

  5

  100

  September 2003

  —

  —

  —

  October 2003

  4

  4

  100

  November 2003

  2

  1

  50

  Total

  74

  62

  84

  Session 2003–04

  December 2003

  3

  1

  33

  January 2004

  9

  3

  33

  February 2004

  6

  6

  100

  March 2004

  12

  11

  92

  April2004

  4

  4

  100

  Total

  34

  25

  74

  Month

  Number due for answer

  Number answered within five working days

  Percentage answered within five working days

  Ordinary written parliamentary questions

  Session 2002–03

  November 2002

  6

  6

  100

  December 2002

  30

  24

  80

  January 2003

  54

  29

  54

  February 2003

  26

  14

  54

  March 2003

  50

  31

  62

  April 2003

  41

  18

  44

  May 2003

  37

  9

  24

  June 2003

  31

  17

  55

  July 2003

  25

  9

  36

  September 2003

  19

  13

  68

  October 2003

  19

  12

  63

  November 2003

  17

  13

  76

  Total

  355

  195

  55

  Session 2003–04

  December 2003

  15

  11

  73

  January 2004

  43

  23

  53

  February 2004

  25

  21

  84

  March 2004

  117

  90

  77

  April2004

  31

  9

  29

  Total

  231

  154

  67

  Public Service Reform
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff have been seconded by Deloitte to advise the Government on public service reform; and on how many contracts arising from that work Deloitte have been designated as a preferred bidder. [175102]

  Mr. Alexander
  Three staff were seconded from Deloitte to work in public service reform units. Two of these staff were seconded to the Department while working for Arthur Andersen, but subsequently became Deloitte employees, following a corporate take-over in August 2002. No contracts have been awarded to Deloitte as a result of those secondments.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidelines his Department has issued in relation to Ministers signing off regulatory impact assessments in which the estimated benefits do not outweigh the estimated costs.[178662]
  707W
  Mr. Alexander
  The guidelines on ministerial sign-off of regulatory impact assessments are set out in the Cabinet Office guidance, 'Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment'. This is available in the Library or on the Cabinet Office's website at www.cabinet-Office.gov.uk/regulation/riaguidance/

  Web Accessibility
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment has been made of the percentage of disabled people who will be able to access all Government services electronically by 2005. [177024]

  Mr. Alexander
  There are currently no figures on the number of disabled people using online services. The Government recognise that basic access to technology is a problem for many disabled people and the importance of not excluding any citizens who wish to use our online services.

  A number of initiatives have been established like the 6,000 UK Online centres, with 25 per cent., of these having practical equipment to assist the disabled in getting online.

  By implementing the World Wide Web Consortiums (W3C), Web Accessibility initiative (WAI), Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and standard usability practices, we are endeavouring to make our online services as accessible and usable as currently practical. A copy of the "Web Accessibility Guidelines" has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what Government guidelines cover the provision of information in(a) British Sign Language and (b) Easy Read for people with learning disabilities on Government Departments' and agencies' websites. [177022]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government published "Let's make it accessible: Improving Government information for disabled people" in 2001 to help Government Departments and agencies to develop strategies to meet the information needs of their disabled customers. It recommends that Departments and agencies should adopt a good practice approach and that information should be user-friendly and accessible to disabled people. The guidance covers the potential needs of people with a range of impairments, including people who are learning disabled or who are profoundly deaf and use British Sign Language as their first language. It also suggests a range of methods for making information accessible to disabled people.

  The Guidelines for UK Government websites (published 2002) and the Quality Framework for UK Government Website Design (published 2003) require government websites to implement the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Accessibility Initiative. We are not aware of a standard meaning for the term Easy Read and no recognised guidance on how to implement it on websites. We are currently reviewing a number of commercial applications that may improve website access to users with learning difficulties.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans his Department has to raise awareness in the public and private sectors and in the relevant 708W
  professional groups of (a) the web accessibility needs of disabled people and (b) the cost of meeting those needs. [177023]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has published the 'Guidelines for UK Government Websites', which provides extensive guidance to government web managers and their contractors on making websites accessible to people with disabilities. Copies are available in the Library. We work closely with external organisations such as the RNIB and RNID.

  Following the publication of the Disability Rights Commission report on web accessibility in April 2004 officials have been in discussion with the Commission on the issues of raising awareness and associated costs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Butler Inquiry
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 17 May 2004,Official Report, columns 748–49W, on Iraq, how many infringements of section 30, points 2 and 13, of Coalition Provisional Authority memorandum No. 2 (CPA/ORD/30 May 2003/09) have been reported to the CPA; and what action has been taken. [175772]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Iraqi Correction Service (ICS) has had difficulties in the past with informing family members of the location of criminal detainees. The CPA Senior Advisor for Prisons has facilitated the provision of information to detainees' families. The ICS now requires that prisoners are only accepted with judicial orders that make the prisoner's status clear and then action is taken in accordance with Point 13.

  Advisers/Consultants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on external consultants and advisers in each of the last three years. [172433]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) expenditure on consultants is published annually in our departmental report. The latest available figures are as follows:

  £

  FCO

  British Council

  Wilton Park Executive Agency

  2000–01

  17,900

  2,397

  4

  2001–02

  20,100

  2,280

  4

  2002–03

  23,700

  1,959

  12

  These figures cover consulting roles e.g. advice on major estate and ICT projects and management consultancy. The increase in 2002–03 over the previous year is accounted for by expenditure on improving the efficiency of our internal service providers.
  709W
  Our target for these efficiency savings is to reduce direct costs by £7 million over the next two years, and to enable an extra £8 million to £10 million worth of benefits for the FCO more widely from improved procurement from the year 2005–06 onwards.

  Colombia
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received about the role of the Colombian armed forces in the killing of civilians in the communities of Flor Amarillo and Cravo Charo in the Colombian department of Araunca on 21 May 2004; and if he will make a statement. [177693]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are aware of the allegations of involvement by the Colombian armed forces in these incidents. Our embassy in Bogota has raised our concerns with the Colombian authorities and is pressing them to provide further details. We consistently urge the Colombian authorities to crack down on any reported cases of human rights abuses by the security forces or of collusion with the illegal armed groups.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights abuses in Colombia, with particular reference to the treatment of trade unionists. [178000]

  Mr. Rammell
  Human rights abuses in Colombia remain unacceptably high, although we have seen a decline in recent years in the numbers of cases. We are very concerned about abuses against all vulnerable groups, including trades unionists. We are engaged in an on-going dialogue with the Government of Colombia, the UN, EU and other international partners and civil society groups on how to improve the human rights situation in Colombia. As I made clear to the House on 23 March 2004,Official Report, columns 237–41WH, human rights are at the heart of our policy towards Colombia. The issue will be at the top of the agenda for discussion with the Colombians when I visit the country later this month. Rory Murphy of the TUC is due to be with me during that visit.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of kidnapping occurring in Colombia; and what discussions he has had with the Colombian authorities on this. [178001]

  Mr. Rammell
  The level of kidnapping in Colombia, a serious human rights abuse, remains alarmingly and unacceptably high, even though 2003 saw an estimated decrease to 2,200 from 2,986 in 2002. Illegal armed groups and criminal gangs are largely responsible for the kidnaps, presenting a huge challenge for the Colombian security forces. We have worked closely with the Colombian authorities in individual cases of kidnapped British nationals. We support the Colombian Government in the efforts they are making to bring peace and security to the country, while urging them to do so in full observance of international human rights standards.

  Cuba
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has 710W
  made of the impact of US sanctions against Cuba; and what representations he has made to the US Administration about the most effective means of promoting transition to a pluralist democracy in Cuba. [178841]

  Mr. Rammell
  We do not believe that sanctions offer the most effective means of promoting the transition to a pluralist democracy in Cuba. Our position, which is well understood by the US Administration, is one of constructive engagement and dialogue. This is clearly set out in the EU's Common Position on Cuba which was adopted in 1996, and which has been regularly reaffirmed since.

  Deaths (British Citizens)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each country in which more than five British citizens were killed or murdered between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. [177606]

  Mr. Mullin
  The countries in which more than five British Citizens were killed or murdered between 1999–2000 and 2001–02 are as follows:

  Country

  Murdered

  Killed

  Total

  1999–2000

  Spain

  5

  91

  96

  South Africa

  5

  34

  39

  USA

  5

  29

  34

  Greece

  —

  22

  22

  France

  2

  16

  18

  Cyprus

  1

  13

  14

  Thailand

  —

  11

  11

  Turkey

  —

  9

  9

  Pakistan

  8

  —

  8

  Italy

  1

  7

  8

  Australia

  —

  8

  8

  Portugal

  —

  8

  8

  Germany

  2

  4

  6

  Libya

  —

  5

  5

  2000–01

  Spain

  5

  57

  62

  USA

  4

  25

  29

  France

  —

  26

  26

  Greece

  —

  18

  18

  South Africa

  6

  10

  16

  Australia

  —

  16

  16

  Cyprus

  1

  14

  15

  Thailand

  3

  8

  11

  Netherlands

  1

  9

  10

  Italy

  1

  6

  7

  Ireland

  —

  6

  6

  Belgium

  —

  6

  6

  Switzerland

  —

  5

  5

  Malawi

  —

  5

  5

  Austria

  1

  4

  5

  Kenya

  —

  5

  5

  2001–02

  USA

  70

  4

  74

  Spain

  3

  48

  51

  France

  6

  40

  46

  Netherlands

  2

  13

  15

  Cyprus

  —

  13

  13

  Australia

  —

  13

  13

  South Africa

  6

  5

  11

  Turkey

  3

  8

  11

  Greece

  —

  11

  11

  711W

  Country

  Murdered

  Killed

  Total

  Belgium

  —

  9

  9

  Germany

  —

  8

  8

  Italy

  —

  8

  8

  India

  2

  4

  6

  New Zealand

  —

  6

  6

  Kenya

  2

  3

  5

  Pakistan

  3

  2

  5

  Cuba

  —

  5

  5

  Consular statistics are compiled on a yearly basis from April to March.

  Iran
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Iran over the arrests and indiscriminate detention of students in the country. [177717]

  Mr. Rammell
  Ministers have on a number of occasions discussed with their Iranian counterparts the Iranian authorities' treatment of student demonstrators. EU Foreign Ministers made clear their deep concern at the arrest of several thousand students during the most recent large-scale demonstrations in July 2003. The EU has raised our concerns about individual student detainees in sessions of the EU/Iran human rights dialogue.

  Iraq
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what involvement his Department will have in negotiating the use of Iraqi oil assets. [177889]

  Mr. Rammell
  United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR 1546) of 8 June 2004 reaffirms the right of the Iraqi people to exercise full authority and control over their financial and natural resources from 30 June 2004.

  UNSCR 1483 of 22 May 2003 determined that revenue from the sale of Iraq's oil is to be paid into the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI). As determined in UNSCR 1546, upon dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) on 30 June, funds in the DFI will be disbursed solely at the discretion of the Government of Iraq. DFI funds are to be used in a transparent and equitable manner through the Iraqi budget to benefit the Iraqi people Before this time, as determined in UNSCR 1483, DFI funds are to be disbursed at the discretion of the CPA, in consultation with the Iraqi Interim Administration.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reference the draft United Nations resolution on Iraq recently proposed by the United Kingdom and the United States makes to paragraph 20 of Resolution 1483; what the implications of this is for(a) payments required to be made by Iraq and (b) payments required to be made to Kuwait; and if he will make a statement. [178142]

  Mr. Rammell
  United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1546, adopted unanimously on 8 June 2004, provides for the continuation of the 712W
  arrangements for the sale, audit, and handling of proceeds to the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), as established in paragraph 20 of UNSCR 1483.

  UNSCR 1546 also provides for the continued payment of five per cent. of Iraq's oil revenues into the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) Fund, as established in paragraph 21 of UNSCR 1483. The conditions for the review of this arrangement remain as in UNSCR 1483, i.e. the current arrangements continue unless an internationally recognised, sovereign Government of Iraq and the Governing Council of the UNCC decide otherwise.

  The remaining 95 per cent. of Iraq's oil revenues will continue to be handled through the DFI, and will continue to enjoy the privileges and immunities given to it under UNSCR 1483. The Iraqi Interim Government will have sole control over disbursements from the DFI.

  Kuwait, and other states, whose claims against Iraq as a result of the 1990 invasion of Kuwait are accepted by the UNCC, will continue to receive the compensation due to them. This arrangement is subject to change only if the conditions for reviewing the five per cent. transfer of oil revenues to the UNCC—as outlined above—are met.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the statement of 7 June 2004,Official Report, column 31, on Iraq, when he expects to receive the results from the US Administration of their investigation into the deaths at Makr-al-Deel on 18 to 19 May. [178869]

  Mr. Rammell
  The US investigation into the deaths at Makr-al-Deel continues. We have no indication of when it will be completed.

  Korea
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of recent initiatives to open up new road and rail links between North and South Korea; and what contribution the Government are making to this process. [177999]

  Mr. Rammell
  We welcome constructive efforts by North and South Korea to promote normal communications between the two countries. The opening of road and rail links is a positive development but, as a bilateral issue between those two countries, the Government have made no contribution.

  Libya
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the United Nations the issue of compensation by Libya for victims of their sponsored terrorism in the United Kingdom. [176404]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are no plans to raise this issue in the United Nations at this time.

  Sudan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the Secretary of State for International Development's letter of
  713W
  25 May 2004 to the hon. Member for Buckingham, what the response was of the Sudanese Foreign Minister to the representations made to him about the activities of the Janjaweed militias in Darfur. [177385]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn), and I pressed the Sudanese Foreign Minister on the need to rein in the Janjaweed militias when he visited London on 11 May. The Sudanese Foreign Minister agreed, and said that his Government was taking steps to disarm these militias, and to reintegrate them into society. In the longer term he saw a political settlement as the best way to ensure a sustainable solution to the problems in Darfur.

  During his visit to Sudan on 6 to 8 June the Secretary of State for International Development pressed the First Vice-President, among others, on the need to rein in the Janjaweed militias.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the Secretary of State for International Development's letter of 25 May 2004 to the hon. Member for Buckingham, if he will list the issues of detail to be determined for progress to be made from the framework agreement between the Sudanese Government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement to the comprehensive peace agreement envisaged for the parties. [177402]

  Mr. Mullin
  The principal remaining tasks are agreements on ceasefire and security arrangements and on the modalities of implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Ceasefire Monitoring Commission on Sudan to begin its work. [177403]

  Mr. Mullin
  The AU-led Ceasefire Commission for Darfur has now started to deploy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) met members of this Commission in Darfur on 7 June. We hope that the bulk of this deployment will be completed in the next few weeks. We are currently working to identify a suitable British candidate to join the Ceasefire Commission and have already made a financial contribution of £2 million.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what dialogue the British Government have had with the(a) Sur, (b) Masalit and (c) Zaghawa ethnic groups in the Darfur area of Sudan. [178003]

  Mr. Mullin
  We try to maintain regular contact with all Darfur groups, and in particular those affected by the conflict. Our embassy in Khartoum have met with members of each of these three groups.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what monitoring the British Government are undertaking of outrages in Darfur, Sudan; [178004]

  (2) what British representation there will be in the numbers of military observers pledged to maintain the ceasefire in Darfur, Sudan. [178018]
  714W
  Mr. Mullin
  We see the deployment of the African Union (AU) ceasefire monitoring team as key to improving the security situation and addressing civilian protection. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development met with military observers from the AU team during his visit to Darfur on 7 June. The AU plan to deploy a full team of 120 observers as quickly as possible. The UK will contribute one of the six observers requested from the EU, and we hope other contributing nations will send their observers soon. The Government of Sudan have promised full support for the monitors, and the UK has provided £2 million to help the AU team to set up. In addition, the UN plan to deploy human rights monitors throughout Darfur with UK financial support.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action his Department is taking to help resolve the situation in Sudan through the United Nations and prevent further human rights abuses. [178105]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Jim Cunningham) on 10 June 2004 (UIN 176616).

  Surveys
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what surveys of public perceptions of his Department and of its areas of responsibility have taken place over the last 12 months; what the(a) title and (b) nature of these surveys was; what the findings of each survey were; where these findings have been published; what the cost of such surveys was; and if he will make a statement and place copies of the surveys in the Library. [176942]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with UK Trade and Investment, the British Council and Visit Britain, jointly commissioned an International Tracking Study, comprising opinion poll research carried out in October 2003 in 15 countries, which benchmarked attitudes towards the UK against key competitors. The costs were shared jointly by the four organisations, and amounted to £64,000 each. We are placing the report of the findings in the Library of the House. In addition to this quantitative survey, we have also conducted some qualitative research (primarily relatively low-cost focus groups) to help target our public diplomacy activities.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Alvis Plc
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Office of Fair Trading's investigation into the proposed takeover of Alvis plc by General Dynamics Corporation will be complete; and why the proposed takeover of Alvis plc by General Dynamics Corporation was referred to the Office of Fair Trading. [177779]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I asked the Office of Fair Trading to look at the merger as I believed that the interests of national security may be relevant to the proposed acquisition. I announced on 3 June that I had decided
  715W
  not to refer to the Competition Commission the proposed acquisition of Alvis plc by General Dynamics Corporation, provided the parties give undertakings to remedy the public security concerns arising in this case. The effect of the undertakings proposed would be that General Dynamics Corporation would be required to take certain measures to enable the UK to maintain its strategic capabilities and protect classified information and the intellectual property rights of the Ministry of Defence.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new businesses have started up in Bootle since 1997. [176526]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays Bank's latest survey of business creation includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start-ups in England and Wales, including 500 in Sefton local authority (which contains the constituency of Bootle), in the fourth quarter of 2003. The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start-ups in. England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before. There were 2,200 business start-ups in Sefton local authority in 2003. Data for local authorities are not available for before 2003,

  DTI figures based solely on VAT registrations for Sefton local authority (for which Bootle is a constituency) for the period 1997 to 2002 are shown in the table. Data for 2003 will be available in autumn 2004.

  VAT registrations: Sefton local authority 1997 to 2002

  Number

  1997

  570

  1998

  585

  1999

  565

  2000

  545

  2001

  580

  2002

  560

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994–2002, Small Business Service.

  VAT registrations do not capture all start-up activity. Businesses are unlikely to be registered if they fall below the compulsory VAT threshold, which has risen in each year since 1997. Similarly, businesses that de-register will not necessarily have closed. Only 1.8 million out of 3.8 million enterprises were registered for VAT at the start of 2002.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new businesses have started up in Stoke-on-Trent, North since 1997. [177620]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays Bank's latest survey of business creation includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start ups in England and Wales, including 200 in Stoke-on-Trent Unitary Authority and 1,300 in Staffordshire county (which both contain part of the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, North), in the last guarter of 2003. Data for local authorities are not available for before 2003.
  716W
  The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before.

  DTI figures based solely on VAT registrations for Stoke-on-Trent Unitary Authority and Staffordshire Moorlands local authority (which both contain part of the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, North) are shown in the following table for the period 1997 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in autumn 2004.

  VAT Registrations

  Stoke-on-Trent Unitary Authority

  Staffordshire Moorlands Local Authority

  1997

  470

  235

  1998

  440

  235

  1999

  475

  250

  2000

  475

  235

  2001

  455

  205

  2002

  450

  265

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994–2002, Small Business Service, available from www.sbs.gov.uk/analytical/statistics/vatstats.php. The figures are also in the Libraries of the house.

  VAT registrations do not capture all start-up activity. Businesses are unlikely to be registered if they fall below the compulsory VAT threshold, which has risen in each year since 1997. Similarly, businesses that de-register will not necessarily have closed. Only 1.8 million out of 3.8 million enterprises were registered for VAT at the start of 2002.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government have taken to help small businesses in Stoke-on-Trent, North since 1997. [177621]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Business Link Operator for Staffordshire, Staffordshire Business Support Ltd., has provided assistance to 1,144 enterprises, in the Stoke-on-Trent, North 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 (six in the West Midlands) 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 this data.

  73 of the 1,145 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.

  95 of the companies were Female run businesses and 392 were ethnic run businesses.

  Since April 2000 the Enterprise Grant scheme (which closed on 31 March 2004) enabled 12 companies to receive offers of grant with a total value of £430,000.

  Since 1997 the Research and Development scheme and its predecessor Smart enabled two local companies to receive offers of grant with a total value of £90,000.

  Business Support
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses have been helped by the London Development Agency in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in each year from 2000; what the average sum of money received by these businesses is; how many of the businesses helped are still operating; and how many of these businesses have increased their profitability. [177128]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The London Development Agency's (LDA) performance is assessed by the Mayor and Government against a framework of key targets, including the number of businesses created/attracted/retained/expanded,1 and the number of business interventions.2 The following table summarises the total number of businesses created/attracted/retained/expanded as a direct result of LDA activities from March 2001. The LDA did not collect data along these lines in 2000–01. Figures cannot be accurately generated for each London borough, as the businesses assisted are not necessarily based in only one location.

  1New businesses starting full time operation within the region and sustained for at least 12 months or business retained within the region as a result of direct activity. Expansion refers to an increase in the workforce of at least 5 per cent.

  2 The provision of non-financial support to businesses.

  Reporting year

  LDA target

  Outputs achieved

  2001–02

  1,785

  2,073

  2002–03

  990

  1,368

  The business interventions target was introduced for 2003–04. Performance data for 2003–04 will be published in July 2004 by the GLA and the Department for Trade and Industry.

  Because much of the support that the LDA gives to business is indirect and is not in the form of financial subsidy, the LDA does not collect figures on the average sum of money received by businesses.

  Apart from the data needed to monitor whether businesses added to the regional economy have been in operation for at least 12 months, the LDA does not collate statistics on the number of businesses it has supported continuing to be in operation, nor on their profitability.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been allocated to support businesses in London in each of the last 10 years, broken down by(a) sector and (b) borough. [177178]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Information on the allocation of business support is not readily available at a sector and borough level, and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what international research her Department has commissioned concerning state support for business development by sector; and if she will place the results in the Library. [177179]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In 2001 DTI commissioned a study, 'People as Vectors of Technological Capability in Technology, Knowledge and Skills Transfer Schemes'. The emphasis of the study was on technology transfer 718W
  and the means by which business could acquire specialist skills and knowledge without the costs and risks of employing specialist staff. It concluded that such knowledge transfer schemes have strong theoretical and empirical support in international practice. Two of DTI's innovation related products are designed to facilitate knowledge transfer.

  DTI has recently completed a series of Sector Competitiveness Analyses in the following sectors: construction; electronics; call centres; plastics processing; and retail sectors. Further Sector Competitiveness Analyses are underway in the following sectors: software and computer services; and healthcare equipment. These studies, which have a large economic component, aim to compare the UK sector's labour productivity with that of other countries and to investigate the reasons for differences. The results will be used to inform decisions on the DTIs provision of support for business.

  A further study is under way to review the literature relating to policies designed to promote enterprise in developed market economies, particularly the USA, France and Germany. This review will cover both underlying philosophies and strategies and specific policies related to the promotion of enterprise. The research, due to be completed by the end of June will include in depth studies of policy and practice in: US, Sweden, Germany, Australia and Canada plus reviews of Specific initiatives in other developed economies.

  Copies of all studies will be made available in the Libraries of the House.

  Cold Calling
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is putting in place to tackle cold calling; and if she will make a statement. [178414]

  Mr. Timms
  The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) published their market study report into Doorstep Selling on 12 May. The report is being carefully considered and any proposed legislative changes will be the subject of thorough consultation.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the scale of cold calling; and if she will make a statement. [178415]

  Mr. Timms
  The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) have investigated Doorstep Selling as a whole and published their market study report on 12 May. The report includes an estimate that the overall number of bogus trading cases related to cold calling is in the region of 15,000 each year with an average transaction of £2,500.

  Crown Post Offices
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) for how long commitments contained in public notices of the proposed transfer of Crown post offices to Primeco that services will not be adversely affected have effect; and what guarantees are written into agreements with Primeco and other companies that services will be unaffected in future years; [177747]
  719W
  (2) which Crown post offices have been transferred to Primeco in each of the last 12 months; and which are the subject of proposals to transfer to Primeco. [177745]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 June 2004]: This is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Electricity Generation/Supply
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of likely levels of(a) domestic electricity charges and (b) transmission charges under British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements. [R] [178319]

  Mr. Timms
  The DTI has carried out an analysis of the possible impact of the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements (BETTA) as part of the Energy Bill Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) (www dti.gov.uk/energy/leg_and _reg/acts/ria2.pdf). Benefits to domestic customers are likely to accrue mainly to those in Scotland. We do not expect any appreciable effect to customers in England and Wales in the short term as BETTA does not substantially change the market in these regions.

  The RIA estimated that a combination of increased electricity wholesale competition and a re-allocation in the way transmission charges are calculated could see annual domestic electricity bills in Scotland falling by around £13 per customer, all other things being equal. Customers who switch suppliers could make further gains.

  Transmission charges under BETTA have not been finalised and as such all calculations are estimates. The Great Britain System Operator designate, National Grid Company (NGC), produced a recent consultation "GB Transmission Charging: Initial Methodologies" published on 8 April 2004. This sets out two scenarios of what transmission charges might be in 2005–06 following BETTA's planned introduction. This consultation is available at: www.nationalgridinfo.co.uk/betta/gb_consultations.html

  NGC will submit final transmission charging proposals to the Industry Regulator, Ofgem, for approval later this year contingent on the SoS designating the relevant licence conditions once legislative powers are available.

  Equality
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what practical steps the Government are taking to address issues of equality. [176491]

  Jacqui Smith
  Since 1997 the Government have worked to increase opportunity and tackle discrimination and disadvantage through a wide range of legislation, policies and programmes. This includes introducing new legislation outlawing discrimination in employment on grounds of sexual orientation, religion and belief (and in due course age); strengthening existing legislation on disability discrimination; strengthening the Race Relations Act including introducing a duty on public bodies to promote race equality; and publication of a draft Disability Discrimination Bill, which will further extend rights and opportunities for disabled 720W
  people. We are also continuing to improve the workings of the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, for example, through the introduction of the Equal Pay questionnaire and through action to streamline the complex rules of procedure relating to equal value tribunal cases. Further major steps are in progress or planned.

  The White Paper "Fairness for all" published on 12 May 2004 proposes the creation of a single Commission for Equality and Human Rights. This step reflects the first comprehensive review of our statutory equality institutions for quarter of a century and makes clear the Government's determination to place equality and human rights at the heart of society. The CEHR will champion equality and diversity, tackle discrimination robustly, provide support for the full breadth of discrimination legislation and promote a culture of respect for human rights. It will be able to serve all the communities covered by discrimination legislation more effectively than at present, while retaining focus, knowledge and expertise relevant to particular groups.

  EU Legislation
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the occasions when representations have been made to her Department highlighting possible over-implementation of EU legislation, stating in each instance(a) the EU directive, (b) the individual or organisation making the representation and (c) the aspect of over-implementation; and if she will make a statement on the Government's response. [177736]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The information sought cannot be provided as representations received by the Department in relation to possible over-implementation of EU legislation are not held centrally.

  However, the Department seeks to ensure that the principles of better regulation are observed when implementing EU legislation.

  EU Social Chapter
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the benefits of the EU Social Chapter for the residents of Wirral, South. [177688]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The residents of Wirral, South 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-rata 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 occurred;
  rights under the Fixed Term Work Directive that provide for the fair treatment of fixed term workers and prevent abuse of fixed term contracts;

  721W
  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.

  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.

  Government Websites
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the compliance of Government websites with Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines. [177107]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have adopted the Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines and encourages compliance through the provision of extensive guidance and good practice. Our publications 'Guidelines for UK Government websites' and the 'Quality Framework for UK government Website Design', are available online www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-government/webguidelines. Copies will be placed in the Library. Compliance is the responsibility of individual departments and agencies.

  Mains Gas Network
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans her Department has to provide assistance and support for the extension of the mains gas network to those areas without access, with particular reference to deprived communities; [178011]

  (2) what discussions have been held between her Department and the Treasury to seek funding for the extension of mains gas provision to areas of England not served by the network; and if she will make a statement. [178012]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department estimates that, based on figures for 2001, around 450,000 vulnerable, fuel poor households lacked access to mains gas, and that around 180,000 of those households might feasibly be connected to the mains gas network. The Department has been considering the possibility of funding for a programme to provide connection to deprived communities without mains gas. The Design and Demonstration Unit, which is based in DTI and designs and develops projects in support of White Paper objectives has completed two pathfinder projects to provide gas connections to deprived communities, and is currently working on a third. It hopes to undertake more projects during 2004–05.

  Parental Leave
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many parents in the(a) £5,000 to £10,000, (b) £10,001 to £15,000, (c) £15,001 to £20,000, (d) £20,001 to £25,000 and (e) £25,001 to £30,000 income brackets have exercised their right to take parental leave in each year since its introduction. [175406]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: Data on the take-up of parental leave disaggregated by income band is not yet available.
  722W
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many parents of disabled children have taken parental leave in each calendar year since the right to such leave v\ as introduced. [175408]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: Data on the take-up of parental leave by the parents of disabled children is not yet available.

  Post Office Closures (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post office closures there have been in each London borough in each year since 1997. [177126]

  Mr. Timms
  I am advised by Post Office Ltd. that data on post office closures by local authority area is not available in the form requested, as the company does not require this data for operational purposes. However, it has produced quarterly statistics on post office closures by Government region/country since March 2000 and the net closure figures for the London region are:Year to end March 2001–10
  Year to end March 2002–4 6
  Year to end March 2003–44 (including 11 under the urban reinvention programme)
  Year to end March 2004–455 (including 142 under the urban reinvention programme).

  Post Office Reinvention Programme
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with Post Office Ltd. on the interpretation of European Commission approval of the funds made available for the Post Office Urban Reinvention Programme; and if she will make a statement. [177701]

  Mr. Timms
  The terms of the compensation funding for the Post Office Urban Reinvention Programme are set out in the October 2002 offer letter between the Department and Post Office Ltd. and reflect fully the terms of the European Commission's approval of the scheme for state aid purposes.

  The rationale for the urban reinvention programme, and the context of the European Commission's state aid clearance, is to restore the urban post office network to economic sustainability by reducing its size, while continuing to maintain good levels of accessibility with at least 95 per cent. of the urban population nationally living within one mile of a post office and the majority within half a mile at the end of the programme.

  Radio Frequency Identifiers
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 12 May 2004,Official Report, column 443W, on radio frequency identifiers, if she will assess the potential change in the number of jobs in the retail sector as a result of the implementation of radio frequency identifier devices technology. [177810]

  Mr. Timms
  Radio frequency identifier device (RFID) technologies are currently deployed in the retail environment for tagging at case or pallet level in distribution and stock control. It does not appear to have had impacts on job numbers. The possible
  723W
  extension of RFID technology to tagging at item level may have implications for employment and the range of skills and competences required of retail staff. The Department for Trade and Industry will monitor developments through its relationship with the retail sector and the relevant Sector Skills Councils.

  Renewable Energy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what target her Department has set for(a) the amount and (b) the percentage of electricity the UK should be obtaining from renewable sources by (i) 2004 and (ii) each year to 2010; what revision to the original renewables obligation targets for electricity from renewable sources has been made since it was introduced; what progress has been made to date; and what assessment she has made of whether the targets will be met within the stipulated tine. [176741]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The Government have set the target of 10 per cent. of electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2010, but has not set separate targets for each year until that date.

  (b) During the first year of Renewables Obligation operation, the UK produced about 1.8 per cent. of its electricity from eligible renewable sources—somewhat below the level of the Renewables Obligation of 3.0 per cent for that period. However, including all renewables sources, the total UK production from renewables for the same period was slightly over 3.0 per cent.

  The Government recently announced that the level of the RO would be increased from 2010 rising to 15.4 per cent. by 2015. This will help long-term investment decisions in renewables.

  The targets we have set are achievable, but challenging, since we are starting from a low base. However, we are doing all we can to achieve this target. The Government have established a framework for expansion and expect the industry to demonstrate they can achieve our goals at an accept able cost.

  We expect the main growth between now and 2010 to come from onshore and offshore wind farms.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the study commissioned by her Department of the actual and potential impact of community benefits schemes on the deployment of renewable energy projects. [177881]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The Department has commissioned a study of the actual and potential impact of community benefits schemes on the deployment of renewable, especially wind, energy projects. A report is expected later this year.

  Secondments
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many UK Trade and Investment international trade advisers went on secondment to the private sector in the last year for which figures are available. [176354]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have begun encouraging such outward interchanges to the private sector but none has yet taken place. However, over 70 per cent. of UK Trade 724W
  and Investment's international trade advisers were recruited from the private sector, and already have relevant business experience.

  South West Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants have been distributed by the South West Regional Development Agency since 2002–03, broken down by(a) county and (b) district. [176743]

  Jacqui Smith
  South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) does not hold the information on the basis requested. Grant payments are recorded against the themes set out in SWRDA's Corporate Plan 2003–06, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the average payment to a recipient of(a) incapacity benefit and (b) income-based job seeker's allowance. [177965]

  Mr. Pond
  In November 2003, the average weekly payment of incapacity benefit was £82.84 and the average weekly payment of income-based job seekers allowance was £62.62.

  Note:

  Figures are subject to sampling variation.

  Source:

  DWP-IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the(a) costs of administering and (b) actual benefit expenditure for (i) the state retirement pension, (ii) child benefit, (iii) income support, (iv) minimum income guarantee of pension credit, (v) jobseekers allowance, (vi) disability living allowance and (viii) incapacity benefit in the latest year for which figures are available. [177490]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the table.

  £ million Nominal terms

  Benefit

  Administration costs 1998–991

  Estimated benefit expenditure outturn

  2003–04

  Retirement Pension (including earnings related)

  314

  46,467

  Minimum Income Guarantee of Pension Credit

  n/a

  4,544

  Income Support

  581

  10,073

  Jobseekers Allowance Contribution Based

  51

  531

  Jobseekers Allowance Income Based

  330

  2,027

  Disability Living Allowance

  119

  7,589

  Incapacity Benefit

  375

  6,715

  2002–032

  Child Benefit

  125

  8,945

  1The latest figures available for administration costs for the benefits in the table are from the publication. "Social Security Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 2000/01–2001/02". Administration costs for main benefits after this date is not currently available in the format requested. The

  725W
  Department now accounts for its administration and benefit expenditure by Strategic Objective, as set out in its Public Service Agreements (PSA), and by individual Requests for Resources (RfRs), as set out in the Departmental Estimates and Accounts. 2 This is the latest year for which figures are currently available. Responsibility for child benefit was transferred to Inland Revenue from April 2003.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost of community care grants was in each of the last four years. [177888]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the table.

  Community care grant expenditure

  £

  Expenditure

  2000–01

  100.1

  2001–02

  102.6

  2002–03

  108

  2003–04

  117.5

  Notes:

  1. Figures include expenditure from extra budget allocations for contingency purposes.

  2. Figures do not include expenditure recorded clerically.

  Source:

  DWP Policy, Budget and Management Information System (PBMIS)

  Correspondence
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree will be in a position to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire of 21 April, requesting that she meet a delegation of hon. Members to discuss the Working at Height Directive. [178744]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have written to the hon. Member today.

  Disability Discrimination Bill
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the number of people who would be protected from discrimination if the recommendations in paragraphs 79, 88 and 99 of the report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill were to be accepted; [177653]

  (2) when he expects to publish the Disability Discrimination Bill. [177654]

  Maria Eagle
  We have made no such assessment. We are still considering the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill, which were published on 27 May 2004. We will respond as soon as possible. The timing of the introduction of the Bill is a matter to be determined by Business Managers in the usual way.

  Disability Living Allowance
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are in receipt of disability living allowance; and, of these, what percentage are only in receipt of the care component. [176734]
  726W
  Maria Eagle
  The total number of disability living allowance recipients as at 30 November 2003 was 2,558,200. 13.2 per cent. of these are in receipt of the care component only.

  Note:

  Figure taken from a 5 per cent. sample at 30 November 2003 and rounded to the nearest hundred.

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

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre.

  Household Incomes
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the change in income resulting from tax and benefit measures was in real terms for the lowest income decile of families in each year since 1997, expressed in each case as a percentage change in relation to 1997 base figures. [175132]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, as a result of personal direct tax and benefit measures introduced by this Government since 1997, in 2004–05, households in the bottom tenth of the income distribution will have, gained, on average, £1,900 a year in real terms.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average weekly payment of incapacity benefit has been in each year since 1997–98. [177552]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Average weekly amount of incapacity benefit

  £

  November

  Average weekly amount

  1997

  81.07

  1998

  82.15

  1999

  82.54

  2000

  81.73

  2001

  82.76

  2002

  82.75

  2003

  82.84

  Note:

  Figures exclude 'national insurance credits only' cases.

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre, 5 per cent. samples.

  Income Support
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of women claiming income support. [178228]

  Mr. Pond
  The number of women claiming income support (as a single person or on behalf of a couple) in Great Britain at November 2003 was 1,393,700. There were an additional 214,000 income support benefit units where there was a male claimant and a female partner.
  727W
  Notes:

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

  2. Figures have been rounded to the neatest hundred.

  3. Excludes pension credit cases.

  Lone Parents
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents in Stoke-on-Trent North have gained work through the New Deal programmes; and if he will make a statement. [177622]

  Jane Kennedy
  Through the New Deal we have introduced a wide range of initiatives to help lone parents improve their employment prospects by giving them the skills, support and confidence they need to move into work. The New Deal runs alongside other measures which are helping lone parents into work and making work pay for them. These include our National Childcare Strategy; the Lone Parent's Benefit Run-On; the child tax credit and the working tax credit (including the childcare tax credit).

  380 lone parents in Stoke-on-Trent North have gained work through the New Deal for Lone Parents since the start of the programme in October 1998 Figures for lone parents who have gained work through other New Deal programmes are not available.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the travel costs incurred by(a) his Department and its predecessors and (b) each Minister within his Department, for each of the last 10 years. [175651]

  Maria Eagle
  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 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.

  Departmental travel costs for the Department and the former Department of Social Security for the last 10 years is not available, however we do have information relating to the last seven years and I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 24 May 2004, Official Report, Volume 421, column 1470W.

  Information relating to individual ministers for this period is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All ministerial travel is undertaken 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.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many journeys were made by helicopter by each Minister in his Department and its predecessors in each of the last 10 years; and what the journey length was in each case. [175731]
  728W
  Maria Eagle
  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 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.

  Information relating to the use of helicopters by Ministers of this Department, and it's predecessor the Department of Social Security, is not available for the last 10 years, however there has been no use of helicopters, at departmental expense, since 1997.

  All ministerial travel is undertaken 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.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many(a) individuals and (b) households he expects to be eligible for pension credit in (i) 2004–05, (ii) 2005–06, (iii) 2006–07 and (iv) 2008–09; [177548]

  (2) what his Department's target is for the number of (a) individuals and (b) households who will be receiving pension credit by (i) 2004–05, (ii) 2005–06, (iii) 2006–07 and (iv) 2007–08. [177549]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Estimates of levels of eligibility for pension credit to 2008–09 are provided in the table. The Department has set a Public Service Agreement target for at least three million pensioner households, corresponding to around 3.7 million individuals, to be in receipt of pension credit by March 2006 and is on course to achieve this.

  Number of households and individuals estimated to be eligible for pension credit, 2004–05 to 2008–09

  Million

  Households

  Individuals

  2004—05

  3.75

  4.85

  2005—06

  3.85

  5.00

  2006—07

  3.95

  5.10

  2007—08

  4.10

  5.35

  2008—09

  4.25

  5.55

  Notes:

  1. Estimates for private households and individuals are based on Family Resources Survey data for 2002–03 projected forward to reflect changes in taxes, benefit rates and pensioners' incomes.

  2. Estimates for pensioners in care homes are based on DWP administrative data on the number of recipients of minimum income guarantee in residential care and nursing homes and on data from Health Departments on the number of local authority supported care home residents.

  3. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 50,000 cases, are subject to a wide margin of error and should be used as broad indications of the likely eligible population only.

  4. A pensioner household is defined as single persons aged 60 or over and couples where at least one partner is aged 60 or over. Individuals are single pensioners with eligibility and both partners in a couple with eligibility.

  Pensioner Incomes
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average change in household income for pensioners in Stalybridge and Hyde has been since 1997. [177686]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.

  Pensions
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of average income the state pension represented in each year since 1994. [177409]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. The information as is available is in the table.

  Percentage of average income

  1996–97

  35

  1997–98

  34

  1998–99

  31

  1999–2000

  31

  2000–01

  29

  2001–02

  30

  Notes:

  1. State pension figures are derived from a five per cent. sample of DWP administrative data taken at March in each year.

  2. Average income for each financial year is median gross weekly individual income taken from Individual Incomes 1996/7–2001/2 published by the Department for Work and Pensions. The Individual Income series used is based on the Family Resources Survey which has been available since 1996.

  3. State pension is calculated as the maximum rate of basic state pension plus the average amount of additional state pension in payment for recently retired men aged 65 and women aged 60.

  4. The figures have been rounded to the nearest percentage point.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pension schemes have started the winding-up process in each year since 1997; and how many pension scheme members have been affected, broken down by(a) pensioners and (b) people who had not retired when the winding-up began. [177544]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Pensions Schemes Registry, administered by the Occupational Pension Schemes Regulatory Authority (OPRA), holds information on the number of pension schemes which are currently in the winding up process. Figures showing the number of schemes that have entered winding up each year since 1997 and have not yet completed winding up are contained in the table, along with numbers of members in those schemes.

  It is not possible to break these figures down by pensioner and pre-retirement numbers, as the registry only provides data on total membership numbers.

  Schemes that are winding up

  Number of Schemes

  Number of members

  1 Apri 1997–3 March 1998

  120

  1,944

  1 Apri 1998–3 March 1999

  156

  5,143

  1 Apri 1999–3 March 2000

  3,921

  88,577

  1 Apri 2000–3 March 2001

  1,403

  52,623

  1 Apri 2001–3 March 2002

  1,866

  61,639

  1 Apri 2002–3 March 2003

  1,460

  73,982

  1 Apri 2003–3 March 2004

  1,420

  48,194

  Total

  10,346

  332,102

  730W
  Notes:

  1. The table does not contain schemes that started winding up in the time period given and have since completed wind up. The Pensions Schemes Registry only records the present status of a scheme so only those winding up at the moment are captured. This is unlikely to bias the figures extensively as the winding up process can take many years to complete, particularly for large firms.

  2. A winding up scheme is one which has notified OPRA that it has commenced winding up procedures.

  3. Schemes have up to 12 months to notify OPRA of any status change so the data for the current year is provisional.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list the meetings with external(a) bodies and (b) individuals that his Department's (i) special advisers and (ii) unpaid advisers have attended without Ministers in their official capacity in each year since 1996–97; [174646]

  (2) if he will list the attributable letters that his Department's (a) special advisers and (b) unpaid advisers have written to external (i) bodies and (ii) individuals in their official capacity in each year since 1996–97. [174649]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions was created in June 2001. Information prior to June 2001 refers to the former Department of Social Security. The Code of Conduct for Special Advisers makes clear that special advisers may liaise with outside interest groups on the Minister's behalf The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department has no unpaid advisers.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what role his Department's(a) special advisers and (b) unpaid advisers play in the (i) appraisal, (ii) reward, (iii) discipline and (iv) promotion of permanent civil servants. [174651]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions was created in June 2001. Information prior to June 2001 refers to the former Department of Social Security. In its response to the Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government made clear that with the exception of up to three posts in No. 10, special advisers cannot have any role in the appraisal, reward, discipline or promotion of permanent civil servants.

  The Department has no unpaid advisers.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list occasions when his Department's(a) special advisers and (b) unpaid advisers have been responsible for authorising departmental spending since 1997. [174653]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions was created in June 2001. Information prior to June 2001 refers to the former Department of Social Security. No special adviser within the Department has, or has had, any authority to authorise departmental spending.

  The Department has no unpaid advisers.
  731W
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department's(a) special advisers and (b) unpaid advisers give instructions to permanent civil servants without the explicit authorisation of Ministers. [175020]

  Maria Eagle
  In its response to the Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government made clear that special advisers may, on behalf of their Ministers, convey to officials Ministers' views and work priorities. It is not the case that special advisers in the Department may issue instructions to permanent civil servants.

  The Department has no unpaid advisers.

  Specialised Disability Fund
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale have gained work through the New Deal programme. [178533]

  Jane Kennedy
  520 lone parents in the parliamentary constituency of Rochclale have gained work through the New Deal for Lone Parents since the start of the programme in October 1998. Figures for lone parents who have gained work through other New Deal Programmes are not available.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many women in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale have benefited from(a) the New Deal for Lone Parents and (b) the New Deal for Partners since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [178534]

  Jane Kennedy
  Through the New Deal we have introduced a wide range of initiatives to help individuals improve their employment prospects by giving them the skills, support and confidence they need to move into work. From 12 April we enhanced the New Deal for Partners in order to offer partners taking part in that programme the same level of help and support as our successful New Deal for Lone Parents programme. Also from this April we have started to roll out Work Focused Interviews for Partners, offering greater-support to partners of benefit recipients.

  920 women have started New Deal for Lone Parents in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale since the beginning of the programme in October 1998, of whom, 490 have gained a job. Information on the number of women who have benefited from the New Deal for Partners is not available.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many senior citizens in the parliamentary constituency of Rochclale have benefited from the winter fuel allowance since 1997; and what percentage are(a) women and (b) of Asian origin. [178542]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of senior citizens in the Rochdale constituency who have benefited from a winter fuel payment in each year since 1999–2000 (including provisional figures for 2003–04) and identified by gender is in the table. Information relating to the 1997–98 and 1998–99 winters and ethnic origin is not available.732W

  Payments made

  All

  Men

  Women

  Percentage of women

  1999–2000

  14,285

  5,495

  8,785

  61.5

  2000–01

  15,635

  6,820

  8,810

  56.3

  2001–02

  15,685

  6,965

  8,720

  55.6

  2002–03

  15,845

  7,115

  8,730

  55.1

  2003–04

  15,795

  7,085

  8,710

  55.1

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Please note that the figures for 2003–04 refer only to the main payment run i.e. they do not include the late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid via late payment runs (0.8 per cent. of all payments). Since most of the payments made in late payment runs are to people who are not receiving another benefit from DWP and whose claims had not been received by the qualifying week, most are to men aged 60.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. samples.

  Sure Start
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many mothers in Stoke-on-Trent North have received the Sure Start maternity grant. [177634]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the tables.

  Sure Start maternity grants for area covered by Staffordshire Social Fund District

  Applications

  Awards

  2000–01

  2,830

  2,498

  2001–02

  3,502

  3,024

  2002–03 to October

  2,659

  2,221

  Sure Start Maternity Grants for area covered by Staffordshire Jobcentre Plus District

  Applications

  Awards

  2002–03 from November

  2,142

  1,648

  2003–04

  5,504

  4,199

  2004–05 to May

  961

  680

  Notes:

  1. Stoke on Trent North parliamentary constituency was part of the Staffordshire Social Fund District. In November 2002, Staffordshire Social Fund District was combined with parts of Burton Social Fund District to form Staffordshire Jobcentre Plus District. The two areas for which data is given above are different, therefore the data is not comparable.

  2. Sure Start maternity grants were introduced on 27 March 2000. There were no applications recorded in the Staffordshire district during 1999–2000

  3. Data is given for all applications and awards, irrespective of whether the application was made by the mother or her partner.

  Source:

  DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many senior citizens in Stoke-on-Trent North have benefited from the winter fuel allowance since 1997. [177623]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of senior citizens in Stoke-on-Trent North who received a winter fuel payment in each year since 1999–2000 (including
  733W
  provisional figures for 2003–04) is in the table. Information relating to the 1997–98 and 1998–99 winters is not available.

  Payments

  1999–2000

  14,525

  2000–01

  15,950

  2001–02

  16,101

  2002–03

  16,065

  2003–04

  16,090

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Please note that the figures for 2003–04 refer only to the main payment run i.e. they do not include the late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid via late payment runs (0.8 per cent. of all payments). However, since late payment runs are mainly in respect of non-system cases whose claim had not been received by qualifying week, they are heavily skewed towards men aged 60.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. samples.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Stalybridge and Hyde received the winter fuel allowance; and how many receive the pension credit. [177685]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of pensioners in Stalybridge and Hyde who received a winter fuel payment for winter 2003–04 was 15,580. As at 31 May 2004, 4,530 households (5,430 individuals) in Stalybridge and Hyde were in receipt of pension credit.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. The winter fuel payment figure includes only the main payment run—i.e. it does not include late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid via late payment runs (0.8 per cent. of all payments). However, since late payment runs are mainly in respect of non-system cases whose claim had not been received by qualifying week, they are heavily skewed towards men aged 60.

  3. Individuals in receipt of pension credit include a small number of cases of couples where the partner is under age 60.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  All-postal Ballots
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what procedures will be put in place to inform electors who have incorrectly filled in their postal ballot papers of their mistake. [178175]

  Mr. Leslie
  In the four all-postal pilot regions at the 10 June elections, the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (All-Postal) Pilot Order 2004 provided that where an incomplete declaration of identity was found within a ballot pack before noon on 8 June, the returning officer was required to return it to the elector, along with a letter explaining that a completed declaration was needed in order that the vote could be considered valid. If the elector then completed and returned the declaration before the close of poll, their ballot paper would be put forward to the count.

  There was no similar requirement placed upon returning officer by the rules governing postal voting in the non-pilot regions.
  734W
  Postal ballot papers that were returned spoilt were dealt with at the counting of the votes in the same way as votes cast at a polling station. However. if an elector voting by post reported their ballot paper spoilt before returning it, arrangements were in place both in the pilot and non-pilot regions to allow the issuing of a replacement.

  Mr. David Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many people were on the electoral roll in the four regions for which all- postal voting pilots were to be held for elections on 10 June. [178407]

  Mr Christopher Leslie
  As at December 2003, there were 14,083,004 people on the electoral roll for the four all-postal pilot regions which are the North East, East Midlands, Yorkshire & the Humber and North West.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the number of people in areas not subject to all-postal voting pilots who registered to vote by post at the elections to be held on 10th June in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland, (d) Essex and (e) Southend West. [178408]

  Mr Christopher Leslie
  Individual Electoral Registration Officers keep records of the number of postal voters in their registration area. For the elections on 10th June this year, in those regions not holding all-postal pilots, it was possible to apply for a postal vote at any time until Wednesday, 2 June and statistics are therefore still being compiled. I understand that the independent Electoral Commission are to publish details of the number of postal ballot papers issued and various other statistics relating to the European Parliamentary elections later this year. Available statistics show that at the 2001 General Election, 1,758,055 postal votes were issued in the UK in total.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what estimate he has made of extra costs arising from problems with distribution of ballot papers in regions for which all-postal ballots are being held for elections on 10th June. [178403]

  Mr. Leslie
  Returning officers have the contractual relationship with suppliers of ballot packs. They will be submitting claims for their costs of the all-postal ballots to the Elections Claims Unit in due course. When those claims have been received, it will be possible to make an estimate of any costs falling to Returning Officers arising from any problems with printing and distribution.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment will be made of the comparative outturn costs of all-postal ballots against(a) conventional ballots and (b) the prior assessments of all-postal costs; and what arrangements the Department will make to repay to local returning officers any unbudgeted expenditure. [178050]

  Mr. Leslie
  Returning Officers are required to submit their accounts to the Secretary of State within six months of the announcement of the results of the election. This will enable comparisons to be made with
  735W
  previous expenditure of elections in those areas and with other similar areas running conventional elections and against predicted costs.

  The Electoral Commission will be reporting on the all-postal ballots within three months of the close of poll on 10 June. Their report will also include an assessment of the extent to which postal voting provides opportunities for savings in the costs of administering the election or any increase in such costs.

  Unforeseen expenditure reasonably incurred to ensure the effective running of the all-postal ballots will be covered by central Government.

  Departmental Surveys
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what surveys of public perceptions of his Department and of its areas of responsibility have taken place over the last 12 months; what the(a) title and (b) nature of these surveys was; what the findings of each survey were; where these findings have been published; what the cost of such surveys was; and if he will make a statement and place copies of the surveys in the Library. [176947]

  Mr. Leslie
  The National Customer Satisfaction postal survey 2003–04, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) International plc, sought customer opinion on the service provided across the Court Service. It covered the civil and family courts, the Crown Court, the offices and courts situated in the Royal Courts of Justice, the Probate Registries, as well as the Tribunals administered by the Court Service. User communities consulted included the public, professionals (the Bar, solicitors etc.) and jurors. The survey contributes to measuring user satisfaction under PSA 4.

  When compared with the previous (2001–02) exercise, overall satisfaction of court user showed an increase from 78 to 84 per cent. Jurors continue to be the Court Service's most content group of users, with an 86 per cent. overall satisfaction rate achieved during 2003–04.

  The survey, which encompassed more than 300 courts and Tribunals, cost just over £250,000.

  Two comprehensive reports—one covering the civil and family courts, the other the remainder of the organisation—were produced by ORC International and have been sent to all senior managers in the Court Service. In line with established practice, the reports will be posted on the Court Service website and can be made available for placing in the Library.

  Domestic Violence
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what arrangements are available to won en who have been the subject of domestic violence and do not wish to have their addresses given on electoral rolls. [178502]

  Mr. Leslie
  Any elector may opt to have his or her name and address excluded from the edited version of the electoral register that is available for sale commercially. Electoral Registration Officers are required to include in 736W
  the published full register all persons who they consider are eligible to be registered. Anonymous registration or the use of pseudonyms is not currently permitted, though electors may use alternative names (such as maiden or professional names) for registration purposes, provided they are names by which they are commonly known. The independent Electoral Commission in its May 2003 report 'The electoral registration process' recommended that an anonymous registration a genuine threat to their safety. The Government are currently considering this proposal together with the range of other recommendations made by the Electoral Commission relating to current electoral law and procedure.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many magistrates are Freemasons in(a) England, (b) the North West, (c) Lancashire and (d) each Lancashire district. [177167]

  Mr. Leslie
  Numbers of magistrates who have declared themselves to be masons are:

  Number

  (a) England (including the Duchy of Lancaster)

  1,147

  (b) the North West

  152

  (c) Lancashire

  55

  (d) Each Lancashire district:

  Blackburn, Darwen and RV

  6

  Fylde Coast

  13

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  12

  Chorley

  3

  Hyndburn

  2

  Lancaster

  7

  Ormskirk

  1

  Preston

  10

  South Ribble

  1

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  EU Funding (St. Helens)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much investment has gone into St. Helens from European Structural Funds since 2001. [178111]

  Phil Hope
  As of 10 June 2004 the amount of European Structural Funds, which has gone into the metropolitan borough of St. Helens since 2001 is tabled as follows. The figures illustrate only projects specifically within the metropolitan borough of St. Helens. In addition to this almost 50 per cent. of the Objective 1 programme delivers Pan-Merseyside projects which metropolitan borough of St. Helens residents/businesses have access to.

  European Reginal Development Fund

  £

  ERDF committed

  ERDF spent

  2001

  4,604.711

  92,159

  2002

  3,006.317

  2,904,581

  2003

  3,295,736

  3,932,120

  2004

  1,234.822

  475,907

  Totals

  12,141,586

  7,404,767

  737W

  European Social Fund

  £

  ERDF

  ESF spent

  2001

  582,357

  2,197,990

  2002

  4,859,643

  3,697,572

  2003

  1,868,264

  2,597,526

  2004

  469,168

  1,082,714

  Totals

  7,779,432

  9,575,802

  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund

  £

  EAGGF Committed

  EAGGF Spent

  2001

  0

  0

  2002

  0

  0

  2003

  12,847

  0

  2004

  0

  8,622

  Totals

  12,847

  8,622

  Allotments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what encouragement he is giving to local authorities to(a) maintain and preserve allotments and (b) provide replacement land where land formerly used for allotments has been subject to development. [177616]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has a number of measures to encourage local authorities to maintain and preserve allotments. Firstly, if an allotment authority is of the opinion that there is a demand for allotments in its area, it is required, under section 23 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908, to provide a sufficient number of allotments and to let them to persons residing in its area who want them.

  Secondly, our advice to local planning authorities on planning for open space, sport and recreation is contained in Planning Policy Guidance note 17 (PPG 17) and recognises allotments as one of the types of open space that may be of public value. Local planning authorities are required to undertake robust audits of such spaces and to conduct assessments of need for their areas. Where the need for particular types of open spaces such as allotments is established, planning authorities are expected to protect them through adopting and implementing appropriate policies.

  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3) appreciates the value that open spaces such as allotments can add to a community's quality of life, health and contribution to nature conservation. Paragraph 53 states that local planning authorities should have clear policies for the protection and creation of open space, and new housing developments should incorporate sufficient provision where such spaces are not already adequately provided within easy access of the new housing.

  PPG3 (Annexe C) also specifically excludes parks, recreation grounds and allotments from the definition of previously developed land—even though these areas may contain certain urban features such as pavilions and other buildings, and protecting them from the priority given to development on brownfield land.
  738W
  Thirdly, in partnership with the Local Government Association, Greater London Authority, and Shell Better Britain Campaign, we published "growing in the community: a good practice guide for the management of allotments", in June 2001. This guide provides comprehensive advice and good practice for local authorities on all aspects of allotment management.

  In terms of providing replacement land, a requirement of section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925 is that if an authority wishes to dispose of statutory allotment land, and existing plotholders would be displaced "adequate provision" must be made for them.

  PPG17 also provides advice for the instance where a replacement is needed for a site required for development. It specifies that the replacement land should be at least as accessible to current and potential new users, and at least equivalent in terms of size, usefulness, attractiveness and quality. Where possible the aim should be to realise qualitative improvements.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many allotments existed(a) 10 years ago and (b) in the last year for which figures are available. [177617]

  Keith Hill
  The "English Allotments Survey: report of the joint survey of allotments in England", published in 1997 by the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, provided estimates of the numbers of allotment plots in England for four specific years—1970, 1977, 1978 and 1996. Therefore data on allotments in 1994 are not held centrally, however in 1996 there were 296,923 plots in England.

  In "Living Places: Cleaner, Safer, Greener" the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sets out plans to update the survey and expand it to include community gardens and city farms. This research has now been commissioned and links to the development of a national database of different types of green spaces. Disposal of statutory allotments are also administered and monitored by the Government offices for the regions.

  Building Regulations
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his plans are for including micro-renewables in building regulations; and if he will make a statement. [177711]

  Phil Hope
  The Building Regulations set functional requirements rather than specifying particular ways of showing compliance. This enables builders to develop their own ways of complying with the requirements, using conventional or new technologies as appropriate. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is reviewing the energy efficiency provisions in line with the commitments made in the Energy White Paper and the prospective higher standards that we aim to bring into effect in 2005 are likely to make new systems like micro-renewables mere attractive. I hope to announce consultation on the proposed new requirements in the next few weeks.

  Correspondence
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Battersea to the Minister of State for Housing and Planning on the subject of affordable housing. [178676]
  739W
  Keith Hill
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 11 June.

  Departmental Duty Officers
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the role of his office's duty officers is; what criteria are used to decide which incidents the duty officers are notified of by fire services; and what use is made of these notifications. [178591]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Duty Officer is responsible for taking official and emergency calls out of hours and taking appropriate action as necessary. This involves either contacting nominated on-call officers from appropriate divisions/sections within the Department for Transport (DfT)/the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), and/or taking prescribed action as issued by divisions/sections.

  The criteria used to decide which incidents the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister duty officers are notified of by fire and rescue services are set out in 'Dear Chief Officer Letter 3/2004' from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services to all Chief Fire Officers in England and Wales dated 29 March 2004. The following extract from that letter sets out the criteria.

  A. A fire involving:
  A.1 a fatality (including fire service personnel);

  B. A fire or incident which has a significant impact on the general public, including one which:

  B.1 attracts significant public or media interest;

  B.2 involves major disruption to public transport or utilities;

  B.3 involves explosives, or where an explosion causes significant structural damage;

  B.4 involves sources of ionising radiation or other substances which pose significant personal hazards;

  B.5 causes serious contamination or significant environmental impact, including incidents where mass decontamination procedures are initiated; or

  B.6 involves widespread public evacuation (e.g. whole street or area), or large scale evacuation from a venue to which the public resort in large numbers (e.g. a place of sport or entertainment, shopping complex, etc.) or from care premises (e.g. a hospital, nursing home, etc.).

  C. A fire in which abnormally fast or extensive spread of flame, smoke or heat was caused or assisted by:

  C.1 the structure of the building (including linings, voids, or other constructional features); or

  C.2 the systems or plant installed within the building.

  D. A fire in any building where the active and/or passive fire safety arrangements (e.g. means of escape, fire suppression or detection, fire resisting construction, etc.) either:

  D.1 did not fulfil their designed function, resulting in people having to be rescued; or

  D.2 only just fulfilled their designed function, resulting in a significant 'near miss'; or

  D.3 fulfilled their designed function with notable success.

  E. A fire or incident which presents significant operational difficulties, including those:

  E.1 where persons are trapped as a result of building collapse;

  E.2 involving the use of 10 or more jets or large quantities of specialised extinguishing media;

  E.3 associated with significant civil disturbance and/or attacks on firefighters;

  E.4 posing a significantly abnormal 61 to fire-fighter safety;

  740W

  E.5 involving significantly difficult access;

  E.6 where a deficiency in water supplies is both serious and unexpected;

  E.7 involving serious problems with operational equipment including significant loss of, damage to, or lack of such equipment or resources;

  E.8 where locally determined standards of fire cover are not met because of factors such as other operational incidents, adverse weather or difficult road traffic conditions, resulting in a significant effect on the development of the fire.

  Any notifications received are forwarded from the ODPM Duty Officer to an on-call Inspector from HM Fire Service Inspectorate (HMFSI). The information supplied will be used by HMFSI to identify and monitor trends and provide advice to fire and rescue services. The information will particularly be used to support community fire safety initiatives and to inform the development of risk assessment. It may also be used to provide briefing for Ministers and senior officials, and in the preparation of reports.

  Housing
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what requirement there is upon local authorities to review the state of the housing market in their area. [177283]

  Keith Hill
  Local authorities are required, under Section 87 Local Government Act 2003 to produce a housing strategy for their area. This needs to be based on a robust analysis of the local housing market(s), in conjunction with neighbouring authorities, where appropriate, housing need in the area and the condition of the stock. New guidance on undertaking analysis of housing markets—the Housing Market Assessment Manual—was issued in February this year.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance the Government office for the south-east has issued to local authorities concerning local housing markets. [177284]

  Keith Hill
  Government office for the south-east (GOSE) has not issued any specific guidance to Local Authorities concerning assessment of housing markets. The South East England Regional Assembly is currently in the process of commissioning research into identifying the Local Housing Markets of South East England to support the Regional Housing Board in producing future Regional Housing Strategies. GOSE is represented on the steering group for this research, which is expected to report in the late summer.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also published national guidance on local housing market assessments in February 2004.

  GOSE has also partnered the Regional Assembly in producing further guidance on local housing needs assessment and urban potential. This guidance was published by the Assembly in January 2004.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will alter the guidance given to local authorities about preference for high-density housing in order to allow local authorities to follow their own local plans. [178697]
  741W
  Keith Hill
  No. Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 "Housing" (March 2000) (PPG3) sets out the national policy for promoting well-designed sustainable housing development that makes the best use of land. Local planning authorities are required, in formulating their policies, to have regard to this guidance. In considering planning applications in the interim, before development plans can be reviewed, local planning authorities should have regard to this guidance as a material consideration, which may supersede the policies in their development plan. As with any national policy, if there are local or regional circumstances, which justify a departure from national policy, these departures should be justified through the development plan process.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimates he has made of the revenue each eligible local authority will receive as a result of the changes to second home discount for council tax. [177964]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on 28 April 2004,Official Report, column 1134W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 2 March 2004,Official Report, column 821W, (1) on the Green Belt, when he will write to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West with the information; [174946]

  (2) on greenbelt, when he will write to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West giving figures for the reduction of greenbelt area in metropolitan areas. [177596]

  Keith Hill
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Planning Advice
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money his Department has allocated in this financial year to provide advice to local communities on planning matters; to which organisations such money has been paid; and how much has been paid to each. [178231]

  Keith Hill
  The Government are providing £3.8 million for Planning Aid in England over a three year period up to 2005–06. The funding will allow Planning Aid to enhance its service, become more proactive and develop a greater role in targeting communities which traditionally do not get involved in the planning system. The funding allocation in this financial year is expected to be £1.454 million.

  Through the Special Grants Programme (SPG) in 2004–05, £40,050 is being provided to the Royal Town Planning Institute to aid the development of mainstream practice in which planners will work with communities to deliver sustainable communities. £58,000 is being provided to the Town and Country Planning Association to improve the science and art of town and country planning—one of the aims of the project is power for people to influence decisions that
  742W
  affect them. £31,550 is being provided to Panning Aid for London, to establish greater cohesion between different racial groups in the community and increase the ability of disempowered groups to encourage successful housing schemes. To date on these three projects, £7,894 has been paid to Planning Aid for London.

  Population Movements
  Christine Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people moved to the North West from within the UK in(a) June 2003, (b) March 2003, (c) December 2002 and (d) June 2002. [176481]

  Keith Hill
  Information is not available for the particular months requested. It is estimated that during the year to June 2003, 109,500 people moved to the North West from elsewhere in the UK. The corresponding figure for the year to June 2002 was 107,600. These Office for National Statistics estimates are based on information from registrations with doctors.

  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people living in the North West in(a) June 2003, (b) March 2003, (c) December 2002 and (d) June 2002 originated from different areas of the UK. [176482]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Funding (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much public funding has been spent in Crosby from the Capital Investment in Housing Fund. [177853]

  Keith Hill
  Funding to local authorities for housing purposes have risen consistently by about 15 per cent. per annum on average. This includes the Major Repairs Allowance we introduced in 2001–2 specifically for the improvement of local authority stock alongside the Decent Homes standard which sets out minimum standards to be met by 2010. Sefton's allocation for 2003–04 was £14.249 million and has been supplemented by the announcement of £86 million to be made available to the Merseyside Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder, NewHeartlands, between 2003–04 and 2005–06.

  Public Houses
  Donald Anderson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards upward-only rent reviews in contracts between tenants and pub companies. [178303]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly Government have issued a consultation paper entitled: "Commercial property leases: options for deterring or outlawing the use of upward only rent review clauses". A copy has been made available in the Library of the House. The paper acknowledges that upward only rent reviews (UORRs) are a source of grievance to many in the business community. It explores whether any action is necessary,
  743W
  and considers a number of options for legislating against UORRs. The paper invites comments on the merits of each option—by 30 September 2004.

  Public Toilets
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what steps he takes to monitor the(a) availability and (b) standards of public toilet provision by local authorities for (i) disabled people and (ii) the general population; [178121]

  (2) what guidance is given to local authorities on minimum standards of provision of public toilets for (a) disabled people and (b) the general population. [178122]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of Deputy Prime Minister does not monitor, or provide guidance to, local authorities specifically on the provision, availability or standard of public toilets. Local authorities operate under Best Value duties in respect of all of their functions and must comply with the relevant requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act.

  Social Housing
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what provisions are being made to increase the amount of affordable and quality housing in(a) Leyton and Wanstead, (b) the London borough of Redbridge and (c) the London borough of Waltham Forest. [178194]

  Keith Hill
  The housing capital allocations to social and key worker schemes in the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme for support to new supply and regeneration schemes in 2004–05 and 2005–06 for the London borough of Redbridge and the London borough of Waltham Forest are as follows:

  Social housing grant(£ million)

  Homes

  LB Redbridge

  14.017

  337

  LB Waltham Forest

  14.996

  273

  Information at constituency level is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what weighting he expects(a) a planning authority and (b) a planning inspector to give to (i) environmental protection of land where this is supported by the local community and (ii) the designated use in an agreed statutory district plan of a piece of land where such use is contrary to an application for speculative housing development; and if he will make a statement. [178195]

  Keith Hill
  Each application is determined with reference to the local authority's development plan for the area and, where appropriate, to any other material considerations, including guidance such as our Planning Policy Guidance Notes, when assessing the impacts and land-use merits of each proposal.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent discussion; he has had with Elevate, the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder, concerning its proposals; and if he will make a statement. [178257]
  744W
  Keith Hill
  Officials of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have regular discussions with Elevate on its progress in implementing its market renewal scheme, grant towards which was announced in my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's statement of 26 March 2004,Official Report, column 69WS.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to encourage progress in delivery of social housing on sites where planning permission has been granted but where building has not yet started. [178357]

  Keith Hill
  There are various incentives in the planning system to bring about the provision of social housing once consent has been granted. First, consents are time limited. Secondly, the local planning authority may ask the developer to execute planning obligations, or it may impose conditions which provide that a specified proportion of the general market housing on the site cannot be occupied until the social housing element has been built and transferred to a registered social landlord (RSL). Finally, the Housing Corporation seeks to engage with RSLs at an early stage in the planning process, so that funding through its Approved Development Programme can be made available, where appropriate.

  Staffa Industrial Estate Fire
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the causes of the recent major fire on the Staffa Industrial Estate in East London; and if he will make a statement. [178180]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Metropolitan Police and London Fire Brigade are treating the incident as arson. Investigations are continuing.

  Stair Lifts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent Advisory Note he has sent to(a) the Secretary of State for Health and (b) health authorities on the purchase of stair lifts. [178230]

  Yvette Cooper
  Stairlifts in existing dwellings would normally be provided by the local housing authority through a disabled facilities grant. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has not issued any recent advice on the purchase of Stairlifts.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Probation Service
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the establishment of the national offender management service. [178155]

  Mr. Blunkett
  We have received over 600 representations on the establishment of the national offender management service. We have received 42 specifically in relation to the structure. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my officials and myself have met a wide range of groups involving Martin Narey seeing over 3,000 members of staff with 18 road shows across the country. I myself have met the TUC, the Prison Officers Association and
  745W
  the representatives of the Probation Union. We believe that with the extension on the consultation not simply to the end of this month, but over the next year as we develop the new structures, we will be able to ensure that there is a consensus of getting this right.

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further measures he proposes to reduce the incidence of antisocial behaviour. [178167]

  Ms Blears
  We are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour. In 1998 we introduced antisocial behaviour orders through the Crime and Disorder Act. Further to this the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 provides a further wide range of tools to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Act clarifies, streamlines and reinforces the powers available to practitioners and builds on the measures we have already introduced. It offers the single biggest package of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour.

  Further powers to tackle antisocial behaviour in the private rented sector, such as licensing of private sector landlords in areas where there is significant and persistent antisocial behaviour, are being proposed in part 3 of the Housing Bill, currently before Parliament.

  We are determined to remove all barriers to local agencies taking action to tackle antisocial behaviour. We will continue to listen to feedback about the powers available and look to legislate where necessary.

  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to support the gating of alleys to tackle anti-social behaviour. [178171]

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to support the gating of alleys to tackle anti-social behaviour. [178170]

  Ms Blears
  I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, group this Question and question 19 together.

  On 5 March 2004 the Home Office launched Operation Gate it—a new fund of £2.3 million to tackle anti-social behaviour in alleyways. Successful schemes for this year have now been identified and will be announced shortly.

  Gating is just one of many solutions to these problems, however, and will not always be appropriate. So, through Gate It, local communities will be able to bid for lighting/landscaping/CCTV funding—as well as gates.

  Immigration Service (East Anglia)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet representatives of the immigration service in East Anglia to discuss initiatives to control illegal immigration. [178168]
  746W
  Mr. Browne
  This morning I have met with the Assistant Director of the Immigration Services Eastern Region. I have read the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful contribution to the Second Reading debate on the Gangmasters Bill, in which he correctly identified the issues of concern to the Immigration Service. He is aware that the Immigration Service carried out a series of successful operations in the Kings Lynn area last year and that with the opening of a local office at Swaffham there is now an enhanced enforcement capability in East Anglia.

  I hold regular meetings with the Senior Director of Immigration Service Operations who keeps me informed of initiatives to control illegal immigration into the United Kingdom. I also receive regular reports about a wide range of Immigration Service operations.

  Restorative Justice
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the use of restorative justice [178169]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government are committed to increasing the use of restorative justice.

  Restorative justice is already widely available within the Youth Justice System and we intend to extend its use as part of the now conditional caution and in community sentences more generally.

  Later in the year we will publish guidance for Local Criminal Justice Boards who want to develop their use of restorative approaches.

  Firearms
  21. Peter Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to review firearms legislation. [178173]
  Caroline Flint
  Our consultation paper on firearms controls was published on 12 May. This is the first step in a comprehensive review of current legislation. Consultees have until the end of August to respond and we will consider all responses carefully before deciding what further action may be needed.

  Domestic Violence
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to support victims of domestic violence and bring more perpetrators to justice. [178174]

  Paul Goggins
  Domestic violence is a horrific crime, which affects one in four women and causes the death of two women each week

  The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, currently before Parliament, is the biggest overhaul of domestic violence legislation for 30 years. It includes a range of measures that will provide additional protection and support for victims and help to bring more perpetrators to justice.

  Advisers (Conflicts of Interest)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps; he takes to avoid conflicts of interest when advisers horn outside the Civil Service are seconded to the How Office to work on projects; and what restrictions are placed on the abilities of such advisers to participate in the bidding process for contracts arising from that advice. [175105]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Secondments are part of the Interchange initiative, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organizations—public, private and voluntary. Interchange provides opportunities for civil servants to learn new skills, widen their experience and develop ideas. It also brings in skills and experience from other sectors.

  When advisers from outside the Civil Service are seconded into the Home Office to work on projects, they are informed in the secondment contract that they will be subject to the Official Secrets Act and will be expected to abide by the conditions and rules governing the conduct of civil servants. In particular, they are informed that they will need to avoid situations that may lead to conflicts of interest. The secondment contract, which is drawn up between the secondee, the seconding organisation and the Home Office, also states that the secondee shall keep all commercially confidential information secure and shall not release any commercially confidential information to parties outside the Home Office—including the seconding organization—without its written approval, instruction or request.

  The Home Office recognises that ethical behaviour in tendering for contracts is of the utmost importance, because the activities may involve the spending of public funds and are subject to close scrutiny. It is imperative that the integrity of the department as a whole should be maintained. Accordingly, the Home Office does not allow secondees to take part in any bidding processes that involve the organisation from which they are seconded.

  Amsterdam Treaty Protocols
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on which occasions the United Kingdom has used the protocols attached to the Amsterdam Treaty not to participate in a proposal from the European Commission or a member state concerning asylum, immigration or border controls. [174716]

  Mr. Browne
  Under the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, agreed at the Amsterdam Inter-Governmental Conference and annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, the UK does not take part in any measure under Title IV of the treaty establishing the European Community (visa, asylum, immigration) unless it notifies the Council, in writing, of its intention to participate (opt-in).

  The policy of the United Kingdom towards participating in measures under Title is to review each proposed measure individually and to opt in when it is in the interests of the UK to do so. In a reply to a written question from the right hon. gentleman, the Member for
  748W
  Penrith and the Borders (David Maclean) on 12 March 1999, my right hon. friend the Home Secretary confirmed his statement that day at the Justice and Home Affairs Council that, while we would maintain our frontier controls in line with the Amsterdam Treaty Protocol, we wished to co-operate in all other Justice and Home Affairs areas which did not conflict with this objective. In relation to Title IV, my right hon. friend the Home Secretary highlighted areas in which the UK would look to participate as asylum and civil judicial co-operation measures and measures to control illegal immigration where these did not conflict with maintenance of national immigration controls. In accordance with these stated principles, the UK has not, to date, notified its intention to participate in a number of EU proposals, a list of which will be placed in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees have been granted asylum in the UK(a) including dependants and (b) excluding dependants in each year since 1979. [177105]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: The tables show the total number of asylum seekers, including and excluding dependants, granted asylum in the United Kingdom, 1979–2003. Information on initial decision outcomes, broken down by nationality, is published in the quarterly web pages and in the Home Office annual statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom". Copies of these publications are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1. html.

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, and initial decisions, including dependants2 1979 to 2003

  Total initial decisions

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum3

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted discretionary leave4

  1979

  949

  525

  215

  8—

  1980

  1,797

  1,147

  238

  8—

  1981

  2,358

  1,473

  278

  8—

  1982

  2,942

  1,727

  311

  8—

  1983

  2,950

  1,185

  939

  8—

  1984

  2,011

  689

  802

  8—

  1985

  3,802

  915

  2,156

  8—

  1986

  4,045

  543

  2,815

  8—

  1987

  3,479

  464

  2,229

  8—

  1988

  3,888

  975

  2,289

  8—

  1989

  10,270

  3,335

  5,840

  8—

  1990

  6,055

  1,590

  3,610

  8—

  1991

  9,140

  800

  2,950

  8—

  1992

  59,050

  1,900

  21,680

  8—

  1993

  36,890

  2,860

  15,480

  8—

  1994

  27,755

  1,395

  5,445

  8—

  1995

  35,195

  2,200

  6,780

  8—

  1996

  49,350

  3,660

  7,510

  8—

  1997

  48,530

  6,210

  4,740

  8—

  1998

  42,905

  8,245

  6,455

  8—

  1999

  45,850

  10,405

  4,640

  8—

  2000

  132,925

  12,135

  12,645

  8—

  20019

  155,900

  14,755

  26,025

  8—

  200210

  103,450

  10,990

  22,470

  8—

  200310

  80,960

  5,225

  5,120

  3,275

  749W

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted humanitarian protection4

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave

  Granted exceptional leave under backlog criteria5,6

  Refused on non-compliance grounds under backlog criteria5,7

  1979

  8—

  209

  8—

  8—

  1980

  8—

  412

  8—

  8—

  1981

  8—

  607

  8—

  8—

  1982

  8—

  904

  8—

  8—

  1983

  8—

  826

  8—

  8—

  1984

  8—

  520

  8—

  8—

  1985

  8—

  731

  8—

  8—

  1986

  8—

  687

  8—

  8—

  1987

  8—

  786

  8—

  8—

  1988

  8—

  624

  8—

  8—

  1989

  8—

  1,095

  8—

  8—

  1990

  8—

  855

  8—

  8—

  1991

  8—

  5,390

  8—

  8—

  1992

  8—

  35,480

  8—

  8—

  1993

  8—

  18,550

  8—

  8—

  1994

  8—

  20,915

  8—

  8—

  1995

  8—

  26,220

  8—

  8—

  1996

  8—

  38,180

  8—

  8—

  1997

  8—

  37,585

  8—

  8—

  1998

  8—

  28,205

  8—

  8—

  1999

  8—

  13,915

  15,195

  1,690

  2000

  8—

  92,330

  14,045

  1,775

  20019

  8—

  115,120

  8—

  8—

  200210

  8—

  69,990

  8—

  8—

  200310

  175

  67,165

  8—

  8—

  1 Figures from 1989 onwards are rounded to the nearest five.

  2 From 1992 to 2001 figures are estimated. Including dependants who applied with the principal applicant and those who arrived subsequently but before the principal application was decided. Figures for 2002 are based on actual data and therefore rounded to the nearest five. Previous dependants applications figures rounded

  nearest 100 due to being an estimation.

  3 Excluding South East Asian refugees (pre 1996 only).

  4 Discretionary Leave and Humanitarian Protection replaced Exceptional Leave to Remain from 1 April 2003.

  5 Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog.

  6 Includes cases where asylum or exceptional leave has been granted under the backlog criteria.

  7 Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  8 Not applicable

  9 Revised figures.

  10 Provisional figures.

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, and initial decisions, excluding dependants 1979 to 2003

  Total initial decisions

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum2

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted discretionary leave3

  1979

  7—

  7—

  7—

  8—

  1980

  7—

  7—

  7—

  8—

  1981

  7—

  7—

  7—

  8—

  1982

  7—

  7—

  7—

  8—

  1983

  7—

  7—

  7—

  8—

  1984

  1,431

  453

  631

  8—

  1985

  2,635

  574

  1,559

  8—

  1986

  2,983

  348

  2,102

  8—

  1987

  2,432

  266

  1,531

  8—

  1988

  2,702

  628

  1,578

  8—

  1989

  6,955

  2,210

  3,860

  8—

  1990

  4,025

  920

  2,400

  8—

  1991

  6,075

  505

  2,190

  8—

  1992

  34,900

  1,115

  15,325

  8—

  1993

  23,405

  1,590

  11,125

  8—

  750W

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, and initial decisions, excluding dependants 1979 to 2003

  Total initial decisions

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum2

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted discretionary leave3

  1994

  20,990

  825

  3,660

  8—

  1995

  27,005

  1,295

  4,410

  8—

  1996

  38,960

  2,240

  5,055

  8—

  1997

  36,045

  3,985

  3,115

  8—

  1998

  31,570

  5,345

  3,910

  8—

  1999

  33,720

  7,815

  2,465

  8—

  2000

  109,205

  10,375

  11,495

  8—

  20019

  120,950

  11,450

  20,190

  8—

  200210

  83,540

  8,270

  20,135

  8—

  200310

  64,605

  3,880

  3,970

  3,105

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted humanitarian protection3

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave

  Granted exceptional leave under backlog criteria4,5

  Refused on non-compliance grounds under backlog criteria4,6

  1979

  8—

  7—

  8—

  8—

  1980

  8—

  7—

  8—

  8—

  1981

  8—

  7—

  8—

  8—

  1982

  8—

  7—

  8—

  8—

  1983

  8—

  7—

  8—

  8—

  1984

  8—

  347

  8—

  8—

  1985

  8—

  502

  8—

  8—

  1986

  8—

  533

  8—

  8—

  1987

  8—

  635

  8—

  8—

  1988

  8—

  496

  8—

  8—

  1989

  8—

  890

  8—

  8—

  1990

  8—

  705

  8—

  8—

  1991

  8—

  3,380

  8—

  8—

  1992

  8—

  18,465

  8—

  8—

  1993

  8—

  10,690

  8—

  8—

  1994

  8—

  16,500

  8—

  8—

  1995

  8—

  21,300

  8—

  8—

  1996

  8—

  31,670

  8—

  8—

  1997

  8—

  28,945

  8—

  8—

  1998

  8—

  22,315

  8—

  8—

  1999

  8—

  11,025

  11,140

  1,275

  2000

  8—

  75,680

  10,325

  1,335

  20019

  8—

  89,310

  8—

  8—

  200210

  8—

  55,130

  8—

  8—

  200310

  135

  53,510

  8—

  8—

  1 Figures from 1989 onwards are rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Excluding South East Asian refugees (pre 1996 only).

  3 Discretionary Leave and Humanitarian Protection replaced Exceptional Leave to Remain from 1 April 2003.

  4 Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog.

  5 Includes cases where asylum or exceptional leave has been granted under the backlog criteria.

  6 Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  7 Not available.

  8 Not applicable.

  9 Revised figures.

  10 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what criteria he judges a country to be unsafe to return failed asylum seekers to. [176276]

  Mr. Browne
  All asylum claims are considered on their individual merits in accordance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Those asylum seekers who establish that their claim meets the criteria of the 1951 Convention are granted
  751W
  asylum. If asylum is refused, we will go on to consider whether humanitarian protection or discretionary leave should be granted in accordance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

  In considering claims the Home Office takes full account of up to date information from a wide range of sources about the situation in the country of origin. These sources include intergovernmental organisations (such as the UN), governmental sources (including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) and human rights organisations (for example Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch).

  If an individual is unsuccessful in his application and in any appeal they make to the independent Immigration Appellate Authority we consider that it is safe for that individual to be removed.

  The only country to which, as a matter of policy, we do not at present generally enforce the return of failed asylum seekers is Zimbabwe. This policy is not based on asylum or human rights reasons but on our view that in the wider context of the Government's position on Zimbabwe, it would be inappropriate to return forcibly failed asylum seekers at this time.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of asylum applicants claimed asylum in the UK(a) at Dover, (b) at other UK seaports, (c) at Heathrow Airport, (d) at Gatwick Airport, (e) at other UK airports, (f) in-country within 14 days of arrival and (g) in-country over 14 days of arrival in (i) 2002 and (ii) 2003. [176291]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: The requested information is unavailable and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. Data on asylum applications is collated on when the application is made, and not on when applicants arrive in the UK. For applicants entering clandestinely or through legitimate legal entry routes and applying in country, their date of arrival is not necessarily recorded on entry and they are not at that point identifiable as a future asylum seeker. The table shows asylum applications to the United Kingdom by port and in country.

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 2002–03

  20022

  20032

  Total applications

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total applications

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  84,130

  26,560

  57,570

  49,370

  13,810

  35,560

  1Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5.

  2Provisional figures.

  Information on asylum applications is published in quarterly web pages and in the annual statistical bulletin 'Asylum Statistics United Kingdom'. Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the UK are available from the Library and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Clare Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate how many asylum seekers who have been refused leave to remain and exhausted all appeal rights have not departed from the UK. [177124]
  752W
  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of asylum seekers who have exhausted their rights of appeal is not readily available and could be obtained only by examination of individual case files to obtain information on the final outcomes from each tier of the appeal process. This would incur disproportionate cost. No information on the number of unsuccessful asylum seekers awaiting removal is available, partly because some applicants may leave the United Kingdom without informing the Immigration Service.

  The Government have commissioned research into the methods used in other countries to estimate the overall size of the illegal population including failed asylum seekers, in order to define methods appropriate for the UK.

  Asylum Support
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been in receipt of National Asylum Support Service support in each year since its inception. [177090]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) assumed responsibility for the support of asylum seekers on 3 April 2000. The following table shows the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) that have been in receipt of National Asylum Support Service support as at the end of each year since its inception. Information in respect of the number of persons supported by NASS during a given year is not available.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS is published in the quarterly web pages and in the annual statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom, available from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Asylum seekers supported by NASS1,2 by type of support

  As at the end

  In receipt of subsistence only support

  Supported in NASS accommodation

  December 2000

  8,870

  13,530

  December 2001

  25,310

  40,325

  December 2002

  37,815

  54,045

  December 2003

  30,360

  49,760

  March 2004 (Quarter 1, 2004)

  27,635

  48,610

  1Including dependants.

  2All figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  Becket House Reporting Centre, Bermondsey
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation for costs of travel will be available to reportees living in Thurrock consequent on the decision to require them to report at Beckett House, Bermondsey; and if he will make a statement. [177748]

  Mr. Browne
  In my answer to the Member for Thurrock's separate but related question (177749), I have clarified that the requirement on people living in Thurrock to report to Becket House was an
  753W
  administrative error, which has now been rectified. In view of this, the issue of compensating them for costs of travel to Becket House does not arise.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a decision on the grant aid to be given to the Commission for Racial Equality. [174827]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office formally delegated the Commission for Racial Equality's budget for 2004–05 on 28 April 2004.

  Computer File Formats
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's policy is in respect of the computer file formats used for the(a) distribution and (b) archiving of publicly available documents. [173358]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office is keen to ensure that published documents are fully accessible to all members of the public who wish to use them. We make use of standard electronic formats that should meet the requirements of most document users.

  (a) Distribution

  The computer files and formats used for the distribution of Home Office material are Word/ Excel based documents, which are standard and widely compatible both internally and with external suppliers.

  (b) Archiving

  Material placed on the web site for access by the public is at present stored in mixture of Portable Document Format (PDF) and Hypertext Mark Up Language (HTML). The Home Office Communication Directorate is actively considering the benefits of storage of future material in Extensible Mark-Up Language (XML).

  CPS
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent of his responsibility for the Crown Prosecution Service. [159300]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Director of Public Prosecutions is the head of the Crown Prosecution Service and he discharges his functions under the superintendence of the Attorney-General.

  Credit Card Purchases
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of individuals who have had their credit card facilities withdrawn by the issuing bank after court convictions for using the card to purchase child pornography images. [173056]

  Paul Goggins
  A consideration as to whether an individual has their credit card facilities withdrawn by 754W
  an issuing bank or other card supplier following a conviction for an offence relating to the purchase of child abuse images is a matter for each individual card issuer to decide, dependent upon the terms and conditions associated with the card. There is no centrally held record of the number of instances of such an action taking place.

  Government, the credit card industry, and law enforcement are actively considering what action can be taken in respect of individuals convicted of an offence which has involved the purchase of child abuse images using any payment mechanisms. More widely work remains ongoing to proactively identifying sites selling child abuse images, seeking the removal of payment facilities from these sites and appropriate action taken by law enforcement.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the credit card industry about action to prevent the use of credit card facilities to fund the purchase of(a) child pornography images and (b) illegal websites. [173057]

  Paul Goggins
  Extensive work has been undertaken on the issue of preventing credit cards and other payment mechanisms from being used to purchase child abuse images online. The Association of Payment Clearing Services (APACS), the UK Trade Association for Payments, the Internet Watch Foundation, and the Children's Charities' Coalition for Internet Safety, have all worked actively to prevent such activity and have developed close working relationships over the last few years. This resulted in a joint announcement by them in March 2003.

  The arrangements now in place have made it possible for law enforcement agencies to become more effective in investigating detecting and taking action against those sites that use specific payment services to sell child abuse images. The relevant card companies will also seek to trace the banks and the billing companies involved in processing payments and to cease the use of their cards for such activity. Units such as the National Hi Tech Crime Unit through their industry outreach programme, have been particularly successful in working closely with industry on intelligence and target hardening to design out hi-tech crime.

  It is clear that co-ordinated action by the major credit card schemes in conjunction with other relevant organisations can have a major impact on the commercial trade in child abuse images. We welcome the efforts that have been made so far and will continue to work with them to make this as effective as possible, involving as many different payment mechanisms as is possible.

  While much of the focus of preventing the use of credit cards to facilitate illegal activities has to date focused on their association with child abuse images, work has also been undertaken to prevent credit cards and other payment mechanisms from being used to prevent a wider range of illegal activities on line.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the
  755W
  pay gap between men and women employed by his Department and its agencies in (a) Southampton, (b) Eastleigh, (c) Winchester and (d) Romsey. [171632]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  None. The Department has undertaken a number of equal pay reviews, but data have not been analysed by individual locations.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects Immigration and Nationality Directorate to return the passports belonging to Mrs. Maliheh Sadeghi Boroujerdi and Mr. Mohsen Dastmaldi, which were sent to the Directorate on 4 July 2003. [178080]

  Initial decisions on asylum applications1,2 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 2003 by month, nationals of Iraq Principal applicants

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Grants of HP

  Grants of DL

  Total refusals3

  January

  1,370

  30

  1,030

  n/a

  n/a

  305

  February

  990

  30

  685

  n/a

  n/a

  280

  March

  585

  5

  390

  n/a

  n/a

  185

  April

  30

  *

  n/a

  —

  —

  30

  May

  55

  *

  n/a

  *

  —

  50

  June

  250

  —

  n/a

  —

  *

  250

  July

  650

  —

  n/a

  —

  *

  650

  August

  515

  *

  n/a

  —

  10

  505

  September

  625

  —

  n/a

  —

  5

  620

  October

  675

  —

  n/a

  —

  10

  670

  November

  530

  —

  n/a

  —

  10

  520

  December

  475

  *

  n/a

  *

  10

  465

  Total

  6,755

  75

  2,105

  *

  45

  4,530

  1 Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 May include some refusals under non compliance grounds.

  Note:

  N/a = not applicable.

  Outcome of appeals1,2 determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, excluding dependants, nationals of Iraq, 2003, by month

  Number of principal appellants

  Appeals determined by adjudicators2

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  As % of

  As % of

  As % of

  Total

  Total

  determined

  Total

  determined

  Total

  determined

  January

  445

  110

  25%

  295

  66%

  40

  9%

  February

  440

  90

  20%

  300

  68%

  50

  12%

  March

  465

  85

  18%

  315

  67%

  70

  15%

  April

  150

  30

  21%

  110

  72%

  10

  7%

  May

  40

  10

  21%

  25

  67%

  5

  13%

  June

  15

  *

  17%

  5

  42%

  5

  42%

  July

  220

  10

  3%

  165

  75%

  50

  22%

  August

  485

  20

  4%

  415

  86%

  45

  9%

  September

  515

  25

  5%

  460

  89%

  35

  7%

  October

  810

  35

  5%

  705

  87%

  65

  8%

  November

  1,000

  55

  5%

  900

  90%

  45

  4%

  December

  810

  25

  3%

  760

  94%

  25

  3%

  Total

  5,400

  495

  9%

  4,465

  83%

  445

  8%

  1 Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5 (except percentages), with * = 1 or 2. Figures may not add up due to independent rounding. Data on appeal outcomes by nationality in this table are derived from Immigration and Nationality Directorate electronic sources.

  2 igures include cases withdrawn by the Home Office, as well as the appellant.

  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
  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The passports of Mrs. Maliheh Sadeghi Boroujerdi and Mr. Mohsen Dastmaldi were returned to their legal representatives, Halliday Reeves Solicitors, on 8 June.

  Iraq Refugees
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals from Iraq have been refused refugee status and other forms of protection in each month this year; and what their current status is. [173217]

  Mr. Browne
  Information of numbers of initial decisions and refusals of Iraqi principal applicants, and on numbers of appeals determined at the IAA and dismissed, for each month of 2003, are given in the tables. Appeals figures do not necessarily relate to initial decisions made in the same period.

  appealed against this decision, and if so what the outcome of the appeal was. Ball appeal rights have been exhausted and no leave of any kind has been granted,

  757W
  these individuals will have no basis on which to remain in the United Kingdom and will be expected to return to Iraq.

  Information on asylum applications, initial decisions and appeals, by nationality, is published in quarterly web pages and in the annual statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom. The next quarter will be published at the end of August 2004. Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the UK are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [175741]

  Mr. Blunkett
  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 reports contain 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.

  Detailed information for all Ministers in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  National Neighbourhood Watch Association
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what future funding he plans to provide to the National Neighbourhood Watch Association; and if he will make a statement. [178172]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The National Neighbourhood Watch Association is an independent organisation funded by commercial sponsorship since its inception.

  Nevertheless, in 2002–03 the Government gave a total of £350,000 to support it through financial difficulties. Following a recent audit my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decided that no further public funding should be provided.

  The Government will continue to support local Neighbourhood Watch. This support includes free publications and training materials, and staff time.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the operation of the National Asylum Support Service scheme in Scotland. [178164]

  Mr. Browne
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) scheme works very well in Scotland. As at the end of March 2004 there were over 5,000 asylum seeker 758W
  sand dependants in NASS dispersal accommodation in Glasgow. The NASS regional office in Glasgow has 35 staff performing outreach, investigations and housing management functions, and playing a key role in working with Scottish stakeholders.

  National Identity Register
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what data sharing arrangements there will be between the proposed National Identity Register and the UK Population Register. [170335]

  Mr. Browne
  "Legislation on Identity Cards—A Consultation" (Cm 6178), makes clear that there will be no general power to share data held on the National Identity Register. Applications for one of the family of identity cards will require checks to be made against other databases only to establish that an application for a card, or related purpose such as reissue, is genuine. Such checks might include a Population Register developed under the Citizen's Information Project, were that to go ahead and subject to enabling legislation. We will also consider whether any changes to an individual's name and address details within the National Identity Register might be supplied through the Population Register.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many consultants have been seconded to his Department to work on identity cards; and at what expense. [176239]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: During 2003–04 two consultants were seconded to the Identity Cards Programme for part of the year. Total spending on seconded consultants that year was £75,569.

  New Hall Prison
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many suicides there were in New Hall women's prison in each of the past three years; [172655]

  (2) how many incidents of self harm occurred in New Hall women's prison in each of the last three months. [172656]

  Paul Goggins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 8 June 2004,Official Report, column 327W.

  Official Vehicles
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of official vehicles used by his Department are run on(a) petrol, (b) diesel, (c) liquid petroleum gas and (d) compressed natural gas. [172765]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Government as a whole have signed up to various targets for improving the performance of their own vehicle fleets, details of which are available at: www.sustainable-development.gov.uk

  The following table provides a breakdown of the cars currently in the directly managed Home Office fleet by vehicle category, fuel type and emission performance. This does not include information for vehicles provided for use by Ministers and senior officials by the Government Car Service (GCS). Detailed information

  759W
  on the breakdown of the GCS fleet is being provided by its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson. Copies of his letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Cars

  Number

  Percentage

  Petrol

  101

  7

  Diesel

  1,260

  92

  Liquid Petroleum Gas

  8

  1

  Total

  1,369

  100

  Older People
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what(a) initiatives, (b) campaigns and (c) advisory bodies relating to older people his Department (i) is responsible and (ii) has provided funding since 2001; and what the cost in each year was for each one. [166240]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office is involved in a number of campaigns and initiatives relating to older people.

  Older people are the most likely targets of 'distraction burglary' i.e. burglary committed by bogus callers. In October 2001, the "Good Practice Guide on Tackling Distraction Burglary" was published alongside two videos and supporting literature, which continue to be used today. The cost of this was in the region of £127,000. To support this:
  practitioner seminars have been run across the regions and a newsletter providing updates and advice is circulated at a cost of £5,000 per year;
  a new mini website dedicated to distraction burglary has been developed to sit within the Department's crime reduction website; and
  this comes at the same time as a new media campaign to raise awareness of distraction burglary at a cost of £77,000.
  The Department supports the charity Help the Aged:
  it has contributed over £60,000 to Help the Aged for Rural Development since 2001;
  departmental representatives have attended, spoken at and hosted seminars in the Help the Aged Senior Safety conference programme since 2002 (travel and subsistence costs only); and
  the Department is about to launch, through Help the Aged, a three-month pilot of 'reassurance cards' to advise older people about home security at a cost of £2,000.

  It was recently announced that World War II veterans and civilians over the age of 75 would be eligible for a free 10-year passport. By 19 May, almost 500 free passports had been issued, the majority to veterans of the Normandy landings. The standard passport currently costs £42.

  Over this period, the Active Community Unit has strategically funded three organisations specifically to involve older people in volunteering:
  The Experience Corps was established in 2001 and received £5.5 million, £7 million, and £7 million over the three years of the initiative, this funding ended March 2004;
  (RSVP, retired and senior volunteer programme), received £130,000 per year over the past three fears, 2003£04 and will receive £133,250 this year; and
  REACH received £85,000 per year over the past three years, 2001–04 and will receive £87,125 this year.
  760W
  Project funding of £55,000 per year for three years beginning March 2001 was given to Help and Care, an organisation that supports and encourages older people's role as active citizens within their communities. This came to an end in March 2004.

  The Active Community Unit has also contributed funding of £50,000 to the Better Government for Older People Network. This consisted of £20,000 revenue funding in February 2002 and £30,000 capital funding in January 2003.

  In April 2004, the Home Office announced that they were going to invest £600,000 over two years to develop a national co-ordinating body for older volunteers.

  And finally, during the four years 1999–2003, the Home Office Older Volunteers Initiative provided funding of £1.476 million to 26 projects aimed at improving the number and quality of the opportunities for people aged 50 or over to volunteer and involve themselves in the community.

  Overseas Students
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of students admitted to the UK since 1979 have(a) completed their studies, (b) returned to their home country and (c) had their visa extended, broken down by nationality. [177093]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: I regret that the information requested is not available.

  We are currently considering a number of ways in which we could address this information gap for future years.

  Data on passengers given leave to enter or further leave to remain in the United Kingdom as students by nationality are published in the Command Paper 'Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom'1. These data however, relate to the number of journeys/decisions; a person making more than one journey/application for an extension of leave to remain may be counted on each occasion.

  1 Obtainable from the Library of the House, and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/commandpubsl.html. The latest edition is that for 2002 (Cm6053).

  Paper Recycling
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of copying paper used by his Department in 2002–03 was from recycled sources; and how much post-consumer waste this paper contained. [172306]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The percentage of copying paper used by the Department in 2002–03 from recycled sources was 41.54 per cent.

  The post-consumer waste content of the paper was unknown by the supplier as they were unable to provide detail of the wood fibre in the product. The recycled content of the paper is described as unspecified.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department expects to implement in full the quick win targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
  761W
  to ensure that (a) all copying paper bought by the Department is 100 per cent. recycled with a minimum of 75 per cent. post-consumer waste content and (b) all paper for printed publications bought by the Department is 60 per cent. recycled, of which a minimum is 75 per cent. post-consumer waste. [172307]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The quick wins targets were introduced on 1 November 2003 by the inter-departmental Sustainable Procurement Group. From this date all Government Department's contracts were expected to apply the minimum environmental standards when purchasing certain types of product and services including paper.

  It has been recommended that the purchase of recycled paper products is phased in over a period of time and targets will be developed as part of the "Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate". The Home Office will work with its current suppliers in order to meet these targets once they are published.

  The Department's current three-year stationery contract to supply paper and paper products as well as other stationery products was awarded prior to 1 November, in September 2003. This followed a competitive tender exercise in line with Home Office policy that the procurement of goods and services is based on value for money principles. The provision of recycled paper is part of the agreed contract with Guilbert UK.

  In June 2002 the Home Office mandated all offices within the Department to use A4 recycled paper which has an 80 per cent. unspecified recycled paper content in photocopiers, fax machines and printers, unless technical reasons precluded them from using this paper. The Prison Service mandated the use of the same A4

  Percentage

  Name of paper used

  Recycled content (unspecified)

  Recycled content (post-consumer waste)

  Recycled content (pre-consumer waste)

  (a) Copier paper

  Environmental 3500 Recycled Paper A4 80gsm

  80

  0

  0

  Niceday 3000 Laser Copier A4 80 White

  0

  0

  0

  Niceday 6000 A4 80 gsm White

  0

  0

  0

  Niceday LaserJet Paper A4 80g HE

  5

  0

  0

  Niceday Laser Copier A3 80g White

  Not available

  Not available

  Not available

  XxPremier Copier 5500 A4 80g White

  Not available

  Not available

  Not available

  Niceday Office Paper A5 80 gsm White

  0

  0

  0

  XxPremier Copier 5500 A3 80g White

  Not available

  Not available

  Not available

  Niceday 4000 Paper A3 80 gsm White

  0

  0

  0

  Niceday Pastel Tinted Paper Pale Yellow

  0

  0

  0

  (b) Stationery

  N2 Divider A4 10Part Colour Tabs

  0

  0

  100

  N2 Divider A4 5Part Colour Tab

  0

  0

  100

  Environmental Divider A4 10Part Colour Tabs

  0

  0

  100

  Niceday Notes 3x3 Yellow

  0

  0

  0

  Niceday Diary A5 2 w/t/v Black 2004

  30

  0

  0

  N2 Divider A4 10Part Extra Wide

  0

  0

  100

  N2 Manuscript Book A4 96LF

  20

  0

  0

  Environmental Divider A4 SPart colour Tab

  0

  0

  100

  EDAY Diary A4 1 D/T/P Black 2004

  15

  0

  0

  Niceday Diary A5 1 W/T/V Burgundy 2004

  30

  0

  0

  762W
  recycled paper from September 2003 and expect the use of A3 recycled paper to become mandatory from September 2004 if current trials prove successful.

  The Home Office makes use of various stocks of paper/board in our publications. Most of our internal facing material is printed on recycled paper and all of these are at least 60 per cent. recycled with a content of 75 per cent. post-consumer waste.

  The majority of our external facing work is printed on totally chlorine free paper/board. Although this is not made from recycled pulp, this is 'environmentally friendly' because the pulp is bleached without the use of chlorine chemicals.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Department's main suppliers of(a) copier paper, (b) stationery, (c) envelopes and (d) paper for reports, in each case stating (i) the name of each paper used and (ii) the recycled and post-consumer recycled content of each paper. [172308]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The contract to supply paper and paper products to the Home Department is held by the company Guilbert UK. In addition to the aforementioned contract the Prison Service also hold a contract with James MacNaughton Pape. Group Limited to supply paper and paper products to Prison Service Enterprise and Supply Services Internal Industries.

  Guilbert provide a wide range of stationery products to the Home Office and to provide details of every paper and paper product supplied would incur disproportionate costs.

  I am however able to provide details of the top ten paper and paper products purchased from Guilbert UK by brand name and where available the recycled and post consumer recycled content of each paper in the categories requested as follows:
  763W

  Percentage

  Name of paper used

  Recycled content (unspecified)

  Recycled content (post-consumer waste)

  Recycled content (pre-consumer waste)

  (c) Envelopes

  Niceday Envelope 114x162 90 Self Seal White

  Not available

  —

  —

  Niceday Envelope 11 0x220 90 Self Seal White

  0

  0

  0

  Environmental Envelope 324x229 90 Self seal Buff

  0

  85

  0

  Niceday Envelope 324x229115 Self Seal Manila

  0

  85

  0

  Environmental Envelope 229x162 90 Self Seal Buff

  0

  85

  0

  Environmental Envelope 254x178 90 Manila

  0

  85

  0

  Niceday C4 Envelope 324x299115 gsm Manila

  Not Available

  —

  —

  Environmental Envelope 324x229 90g Self Seal Buff

  0

  85

  0

  Environmental Envelope C5 229x162min Manila Gummed 90gsm

  Not Available

  —

  —

  Environmental Envelope C4 324x229mtn Manila Gummed 90g

  Not Available

  —

  —

  (d) Paper for reports

  Niceday Duplicator Blue A4 80gsm

  0

  10

  90

  Niceday Duplicator Yellow A4 80gsm

  0

  10

  90

  Niceday 11x14.5 1PT 70g Pain Laser

  0

  0

  0

  HP Premium Plus Photo Paper A4 C6832A

  Not available

  —

  —

  Niceday 11x9.5 1PT 70g Plain Micro Vertical Perforations

  0

  0

  0

  Niceday 11x14.5 1PT 60g Plain

  0

  0

  0

  Niceday Duplicator A4 80g White

  0

  10

  90

  Nicely 11x9.5 1PT 60g Plain Micro Vertical Perforations

  0

  0

  0

  Niceday Duplicator Green A4 80gsm

  0

  10

  90

  Niceday 11x14.5 1PT 60g Music Ruled

  0

  0

  0

  Details of the top ten paper and paper products purchased from James MacNaughton Paper Group Limited by brand name and where available the recycled and post consumer recycled content for copier paper is as follows:

  Name of paper used

  Recycled content (unspecified)

  Recycled content (post-consumer waste)

  Recycled content (pre-consumer waste)

  Challenger T/Pulp

  No

  No

  No

  HMP Offset

  No

  No

  No

  HM Manila

  Yes

  No

  80%

  Reacto

  No

  No

  No

  Prosp/Kingstn

  No

  No

  No

  Challenger Velvet

  No

  No

  No

  Reflex

  No

  No

  No

  Challenger W/Pulp

  No

  No

  No

  Supercol

  No

  No

  No

  Greybd

  Yes

  100%

  No

  Seaports/Airports
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed at UK seaports and airports from(a) the Immigration Service and (b) Special Branch in each of the last five years. [177169]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The table sets out the number of full-time equivalent immigration officials employed at seaports and airports, as at 1 January for the last five years.

  Immigration staff

  1999

  2082.4

  2000

  2124.5

  2001

  2266.9

  2002

  2609

  2003

  3202.94

  2004

  3176.4

  764W
  As at 1 June 2004, the UK Immigration Service had posted a further 181 immigration officials and an additional 20 were in training.

  (b) The deployment of Special Branch officers at ports within the UK is a decision for the Chief Constable of the policing area concerned after consultation with the National Co-ordinator of Ports Policing. However, it is the Home Office view that it is inappropriate to divulge exact numbers as to do so may impact on the overall counter-terrorist strategy.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to facilitate cooperation between Customs and Excise, the UK Immigration Service, Special Branch and ports police forces at UK seaports and airports. [177170]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government are committed to ensuring that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise (HMCE), Special Branches and the Immigration Service work together far more effectively. My right hon. Friends, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor have tasked the Director-General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, the Director-General of HMCE Law Enforcement and representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers to develop more closely aligned objectives and priorities within their individual business plans. The group will report periodically to me and my hon. Friend, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the designated airports and seaports in the UK. [177172]

  Mr. Browne
  The ports specified in the Schedule to the Immigration (Ports of Entry) Order 1987 are those designated as ports of entry for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971.
  765W
  They are:

  Seaports and Hoverports

  Dover

  Felixstowe

  Folkestone

  Harwich

  Hull

  London

  Newhaven

  Plymouth

  Portsmouth

  Ramsgate

  Sheerness

  Southampton

  Tyne

  Airports

  Aberdeen

  Belfast

  Birmingham

  Bournemouth (Hurn)

  Bristol

  Cardiff (Wales)

  East Midlands

  Edinburgh

  Gatwick-London

  Glasgow

  Heathrow-London

  Leeds/Bradford

  Liverpool

  Luton

  Manchester

  Newcastle

  Norwich

  Prestwick

  Southampton

  Southend

  Stansted-London

  Teesside

  Seasonal Agriculture Workers
  Mr. Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people entered the UK under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme in the five years up to 1 May, broken down by nationality. [176466]

  Mr. Browne
  The latest information is for 1999 to 2003, and is given in the table.

  Criminal Justice Intervention Programme—Phase 1 DAT Areas

  £

  Drug Action Team funding 2003–04

  Partnership capacity

  Treatment pooled budget

  Through care after care

  Capacity building (CJIP)

  Building safer communities1

  Young people funding (from HO, DH, DfES, YJB)

  Total

  Camden

  68,164

  2,465,512

  185,776

  550,000

  433,752

  282,082

  4,037,366

  Ealing

  72,034

  2,134,853

  153,411

  450,000

  482,911

  310,230

  3,665,578

  Hackney

  68,331

  2,749,137

  208,537

  620,000

  477,731

  401,866

  4,602,486

  766W

  Passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom as Seasonal Agricultural Workers, by nationality, 1999 to 20032

  United Kingdom

  Number of journeys

  1999

  2000

  20011

  2002

  20032

  Bulgaria

  1,185

  1,290

  1.100

  1,730

  1,965

  Cyprus

  0

  3—

  0

  0

  3—

  Czech Republic

  270

  250

  575

  520

  385

  Estonia

  115

  125

  265

  305

  485

  Hungary

  95

  100

  75

  100

  80

  Latvia

  290

  340

  590

  985

  1,635

  Lithuania

  1,375

  1,255

  515

  2,090

  2,615

  Malta

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other Former USSR

  205

  420

  310

  865

  1,340

  Poland

  3,470

  3,195

  3,760

  4,485

  6,175

  Romania

  315

  305

  125

  330

  545

  Russia

  130

  215

  255

  625

  1,005

  Slovakia

  310

  365

  420

  815

  845

  Switzerland

  3—

  3—

  3—

  0

  0

  Turkey

  30

  25

  45

  25

  55

  Ukraine

  1,670

  1,835

  135

  3,640

  3,235

  Yugoslavia

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5

  Croatia

  3—

  0

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Slovenia

  3—

  5

  10

  5

  0

  Other Former Yugoslavia

  140

  125

  55

  80

  60

  Others

  150

  250

  150

  310

  285

  Total

  9,760

  10,105

  8,390

  16,910

  20,715

  1Data for 2001 may understate the actual arrivals due to data quality issues in recording the entry of persons under the scheme.

  2 Provisional and subject to change. The figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  3 = 1 or 2.

  Statistics (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) public and (b) charity funds were spent on tackling drugs misuse in Greater London, broken down by borough, in each year since 1997. [173251]

  Caroline Flint
  Following the launch of the National Drug Strategy in 1998 (Revised 2002) ring fenced investment in action to tackle drugs has increased significantly. Central drug specific allocations are supplemented by local mainstream and charitable funding. Information related to mainstream and charitable funding would only be available at local level. It would incur a disproportionate cost in staff time to gather these figures and they would be difficult to verify.

  The following tables contain the specific allocations for 2003–04 for Greater London by Drug Action Team (DAT) area. The first table shows allocations made to the 12 DATs involved in phase one of the Criminal Justice Intervention Programme, the remaining DATs are shown in the second table.

  In order to ensure consistency figures supplied are based on funding streams associated with the National Drug Strategy and are readily verifiable. These funding streams are specifically targeted at tackling the harm caused to individuals, families and communities by the misuse of drugs.
  767W

  Criminal Justice Intervention Programme—Phase 1 DAT Areas

  £

  Drug Action Team funding 2003–04

  Partnership capacity

  Treatment pooled budget

  Through care after care

  Capacity building (CJIP)

  Building safer communities1

  Young people funding (from HO, DH, DfES, YJB)

  Total

  Haringey

  69,246

  2,096,310

  191,150

  550,000

  436,722

  306,423

  3,712,295

  Islington

  67,701

  2,949,923

  171,254

  500,000

  412,195

  306,681

  4,467,299

  Lambeth

  70,830

  3,266,068

  294,591

  880,000

  608,881

  384,130

  5,568,538

  Newham

  69,651

  2,984,036

  237,809

  710,000

  482,443

  393,991

  4,965,540

  Southwark

  69,601

  3,052,379

  234,448

  700,000

  447,767

  387,486

  4,960,239

  Tower Hamlets

  67,836

  2,731,485

  206,476

  610,000

  401,853

  413,798

  4,520,560

  Waltham Forest

  69,262

  1,357,159

  140,547

  420,000

  332,903

  261,969

  2,638,798

  Wandsworth

  70,857

  1,999,794

  141,301

  420,000

  414,147

  262,178

  3,352,774

  Westminster

  68,981

  3,001,900

  135,693

  400,000

  455,792

  218,694

  4,323,090

  1 Contains non drug elements

  Non Criminal Justice Intervention Programme DAT Areas

  £

  Drug Action Team funding 2003–04

  Partnership capacity

  Treatment pooled budget

  Through care after care Pump priming

  Building safer communitites1

  Young people funding (from HO, DH, DfES, YJB)

  Total

  Barking & Dagenham

  66,916

  1,019,384

  35,000

  245,907

  161,959

  1,529,165

  Barnet

  72,926

  1,204,614

  35,000

  389,058

  212,636

  1,914,234

  Bexley

  69,154

  758,662

  35,000

  265,446

  138,866

  1,267,128

  Brent

  70,296

  1,908,709

  35,000

  404,467

  250,322

  2,668,794

  Bromley

  71,989

  901,396

  35,000

  347,094

  175,093

  1,530,572

  City of London

  61,680

  23,297

  35,000

  62,723

  2,711

  185,411

  Croydon

  73,328

  1,564,559

  35,000

  438,685

  241,222

  2,352,794

  Enfield

  70,843

  1,458,415

  35,000

  379,261

  201,615

  2,145,133

  Greenwich

  69,027

  1,866,717

  35,000

  347,594

  230,189

  2,548,528

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  67,028

  1,615,540

  35,000

  327,080

  175,815

  2,220,463

  Harrow

  68,932

  688,939

  35,000

  245,983

  132,187

  1,171,041

  Havering

  69,637

  711,231

  35,000

  255,809

  142,922

  1,214,599

  Hillingdon

  70,289

  1,038,182

  35,000

  360,823

  159,601

  1,663,895

  Hounslow

  68,883

  1,040,920

  35,000

  347,738

  173,358

  1,665,899

  Kensington & Chelsea

  67,279

  1,998,700

  35,000

  304,805

  151,136

  2,556,920

  Kingston upon Thames

  66,584

  724,847

  35,000

  162,467

  90,786

  1,079,684

  Lewisham

  70,011

  2,585,933

  35,000

  374,235

  270,355

  3,335,534

  Merton

  67,963

  949,061

  35,000

  211,023

  127,253

  1,390,300

  Redbridge

  69,626

  929,313

  35,000

  340,963

  160,093

  1,534,995

  Richmond upon Thames

  67,977

  755,700

  35,000

  199,472

  94,704

  1,152,853

  Sutton

  67,719

  662,225

  35,000

  192,886

  116,324

  1,074,154

  1 Contains non drug elements

  Surveys
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what surveys of public perceptions of his Department and of its areas of responsibility have taken place over the last 12 months; what the(a) title and (b) nature of these surveys was; what the findings of each survey were; where these findings have been published; what the cost of such surveys was; and if he will make a statement and place copies of the surveys in the Library. [176952]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office undertakes a wide range of research activities that support the development of information-led policy, including surveys of public perception and focus groups of the public that consider Home Office issues and its related areas of responsibility.

  The Department conducts or commissions such work only when it is justified by the specific needs of a particular policy or programme and when this is the most economical, efficient and effective way to achieve
  768W
  the purpose. Consulting and involving the public helps inform both policy formulation and the delivery of better quality public services.

  The available information on commissioned projects or surveys of public perception, including where these have been published is shown at Appendix 1. This table has also been placed in the Library. It has not been possible to provide detailed breakdown of costs of projects where this information is either not held centrally or is commercial in confidence.

  Websites
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total annual cost of his Department's websites, including those of its agencies, was in the most recent year for which figures are available. [159520]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The details required were answered in a question from Matthew Taylor.
  769W
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 11 May 2004, Official Report, column 235W.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Children's Centres
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the cost of establishing 1,000 children's centres by 2008. [177651]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government are allocating £435 million in the current Spending Review period to develop children's centres and 43,000 new full day care places in disadvantaged areas. Local authorities are responsible for deciding how many centres to develop, but their current plans indicate that around 975 will be operational by March 2006. The Government are committed to establishing 1,700 children's centres by March 2008, serving all of the most disadvantaged areas in England. Funding for this expansion will be announced later in the year.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what plans he has for(a) issuing guidance and (b) making it a statutory obligation that existing system built schools should have the level of compartmentation fire protection increased to meet the levels required by the current building regulations; [177591]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the fire risk associated with CLASP and SCOLA buildings; and how many schools are constructed in this way; [177592]

  (3) what plans he has to change the regulations for upgrading the level of compartmentation fire protection in system built structures such as those of CLASP and SCOLA design. [177593]

  Mr. Miliband
  Exemption for schools from the Building Regulations ended in April 2001 and since that date all new building work at schools, including system built schools, has been subject to approval under the Building Regulations. The fire safety aspects of the Building Regulations are not retrospective.

  The Department is in the process of producing new guidance on fire safety for schools. Building Bulletin 100, "Designing against the risk of fire in Schools", will give guidance on the design of new schools as well as the refurbishment of existing schools to at least the current standards of the Building Regulations. The guide is comprehensive and stresses the value of using risk assessments as the basis for determining, for example, the types of fire alarm and detection systems needed in particular school buildings. It will be aimed at schools, local education authorities (LEAs), design consultants, building control bodies and the fire and rescue service. It is likely, subject to consultation, that the forthcoming revised Approved Document B accompanying the Building Regulations will refer to this guide for fire safety standards in schools.

  The Department does not have figures for how many schools were constructed using the CLASP or SCOLA systems. However, all LEAs have produced asset
  770W
  management plans covering all the maintained schools in their areas. These surveyed the condition, suitability and sufficiency of school buildings, and should have highlighted and prioritised any apparent health and safety problems associated with them. Fire safety issues would have been included and any obvious risks should have been addressed.

  The Department's primary concern is for the safety of pupils, teachers and other users. Regulation 17 of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 requires that every part of a school building, and of the land provided for a school, shall be such that the safe escape of the occupants in case of fire is reasonably assured. Schools also covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and by subsequent related regulations. These include aspects of fire safety.

  11-year-olds (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of 11-year-old students in Crosby area schools achieved expected levels in(a) mathematics and (b) reading in the latest year for which figures are available. [177940]

  Mr. Miliband
  The number and percentage of pupils in Crosby who reached Level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 in(a) mathematics and (b) reading in 2003 are:

  Number/ Percentage

  Mathematics

  Crosby Number of pupils achieving Level 4 +

  822

  Crosby Percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 +

  86

  England Percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 +

  73

  Reading

  Crosby Number of pupils achieving Level 4 +

  860

  Crosby Percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 +

  90

  England Percentage of pupils achieving Level 4+

  81

  A/AS Levels
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average A/AS points score per examination entry was(a) in Sefton and (b) in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [177837]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in table 1.

  Table 1: average point score per GCE A/AS entry (or vocational equivalent) 1999–2003

  Sefton

  England

  1999

  4.9

  5.4

  2000

  4.9

  5.5

  2001

  4.8

  5.5

  2002

  67.9

  76.0

  2003

  69.7

  77.4

  The points awarded for each grade are described in table 2. In 2002, the point scores were changed to reflect the new UCAS tariff. An AS level counts as half an A level.
  771W

  Table 2

  Grade

  Points prior to 2002

  Points since 2002

  A

  10

  120

  B

  8

  100

  C

  6

  80

  D

  4

  60

  E

  2

  40

  I welcome the rising trend in national performance. This is of course a reflection of the hard work of students and the quality of their teachers.

  Building Schools for the Future
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will take steps to allow(a) sixth-form colleges and (b) further education colleges to apply for funding under the Building Schools for the Future Programme; and if he will make a statement. [176821]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: Capital investment through Building Schools for the Future (BSF) is allocated for schools, rather than sixth-form colleges or further education colleges. However, the Government have recently committed their self to separate increases in post-16 learning and skills sector capital investment. Capital funds allocated to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) will increase to over £400 million in 2005–06. This is an increase of over 60 per cent. in real terms when compared to 2002–03.

  We are currently working closely with the LSC to join up investment for schools, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges. We are also encouraging local authorities and local LSCs to consult each other in formulating their proposals and plans for priority capital funding.

  Careers Education and Guidance
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how he plans to ensure that impartial careers education and guidance are provided to all 13 to 19-year-olds as the wider range of options at Key Stage Four and beyond become available. [175852]

  Margaret Hodge
  Responsibility for the provision of careers education and guidance to 13 to 19-year-olds in England rests with schools and the Connexions Service. As the wider range of options at Key Stage Four and beyond becomes available, it m be important that STET young people are able to access good information and advice.

  We are currently undertaking a review to ensure to have appropriate arrangements in place which make sense in the new environment created by the reforms outlined in "Every Child Matters"' and the development of children's trust.

  Child Care
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills it (1) how many children in Stoke-on-Trent, North have benefited from the National Childcare Strategy; and if he will make a statement; [177641]
  772W
  (2) how many child care places have been created in Stoke-on-Trent, North since 1997. [177644]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department is unable to provide details of child care places for Stoke-on-Trent, North. However, from April 1999 to March 2004, Stoke-on-Trent local authority created 3,660 new child care places helping some 6,451 children. This shows an increase in the stock of child care places, taking into account turnover of 2,169 helping some 3,895 children.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what qualifications in childcare are necessary(a) to be a registered childminder, (b) to work in a day nursery, (c) to work in a nursery school or class and (d) to work in a pre-school play group; and if he will make a statement. [177522]

  Margaret Hodge
  The national standards for under 8s day care and childminding require that:a childminder has completed a local authority approved childminder's pre-registration course and a first aid course within six months of commencing childminding;
  the manager in a registered day care setting, including pre-schools, play groups and day nurseries, and all supervisors where full day care is provided, have at least a level 3 qualification appropriate to the post;
  at least half of all other staff in a day care setting should hold a level 2 qualification appropriate for the care or development of children.

  Staff employed in a teaching capacity in a nursery school or nursery class in a maintained school, should have Qualified Teacher Status (QTS).

  Children's Health
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to introduce specialist training for teachers on children's health issues. [177648]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not prescribe any specialist training for teachers on children's health issues. We are however developing a common core of skills, knowledge and competence for members of the children and young people's workforce, including teachers, which will include safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. We will consider in consultation with our partners how the common core will relate to initial teacher training, induction for newly qualified teachers and existing arrangements for professional development.

  Class Sizes (Brighton and Hove)
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children were in classes of 31 or more in infant schools and infant classes in primary schools in Brighton and Hove in each year since 1996–97. [176574]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available data is shown in the table.
  773W

  Maintained primary schools1: number of pupils in key stage 1 classes of 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher.1998–2004 (provisional): position in January each year. Brighton and Hove Local Education Authority2

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Total pupils in all classes

  Number of pupils

  Percentage of pupils3

  1998

  7,080

  3,422

  48.3

  1999

  6,988

  2,811

  40.2

  2000

  6,709

  2,262

  33.7

  2001

  6,517

  408

  6.3

  2002

  6,432

  0

  0.0

  2003

  6,353

  32

  0.5

  20044

  6,795

  31

  0.5

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Brighton and Hove became a unitary authority in April 1997 as a result of local government reorganisation.

  3 Percentage of pupils in those classes expressed as a percentage of pupils in all classes taught by one teacher.

  4 Provisional.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  Final 2004 figures will be published in September.

  Computers in Schools
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many computers each school in(a) Leyton and Wanstead, (b) the London Borough of Redbridge and (c) the London Borough of Waltham Forest has for the education of pupils; and how many each had in 1997. [178191]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Figures for England, which were derived from a sample of schools, are shown in the table.

  Average number of computers per school (used solely or mainly for teaching and learning purposes) by type of school, England

  Maintained

  Position as at 31 March:

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  13.3

  100.9

  18.5

  2003

  28.6

  192.7

  31.3

  n/a = not available.

  The latest available information on ICT in schools was published in Statistical Bulletin, "Survey of Information and Communications Technology in Schools 2003", which is available on the Department's website: www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils per computer there were in schools in(a) Merseyside and (b) Crosby in each year since 1996. [177865]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Figures for England, which were derived from a sample of schools, are shown in the table.
  774W

  Average number of pupils1 per computer (used solely or mainly for teaching and learning purposes) by type of school, England

  Maintained

  Year end March:

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  1996

  19.0

  9.0

  4.0

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  17.6

  8.7

  4.5

  1999

  13.4

  8.4

  3.7

  2000

  12.6

  7.9

  3.7

  2001

  11.8

  7.1

  3.2

  2002

  10.1

  6.5

  3.4

  2003

  7.9

  5.4

  3.0

  n/a = not available.

  1 Full-time equivalent numbers of pupils.

  The latest information on ICT in schools was published in Statistical Bulletin, "Survey of Information and Communications Technology in Schools 2003", which is available on my Department's website: www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/

  Departmental Administration Budgets
  Mr. Oliver Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [176500]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  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. Within the overall settlement for education announced in the Budget, the administration costs of the DfES will be reduced by more than 5 per cent. in real terms over the spending review period.

  Departmental Policies (Stroud)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask t he Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will set out, with statistical evidence relating as closely as possible to the Stroud constituency, the effect of changes to departmental policy since 1997 on the Stroud constituency. [174834]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The constituency of Stroud falls within Gloucestershire Local Education Authority. Where the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) can or does collect information by constituency, it has been provided.

  Additional information could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, my Department is investigating ways in which we disseminate information about the effects of our policies at a local level. We hope to have systems to facilitate this in place later this year.

  Children, Young People and Families

  Early Education

  All three and four year olds throughout England are now guaranteed a free, part time, Government funded early education place if their parents want it. We understand that around 99 per cent. of four year olds, and over 94 per cent. of three year olds, are currently benefiting from some level of free early education in Gloucestershire.
  775W
  Childcare

  There has been a major expansion in childcare provision since 1997. We only have figures at local authority level, but at March 2004 we had created over 15,864 new childcare places in Gloucestershire since April 1999, benefiting 27,688 children. The current stock of childcare places (16,695) provides 16 childcare places per 100 children which above the national average.

  Children's Social Services

  Children's social services in the constituency are delivered by Gloucestershire County Council. Gloucestershire is a two star social services authority with services for children and families assessed as serving most children well with promising prospects for improvement, which are higher ratings than were awarded in 2002. These judgements are set out in the annual review of Performance Ratings for Social Services in England published by the Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate in November 2003.

  Disadvantaged Area Programmes

  The Stroud constituency contains one Mini Sure Start Local Programme providing services for an identified 'pocket of deprivation' across Cam and Dursley. One Neighbourhood Nursery has opened in the constituency providing 50 full day care places, with another due to open in June 2004 which will offer a further 61 places.

  Gloucestershire County Council intends to create six children's centres building on existing provision, including two Sure Start Local Programmes in Cheltenham and Gloucester. The Council is not currently developing plans for a centre within the Stroud constituency, but it is working on ways of ensuring a consistent approach across 'pockets of deprivation' to ensure all children and families In all neediest parts of the County receive the same high standard of integrated early years support.

  Connexions

  Connexions, the Government's front line support service for all young people aged 13–19, is providing advice, guidance and support to young people in the Stroud constituency through Gloucestershire Connexions Partnership. Since its launch in April 2002 young people aged 13–19 have had access to support and advice on a range of issues to help them participate and achieve in education, employment and training and to reach their full potential as adults.

  Youth Services

  There is one local authority youth service in Gloucestershire The service was the subject of an Ofsted inspection in March 1998 and assessed to be a 'good' service. The service has fully embraced the Transforming Youth Work agenda.

  Extended Schools

  The Department is funding two delivery strands to support the development of extended schools. Gloucestershire is due to receive both strands in 2005–06 subject to the detailed allocations of resources from the outcome of the current Spending Review.
  776W
  Schools

  Recurrent Funding

  The estimated1 increase in per pupil funding in real terms from 1997–98 to 2004–05 is £740 in Gloucestershire compared with the national average of £880.

  Capital Funding

  Gloucestershire LEA had an allocation of £28.5 million (including £8.3 million which is devolved directly to schools and £2.7 million in Targeted Capital funding) for 2003–04 compared with £12.2 million in 1996–97. Gloucestershire LEA has been allocated £34.6 million for 2004–05 (including £5 million in Targeted Capital funding). Some VA allocations have still to be included for 2004–05.

  School Performance Tables

  Key Stage (KS) figures can be found on the DfES website at: www.dfes.gov.uk/performancetables

  Class Sizes

  In Gloucestershire LEA the number of five, six and seven year olds in classes over 30 has fallen from 4,975 in 1997 to 156 by January 2003.

  Teachers

  In Gloucestershire LEA the number of teachers has risen by 670 (FTE from 1997 to 2003). There are 285 more teaching assistants and 821 more support staff than in 1997.

  Specialist Schools

  There are six specialist schools in the parliamentary constituency of Stroud and 27 specialist schools in Gloucestershire LEA.

  Education Action Zones

  Gloucester EAZ started in January 2000, and covers 25 schools: three secondary; 20 primary schools; one special school and one pupil referral unit. Gloucester EAZ transforms into an Excellence Cluster in January 2005.

  Results
  Between 2000–2003, there was no recorded improvement in those pupils that attended EAZ schools achieving 5 A*-C GCSEs (30 per cent. in both years). The LEA average improved by 4 points.
  Between 2000–2003, there was a significant improvement in pupils' performance at Key Stage 3. Those achieving Level 5+ in English, Maths and Science and attending EAZ schools rose by 20; 9 and 11 points respectively. The LEA average improved by 3; 5 and 9 points respectively.
  Between 2000–2003, pupils attending EAZ schools achieving L4+ in English, Maths and Science at Key Stage 2 rose by 1; 3 and 8 points respectively. The LEA average improved by 1; 4 and 4 points respectively.
  Between 2000–2003, pupils attending EAZ schools achieving L2+ in Reading, Writing and Maths only rose in Reading (4 points);
  achievement remained the same in the other subjects. The LEA average improved by 2 points in Reading, 1 point in Maths, but decreased by 2 points in Writing.

  Beacon Schools

  There are two beacon schools in the parliamentary constituency of Stroud and 15 beacon schools in Gloucestershire LEA.
  777W
  Primary Strategy Leadership

  Forty seven primary schools in Gloucestershire LEA are taking part in the Primary Strategy Leadership programme this year. Additional schools will be selected by the LEA to enter the programme in 2004–05.

  Leadership Incentive Grant

  Five Gloucestershire schools receive the Leadership Incentive Grant totalling £754,000 in the 2004–05 financial year. There are no schools in Stroud which meet the eligibility criteria for this grant.

  Behaviour Improvement Projects

  All secondary schools in Gloucestershire receive support from the Behaviour and Attendance strand of the Key Stage 3 Strategy, including a behaviour audit and training materials as well as support from specialist LEA-level consultants.

  14–19 Education

  The Government's strategy for 14–19 education and training, set out in 14–19:
  'opportunity and excellence', will provide all young people with the opportunity to continue their education in different settings, including schools, colleges, and the workplace.

  The impact of the 14–19 agenda on Stroud includes: 16–19 Area Inspection (14–19 from March 2003)

  Gloucestershire as it is not a borough that has had an Area Inspection.

  Strategic Area Reviews ( StARs)

  In April 2003, all local Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) started strategic area reviews (StARs) of post-16 LSC-funded provision. These reviews aim to achieve the right mix of provision in an area to improve participation, raise attainment and improve learner choice. StARs will ensure that there is the breadth of opportunity and quality of provision to meet the needs of learners, employers and communities.

  All local LSCs have been gathering information, reviewing provider missions, and consequently building an understanding of each provider's role and the provision on offer. The next step is to develop strategic options.

  In the case of LSC Gloucestershire, good progress has been made locally on StAR. The data gathering and analysis phase has been completed and used to identify the particular issues in Stroud district. This has enabled work to begin on developing strategic options. These will be discussed with a cross section of partners and stakeholders within Stroud at a district event in June.

  It is anticipated that those attending will support the LSC in making sure all of the issues have been identified and provide input to build on the emerging options.

  The outcome of this process will be a final set of strategic options that will be launched for consultation later in the year with a final set of options in place within the next local annual plan in the spring of 2005.

  Vocational Provision

  Learners in the Stroud area have access to 14 work based learning providers–they cover a wide range of vocational programmes covering occupational areas/sectors which are significant to the sub regional economy including hotels and restaurants, warehousing and distribution, construction, business and administration, health and care, engineering and retail. The programmes
  778W
  are available through Entry to Employment, and Level 2 and Advanced Apprenticeships [Level 3] and include opportunities for learners with social and learning needs.

  In addition, Stroud College has worked in conjunction with eleven secondary schools and two specialist educational institutions to offer Year 10 and 11 pupils a range of high quality vocational programmes since September 2002. There are currently approx. 300 students on the programme. These have been jointly funded by the LSC, through the Increased Flexibility Initiative and by participating schools and Stroud College. A partnership steering group was formed at the outset and this meets on a termly basis to monitor and review the success of the programmes. Over the next two years it is planned to build on the achievements of the initiatives to date, focussing on the quality of teaching and learning, improving communication between all partners and building clear progression routes for students over the 14–19 age range.

  Educational Maintenance Allowances

  There are no EM A pilots in the Gloucestershire LEA area.

  Higher Education

  The number of 18–20 year olds permanently resident in Gloucester LEA accepted through UCAS to full-time first degree Higher Education courses (degree, HMD or foundation degree), are as follows:

  Gloucester LEA

  Number

  1997

  2,631

  1998

  2,618

  1999

  2,601

  2000

  2,748

  2001

  2,721

  2002

  2,832

  Adult Education

  The Local Labour Force Survey shows that in Stroud:
  The proportion of work ng age people qualified to at least level four has fallen from 30.5 per cent. in 1999 to 23.2 per cent. in 2002.
  The proportion of working age people qualified to at least level 2 has risen from 66.0 per cent. in 1999 to 68.3 per cent. in 2002.
  The proportion of working age people without any qualification has fallen from 12.2 per cent. in 1999 to 11.0 per cent. in 2002.
  The proportion of working age people who received job related training in the last four weeks fell from 17.3 per cent. in 1999 to 11.0 per cent. in 2002.
  1 Includes provisional estimates of grants and allocations still to be confirmed. Total funding per pupil aged 3–19 includes Education Formula Spending (EPS) and all relevant grants in the DfES departmental Expenditure Limits but, for comparability, exclude the pensions transfer to Learning and Skills Council and EFS in 2003–04 and 2004–05. Real terms at 2002–03 prices.

  Devon LEA
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost of school transport in Devon Local Educat ion Authority was in each of the last seven years. [164788]
  779W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  Cost of home to school/college transport

  £000

  Gross transport expenditure

  Transport related parental contributions

  Net transport expenditure

  1996–97

  14,200

  518

  13,682

  1997–98

  15,379

  581

  14,798

  1998–99

  13,866

  534

  13,332

  1999–2000

  14,337

  554

  13,784

  2000–01

  15,118

  543

  14,575

  2001–02

  13,972

  580

  13,392

  2002–03

  19,319

  557

  18,761

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from Devon LEA's Section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's RO1 statement previously. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA. Figures are in £000s in cash terms.

  2. Figures up to and including 1997–98 are for Devon LEA prior to local government reorganisation. From 1998–99 onwards parts of Devon LEA became Plymouth LEA and Torbay LEA.

  3. Total transport expenditure and parental contributions includes that incurred in relation to pre-primary, primary, secondary and special school education as well as in education out of school, continuing education and the management and support elements.

  Easy to Read Publications
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will take steps to increase the

  Support staff employed in local education authorities in Greater London

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  London

  16,760

  16,750

  17,990

  19,100

  20,000

  21,500

  23,600

  27,000

  31,000

  32,300

  City of London1

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  —

  10

  Camden

  440

  420

  460

  490

  520

  540

  580

  670

  750

  750

  Greenwich

  580

  630

  700

  730

  770

  800

  900

  1,080

  1,220

  1,220

  Hackney

  470

  450

  460

  490

  520

  530

  620

  710

  830

  900

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  330

  350

  370

  390

  400

  390

  470

  490

  590

  590

  Islington

  440

  440

  470

  480

  470

  510

  580

  640

  720

  770

  Kensington and Chelsea

  250

  260

  290

  310

  300

  310

  340

  370

  400

  430

  Lambeth

  660

  680

  700

  690

  730

  780

  890

  980

  1,110

  1,090

  Lewisham

  570

  550

  600

  650

  700

  770

  830

  930

  1,050

  1,150

  Southwark

  630

  630

  710

  760

  830

  890

  1,050

  1,190

  1,320

  1,360

  Tower Hamlets

  690

  710

  810

  850

  870

  950

  1,020

  1,290

  1,570

  1,520

  Wandsworth

  810

  750

  760

  770

  840

  850

  960

  980

  1,090

  1,170

  Westminster

  360

  370

  350

  370

  390

  410

  410

  450

  610

  600

  Barking and Dagenham

  420

  440

  490

  540

  560

  580

  590

  700

  790

  820

  Barnet

  700

  720

  780

  810

  860

  920

  990

  1,090

  1,270

  1,220

  Bexley

  400

  420

  470

  510

  550

  640

  710

  780

  920

  1,000

  Brent

  510

  500

  540

  600

  640

  710

  760

  840

  960

  930

  Bromley

  550

  520

  570

  630

  660

  720

  780

  900

  990

  1,090

  Croydon

  740

  780

  860

  910

  920

  1,020

  1,090

  1,280

  1,420

  1,440

  Ealing

  700

  620

  630

  680

  700

  740

  790

  920

  1,030

  1,040

  Enfield

  560

  580

  650

  730

  790

  850

  940

  1,080

  1,330

  1,460

  Haringey

  600

  600

  590

  630

  640

  670

  700

  830

  1,010

  1,040

  Harrow

  520

  510

  550

  570

  580

  600

  650

  700

  760

  800

  Havering

  430

  490

  550

  580

  580

  640

  700

  770

  870

  960

  Hillingdon

  700

  680

  750

  800

  870

  900

  980

  1,110

  1,250

  1,290

  Hounslow

  580

  560

  590

  630

  620

  650

  690

  770

  880

  870

  Kingston upon Thames

  280

  290

  310

  330

  340

  370

  410

  450

  510

  580

  Merton

  390

  380

  400

  420

  450

  490

  500

  580

  660

  660

  Newham

  520

  590

  630

  700

  760

  940

  1,190

  1,520

  1,740

  2,010

  Redbridge

  560

  510

  570

  600

  640

  700

  830

  920

  1,080

  1,140

  780W
  number of books, magazines and newspapers available in large print, audio, Braille and electronic formats accessible to people with a visual impairment, dyslexia or other reading disability; and if he will make a statement. [176682]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are already taking a number of steps to ensure this issue is addressed. We have extended the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to include duties on local authorities and education institutions to improve access for disabled learners. Over £600 million will be made available over the period 2001–02 to 2005–06 to support access improvements. Officials at the Department of Trade and Industry have been in discussion with the Right to Read Alliance and the Publishers Association about the possibility of a central deposit of electronic versions of all new material published in this country. Officials have worked with the RNIB and copyright owners to reduce delays in gaining copyright clearance, when making accessible copies of printed materials and supported the establishment of the Reveal database which provides information about accessible resources.

  Education Support Staff (Greater London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many education support staff there were in Greater London in each of the last 10 years, broken down by borough. [176830]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The following table shows the full-time equivalent number of support staff employed in local education authorities in the Greater London area for each year between 1994 and 2003, the latest information available.
  781W

  Support staff employed in local education authorities in Greater London

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Richmond upon Thames

  270

  270

  290

  290

  310

  310

  320

  350

  410

  420

  Sutton

  330

  360

  380

  420

  450

  500

  50

  590

  660

  700

  Waltham Forest

  740

  660

  710

  740

  780

  810

  860

  1,020

  1,170

  1,230

  1 City of London did not make a return in 2002

  Note:

  Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Educational Standards
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many and what percentage of pupils in Greater London, broken down by local education authority, reached the(a) mathematics and (b) English standard in each of the last seven years; [177043]

  (2) how many and what percentage of 11-year-old pupils in Greater London, broken down by local education authority, reached level four in (a) mathematics and (b) English in each of the last seven years. [177044]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. The table includes the figures for English, mathematics and science for all local education authorities in England, 1997–2003.

  Excellence in Cities
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Stoke-on-Trent, North have benefited from the Excellence in Cities programme; and what the per pupil spending was in each year since the programme's inception. [177640]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the number of children in Stoke-on-Trent North benefiting from EiC, and the annual spend per pupil for the years in question.

  £

  Number of children

  Total EiC expenditure1

  Spend per pupil

  2000–01

  4,742

  263,890

  55.65

  2001–02

  4,673

  483,160

  103.39

  2002–03

  4,799

  511,690

  106.62

  2003–04

  4,799

  1,845,670

  384.59

  1 All funding figures supplied by Stoke on Trent Excellence in Cities Team

  Failing Schools (Surrey)
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Surrey have been classified as failing in each year since 1996–97. [177268]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the right hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  GCSEs
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 15 and 16-year-olds in Greater London, broken down by local 782W
  education authority, achieved five or more GCSEs at grade A*-C or GNVQ equivalent in each of the last seven years. [177045]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) whether vocational GCSE grades are included when calculating the average point scores of pupils in England; [177669]

  (2) what the average point score of GCSE pupils was in England over the past five years. [177667]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  The first GCSEs in vocational subjects will be taken this summer and the point scores will be included in the 2004 performance tables.

  The average point score1 of 152-year-old pupils

  Academic year

  England

  1999

  38.1

  2000

  38.9

  2001

  39.3

  2002

  40.1

  2003

  40.9

  1 The figures include GCSE average point scores and GNVQ equivalencies.

  2 Pupils are aged 15 at the start of the academic year ie 31 August.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations the Government have received about the mandatory requirement for head teachers to join the General Teaching Council; and if he will n Lake a statement. [178052]

  Mr. Miliband
  As far as I am aware, the Government have not received any formal representations on this matter. The present facts are that any qualified teacher, whether they be classroom teachers or part of the senior management team, are required to register with the GTC and that all head teachers are currently required to have Qualified Teacher Status.

  Implementation Review Unit
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) start-up costs and (b) projected running costs for the next three financial years are of the Implementation Review Unit. [177604]
  783W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The start-up costs of the Implementation Review Unit were £108,473.

  In 2003–04, the actual running cost of the Implementation Review Unit w as £348,967. For 2004–05, the Implementation Review Unit has a budget of up to £500,000. Budgets beyond April 2005 have not been decided yet.

  Key Stage 2
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of primary schools has achieved 100 per cent. of its pupils reaching Level 4 in reading in the Key Stage 2 SAT tests. [177272]

  Mr. Miliband
  In the 2003 National Curriculum assessment tests for Key Stage 2, 9.7 per cent. of schools achieved 100 per cent. of its pupils reaching Level 4 or above.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions his Department is holding on learning disabilities in children. [176817]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: Ministers and officials from my Department regularly meet organisations which represent learning disabled children and their families to ensure that their interests are reflected in the development of our policies for children. The Department's Board of Stakeholders, which I chair, includes the Director of the Council for Disabled Children (CDC) and the Chair of the Special Educational Consortium, which represents a large number of voluntary organisations in the learning disability field.

  Many of these organisations responded to the Green Paper "Every Child Matters" and my ministerial colleague Baroness Ashton recently met representatives of the CDC, the Disability Rights Commission and the Learning Disability Task Force, on which the Department is represented, to discuss the implementation of Every Child Matters with regard to the needs of disabled children.

  The new special educational needs (SEN) strategy "Removing Barriers to Achievement", which we published in February, will complement Every Child Matters and the Children Bill. It puts forward a strategy to improve provision for all children with SEN, including those with learning disabilities. It is a long-term strategy which was developed after discussions with a number of organisations, including ones which represent the interests of children with learning disabilities and we will involve such groups as the strategy develops. For example, we will be working with the voluntary sector to develop practical tools for involving children, including those with learning disabilities, in decisions about their own education and local SEN services.

  The strategy also complements other relevant policies, where we are also working with learning disability organisations. For example. we are working with them on the Children's National Service Framework through the External Working Group on
  784W
  disabled children and the Working Group on 14–19 reform is consulting these groups through an SEN and Equal Opportunities sub group. The Department will continue to work with the voluntary sector so that children with learning disabilities are provided with the services which will give them the opportunity to realise their potential.

  Mathematics
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students who studied mathematics at(a) GCSE, (b) A-Level and (c) degree level went on to (i) teach mathematics in schools and (ii) pursue other careers in each of the last five years. [172630]

  Mr. Miliband
  The exact information requested is not held centrally, but latest figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) show that 94 per cent. of newly qualified PGCE students in 2001/02 who had undergraduate degrees in mathematics entered employment as teaching professionals.

  Pupil Funding
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent per pupil in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood in each of the last seven years. [176206]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than constituency level and as such the figures provided are for Blackpool LEA.

  Net current expenditure

  £

  Pre- primary education

  primary education

  Pre- primary and primary

  Secondary Education

  Special

  1996–97

  n/a

  n/a

  1,800

  2,590

  15,990

  1997–98

  n/a

  n/a

  1,820

  2,630

  17,320

  1998–99

  n/a

  n/a

  1,900

  2,510

  15,270

  1999–2000

  0

  2,160

  2,240

  2,810

  13,810

  2000–01

  0

  2,310

  2,320

  3,030

  20,700

  2001–02

  0

  2,670

  2,900

  3,320

  16,280

  2002–03

  —

  2,840

  —

  3,430

  —

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from local education authorities' section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's ROI statement previously. 2002–03 data subject to change by the LEA. Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of the section 52 outturn statement in 1999–2000. Hence, for consistency, the combined unit cost is provided since 1996–97 but due to problems outlined below (in footnote 4) the unit cost for primary education is a more robust measure.

  2. Prior to local government reorganisation (LGR) in 1998–99 Blackpool LEA was part of Lancashire LEA. Consequently figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are for pre-LGR Lancashire LEA and figures for 1998–99 onwards are for Blackpool LEA.

  3. Spending in 1997–98 reflects the transfer of monies from local government to central Government for the nursery vouchers scheme. These were returned to local government from 1998–99. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance.

  4. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector.

  785W
  Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  5. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA.

  6. The NCE per pupil figures for pre-primary and primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector. Blackpool LEA has no maintained nursery schools but does spend a significant amount of money on the pre-primary sector (around £2.8 million in 2001–02). This additional expenditure on the pre-primary sector has the effect of inflating the combined pre-primary/primary unit cost as it includes expenditure on both pre-primary and primary education divided only by the pupils in maintained primary schools.

  7. The NCE per pupil figures for secondary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained secondary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained secondary schools sector.

  8. The NCE per pupil figures for special schools relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained special schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained special schools sector.

  9. Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.

  Pupil Referral Units
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) total cost and (b) average cost per attendee was of pupil referral units in each of the last three years. [165473]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is contained within the following table. Since we do not collect expenditure information about PRUs alone, we cannot calculate a unit cost:

  Net current expenditure on education out of school

  Net current expenditure (£)

  Pupils attending PRUs

  2000–01

  211,149,747

  9,019

  2001–02

  225,309,786

  9,734

  2002–03

  244,210,864

  11,322

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from local education authorities' Section 52 Outturn Statements submitted to the DfES. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA.

  2. Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.

  3. Education out of school includes any provision for pupils who because of exclusion, illness or other reasons receive education out of school settings; the implementation of behaviour support plans; home-tuition; individual teaching of sick children in hospital; education in social service establishments; and expenditure on Pupil Referral Units (PRUs).

  4. The count of pupils attending PRUs excludes those pupils who are also registered at a mainstream or special school.

  School Funding
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much Government spending there was on each(a) primary school pupil and (b) secondary school pupil in Watford in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2004. [171884]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than districts within an area.786W
  Watford is a district of Hertfordshire Local Education Authority. The information for Hertfordshire LEA is as follows:

  Net current expenditure per pupil

  £

  primary education

  Pre-primary and primary education

  Secondary education

  1997–98

  n/a

  1,850

  2,670

  1998–99

  n/a

  1,990

  2,800

  1999–2000

  2,060

  2,110

  2,770

  2000–01

  2,240

  2,310

  2,950

  2001–02

  2,520

  2,590

  3,250

  2002–03

  2,800

  2,880

  3,550

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from Hertfordshire LEA's Section 52 outturn statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's ROI statement previously. Spending in 1997–98 reflects the transfer of monies from local government to central Government fot the nursery vouchers scheme. These were returned to local government in 1998–99. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance. Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of the Section 52 outturn statement in 1999–2000.

  2. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA and is the latest data available. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  3. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA.

  4. The NCE per pupil figures for pre-primary and primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.

  5. The NCE per pupil figures for secondary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained secondary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained secondary schools sector.

  6. Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.

  School Meals
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when Ofsted will publish its report on school meal provision. [177647]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  School Sports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been invested in Stoke-on-Trent North to build long-term school sports facilities since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [177636]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not hold information in the form requested. The bulk of capital funding is allocated to local education authorities and schools by formula and it is for them to est this funding to meet priorities identified in their local asset management plan.
  787W
  We do not hold allocation information at constituency level, but the table shows total capital funding allocated to Stoke-on-Trent.

  Stoke LEA capital allocations

  £000

  Amount

  1997–98

  1,381

  1998–99

  4,629

  1999–2000

  197,773

  2000–01

  9,154

  2001–02

  10,510

  2002–03

  11,598

  2003–04

  11,333

  2004–05

  13,825

  1 Includes £93 million in Private Finance Initiative credits.

  Secondary Schools (Kent)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment he has made of the arrangements fiat parents in Kent to choose secondary schools; and if he will make a statement. [177997]

  Mr. Miliband
  At the request of Kent local education authority, the Secretary of State imposed a co-ordinated admissions scheme on the Kent area on 9 September 2003. The scheme is primarily about the admissions process, rather than admission arrangements for individual schools, and it will remain in place until the LEA and schools agree on a replacement scheme. As the scheme is administered by the LEA, it, along with the schools in the area, is best placed to evaluate the way it has worked and we are keen to hear their assessment of this. We will, therefore, be asking the LEA for statistical data and feedback when its administration of the main part of the process is complete for this year.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many hours of training qualified teachers receive in relation to identifying, managing and teaching special educational needs in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools per year; what requirements exist for such training to be provided; and if he will make a statement. [177513]

  Mr. Miliiband
  Qualified teachers are expected to identify their development needs through performance management arrangements and to address identified needs, including improving their teaching skills in the area of special education needs, by undertaking appropriate professional development.

  Information on take-up of professional development by teachers is not collected centrally.

  Statistics
  Virginia Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the (a) number and (b) average pay of (i) teachers and (ii) all other education staff in (A) 1997, (B) now and (C) 2011. [177370]
  Mr. Miliband
  The information available is given in the following table. The table shows the full-time equivalent (FTE) number of teachers, teachers' average salary and FTE numbers of support staff in maintained schools in England in each of the years. Information on school support staff pay is not collected centrally. Estimates of the number and average pay of teachers and other education support staff in 2011 have not been made.

  Teachers (number)

  Teacher average salary1 (£)

  Support staff (number)

  1997

  399,200

  21,770

  136,500

  2002

  419,600

  28,720

  217,000

  20042

  427,800

  —

  241,700

  1Teachers in England and Wales. 2002 is the most recent year for which pay data are available.

  2 Provisional data.

  Source:

  Annual 618G survey, Database of Teacher Records and Annual Schools Census.

  Sure Start
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what account he is taking of the new Index of Multiple Deprivation in decisions relating to the roll-out of Sure Start projects. [177702]

  Margaret Hodge
  It is important that the future implementation of Sure Start Children's Centres is based on the most up to date information on deprivation. The Sure Start Unit has commissioned analysis to help consider how to use the new Index of Multiple of Deprivation so we continue to target the most disadvantaged children and families effectively. This work should be complete by the early autumn.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people joined the teaching profession after university in 2003; and what plans he has to increase the number of people interested in joining the teaching profession. [176815]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: Between March 2001 and March 2002, 18,200 newly qualified teachers entered full-time or part-time service in the maintained sector in England. These teachers gained qualified teacher status in calendar year 2001 either through an initial teacher training course or other approved route. A further 10,100 entered service in the maintained sector for the first time having qualified before 2001. This is the latest information available.

  There are a number of schemes designed to encourage people to consider teaching as a potential career option. These range from taster schemes that give people the opportunity to work in a classroom environment before making a commitment to financial incentives such as Golden Hello and Training Bursaries. Thanks to the continued success of these and other schemes, teacher numbers are at their highest level since 1981. The Government remain committed to attracting good quality people into teaching and encouraging them to remain in the profession.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Mental Health and Social Exclusion
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  In spring 2003, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister asked the social exclusion unit to consider what more could be done to reduce social exclusion among adults of working age with mental health problems. The unit has looked in particular at promoting employment and job retention, and improving social participation and access to services for this group.

  Adults with mental health problems are one of the most excluded groups in society. Fewer than a quarter of adults with long-term mental health problems are in employment, despite many having aspirations to work. Too often people do not have other activities to fill their days and spend their time alone. Stigma and discrimination against people with mental health problems remain widespread, and can have a greater impact on the quality of people's lives than the mental health problems themselves.

  Depression, anxiety and phobias can affect up to one in six of the population at any one time, with the highest rates in deprived neighbourhoods. Severe mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, are relatively rare affecting around one in 200 adults each year. The costs of mental health problems can be high, both to individuals and society as a whole. In addition to medical costs, lost opportunities to work can lead to a negative spiral of debt, reliance on benefits and housing instability. Early intervention to keep people in work and maintain social contacts can significantly reduce these costs.

  The social exclusion unit report, "Mental Health and Social Exclusion", is published today. For the first time, action will be taken across Government to address the full range of issues affecting people with mental health problems. Rather than focusing solely on medical needs, it addresses stigma and discrimination, employment, education, housing, family needs and community participation. At national level, over 20 Government Departments, agencies and other national organisations will be involved in driving forward the report's action plan in six key areas:
  stigma and discrimination—a sustained programme to challenge negative attitudes and promote awareness of people's rights;
  the role of health and social care in tackling social exclusion—implementing evidence-based practice in vocational services and enabling reintegration into the community;
  employment—giving people with mental health problems a real chance of sustained paid work reflecting their skills and experience;
  18WS
  taking part in the local community—enabling people to lead fulfilling lives the way they choose;
  getting the basics right—access to decent homes, financial advice and transport;
  and
  making it happen—clear arrangements for leading this programme and maintaining momentum.

  The SEU report builds on action already taken by the Government to improve services for people with mental health problems, including the modernisation of NHS mental health services, improved civil rights for disabled people and more support to help disabled people back to work. It draws on examples of local good practice, often led by an expert and innovative voluntary sector.

  Creating sustainable, inclusive communities is about everyone having a stake. Being in work and having social contacts is strongly associated with improved health and well-being. People with mental health problems have much to offer. If they are able to fulfil their potential, the impact of mental health problems on individuals, their families and society can be significantly reduced.

  A copy of the social exclusion unit report, "Mental Health and Social Exclusion" and a summary document are available in the Libraries of the House.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Gambling
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  The Government have today published their response to the First Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill. Copies have been laid before Parliament and also deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional State Aid Reform
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith)
  The European Commission has published proposals for amending the guidelines that govern regional state aid, which define assisted areas and aid intensities allowed within them for the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013 and are seeking member states' views on their proposals. My Department will shortly be issuing a consultation document seeking the views of all interested parties on the Commission's proposals.

  The Government remain committed to improving prosperity in all regions of the UK, and to reducing the gaps in growth rates between the regions and has introduced a range of measures to address regional disadvantage, such as measures to promote training to ensure that people in the region have the skills to fulfil the region's long-term economic strategy and to deal with the consequences of industrial change and measures to promote urban and rural regeneration.

  The Government believe funding at EU level—the structural funds—should go to the poorest member states, where it will add most value. As these economies grow, so will prospects for UK exporters. The expansion

  19WS
  of the EU will create a market of 450 million customers opening up opportunities for commercial activity for businesses in every region. However, the Government consider that richer member states should have more scope to use their own funds to tackle the causes of underperformance.

  The Commission explains that their objectives in reviewing the regional aid guidelines are to tackle market failures, promote entrepreneurship and ensure less and better targeted State aid. The Commission's aim is to allow a better concentration of regional aid to investment in the least favoured member states and regions, while increasing the flexibility for other member states and regions to pursue local development policies that address specific regional problems or opportunities. The Commission proposals would reduce the areas in which regional aid can be provided in nearly all of the longer-standing member states including the UK. The levels of aid that could be given would also be reduced. Their proposals would at the same time increase levels of aid for capital investment allowed to small and medium sized firms outside the assisted areas. Plans to provide a completely new instrument permitting quicker approval of certain types of aid considered being less distorting would also introduce greater flexibility to provide lower levels of aid outside the assisted areas. Further reviews of other State aid guidelines, such as those permitting aid for research and development are planned.

  The Government support an effective state aid regime, since state aid can distort competition between firms, which can, in turn, limit business performance, prosperity, and quality for consumers. An effective state aid regime helps create a level playing field for business across the EU. At the same time, the state aid regime needs to be flexible and Governments must be able to tackle the causes of underperformance where they arise.

  As already noted, investment aid is only one way in which the Government work with business in the regions; most business support schemes do not depend on the regional aid guidelines.

  The horizontal rules on aid for SMEs, research and development, environmental aid, training and employment aid, risk and venture capital will continue to allow aid to be granted anywhere post-2006. The Commission have indicated that they are open to further proposals from member states in terms of greater flexibility under these "horizontal guidelines" and the consultation document seeks views on this issue.

  Regional aid nevertheless remains an important tool. The Government therefore want to ensure that under the new regional aid guidelines, regional aid can still be granted in the areas where it is most needed to help address regional disparities and local deprivation. The present proposals from the Commission do not deliver this effectively as they do not adequately allow for disparities within regions, given that poor areas exist side by side with rich areas. The consultation document therefore seeks views on potential alternative methods for determining the assisted areas; aid intensity levels allowed within them; and how best to provide for a suitable level of flexibility to give aid outside the assisted areas where it is needed.

  The Commission has asked for member states' comments by 1 July. However, the Government expect to continue discussions with the Commission on this
  20WS
  issue into the autumn The Government's consultation document therefore requests responses by Monday 6 September 2004 but notes that if it is possible for respondents to provide early responses (or initial comments) by Monday 28 June 2004 these will help inform the Government's formal response to the Commission proposals in July.

  Copies of the full consultation document will be placed in the Libraries of the House and will also be available on the DTI website at

  www.dti.gov.uk/ewt/stateaid.pdf and at

  www.dti.gov.uk/consultations/stateaid.pdf

  Cross-border Mergers
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith)
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House copies of a consultation document entitled "European Company Law—Draft Directive on Cross-Border Mergers".

  The cross-border mergers directive introduced by the European Commission will enable cross-border mergers between companies with share capital from different member states. The Government strongly supports the objective of agreeing a cross-border mergers directive and is committed to extending the opportunities for corporate restructuring across the EU as crucial to the single market.

  This consultation explores a range of issues, such as which types of companies cross-border mergers should be available to, and its purpose is to seek business views with the aim of ensuring that the final directive offers a practical solution to the issues of cross-border restructuring for businesses within the EU—providing legal certainty whilst avoiding unnecessary burdens and constraints on business. The consultation period ends on 20 September 2004.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Council of the European Union
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union is as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Event

  June

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) / IGC

  17–18

  Brussels

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL / IGC

  21–22

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  21–22

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  25–26

  Dromoland

  EU-US Summit

  Castle, Co.

  Clare

  28–29

  Luxembourg

  Council Meeting of EU

  Environment Ministers

  July

  1

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  2–3

  Maastricht

  Competitiveness (Informal)

  7

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  7–8

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  8

  tbc

  EU-Ukraine Summit

  8–10

  Maastricht

  Social Policy (Informal)

  9–10

  Amsterdam

  Transport (Informal)

  21WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  12–13

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  12–14

  Rotterdam

  Informal Ministerial Education Youth and Culture

  14

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  15

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  16–18

  Maastricht

  Environment (Informal)

  19

  Brussels

  JHA Council

  19

  Brussels

  Agricultural and Fisheries Council

  22

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  23

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  August

  No meetings planned

  September

  1

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  2

  Brussels

  Coreper

  3–4

  Maastricht

  Gymnich

  5–7

  Noordwijk

  Agriculture and Fisheries (Informal)

  8

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  8

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  9–10

  Noordwijk

  Health (Informal)

  11

  Scheveningen

  ECOFIN

  13–14

  Brussels

  GAERC

  15

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  16

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  17

  Brussels

  Coreper I

  17–18

  Noordwijk

  Informal Ministerial Defence

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  22

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  22

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  24

  Brussels

  Competetiveness Council

  27

  Brussels

  (Possible) Council Transport, Telecom and Energy

  29

  Brussels

  Coreper I

  29

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  30

  Den Haag

  JHA (Informal)

  October

  1

  Den Haag

  JHA (Informal)

  1

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  4

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health, Consumer Affairs Council

  6

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  6

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  7

  Hanoi

  EU-South Korea Summit

  22WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  7–8

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom and Energy Council

  7

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  8–9

  Hanoi

  ASEM Summit

  11–12

  Brussels

  GAERC

  13

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  14

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  14

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  15

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  18–19

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  19

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  20

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  19

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  22

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  25–26

  Brussels

  JHA Council

  27

  Maastricht

  Informal Ministerial—Development

  27

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  27–28

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  29

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  November

  2–3

  Brussels

  GAERC

  5

  tbc

  European Council

  9–11

  Groningen

  Informal Ministerial—Integration

  9

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  10

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  10

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  12

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health, Consumer Affairs Council

  12

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  15–16

  Brussels

  Education, Youth, Culture Council

  17

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  17

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  18

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  19–20

  Rotterdam

  Informal Ministerial—Transport, Telecom, Energy

  19

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  22–23

  Brussels

  GAERC

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  23

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  24

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  24

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  25–26

  Brussels

  Competitiveness Council

  29

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom and Energy Council

  29–30

  Rotterdam

  Informal Ministerial—Urban Development

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

International Aid
Baroness Whitaker Baroness Whitaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have plans to increase their international aid budget.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, UK development aid has doubled since 1997. It has risen from £2 billion to more than £4 billion and will increase from 0.26 per cent of gross national income in 1997 to 0.4 per cent by the end of the current spending round in 2006—the highest level since 1981. This will be higher than the EU target average for member states of 0.39 per cent. In addition, as the Chancellor announced in the Budget, the Government will not cut aid in the next spending round, but will continue to increase the resources that we provide to the world's poorest countries.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, on which, indeed, I congratulate him. But does he agree that although, due to our right honourable friend the Chancellor's achievements, Britain has the strongest economy in Europe, many other countries in Europe are ahead of us in that they have either reached, or found timetables for reaching, 0.7 per cent of GNI, which was agreed 34 years ago? Will he undertake to set a timetable to reach the agreed goal in the next Parliament, as the report of the All-Party Group on Africa asks?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I gave the figures for the existing spending round and I gave an indication, which is rather unusual, of the Chancellor's intentions for the next spending round. It would be difficult to go further than that, but I point out to my noble friend that the 0.7 per cent target, even if it were pursued by everyone, would not deliver the resources for the millennium development goals that the United Nations said would be necessary and which would require, it says, £50 billion a year. The Government have set up the international finance facility to bridge the gap between pledges and the millennium development goals. That is a more realistic and helpful target than setting a timetable.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, following the debate last week on the DfID annual report, when the Minister's noble friend ran out of time to answer all of the questions raised, could I press the Minister on one
498
of those unanswered questions? We note with interest that DfID is involved in a 100 million dollar loan to provide schooling for 2.4 million children in China. Will that amount grow? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the House on the reasoning behind a loan to support education in one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the criterion for aid should be, or is, whether a country has a fast growing economy. By World Bank definitions, China, like India, for example, is a low income economy and a feature of our policy has been to give a high proportion of our aid to low income economies. That applies to China as well.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister aware that £544 million has been pledged to the reconstruction of Iraq up to March 2006? Does the noble Lord feel that it is right that DfID should carry so much of the burden of that policy? What will he do to ensure that the poorest people in the world do not lose out as a result?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must say, first, that Iraq is a low income economy. I know that that should not be the case—it has all the resources; gross mismanagement and bad government over many years are to blame. However, I assure the noble Baroness that the money going to Iraq is not taken from the rest of the DfID budget—90 per cent of which will go to the poorest countries by 2006.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is there any positive news about defeating corruption? One of the Government's aims has been to see that money really reaches those poor people. Has there been any real progress in that respect?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a huge problem and is the reason why the Government, to some obloquy, did not agree with those who argued that we should be cancelling all the debts of the heavily indebted poorest countries immediately. It would not be a proper use of the money if it fuelled corruption or conflict, but we are doing much work in countries such as Sierra Leone to ensure that corruption is reduced. Money is available if corruption is reduced and if we are sure that the help will reach those people who really need it.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, as the Minister said, in his reply to my noble friend Lady Northover that the money would be taken out of DfID's budget, will he confirm that there will be no adverse impact on DfID's budget?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that none of the money which goes to Iraq will be taken out of DfID programmes for other countries.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, my noble friend said that the International Financing Facility was a better

499
means of increasing aid for the world than the target of 0.7 per cent. However, as he said that at 0.7 per cent there was not enough to reach the millennium development goals, will he not agree that we need both the IFF and the target of 0.7 per cent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, there is a failure of logic there. We are saying that in both the current and next spending rounds we will make significant increases in our overseas aid. That is the way in which we run our finances and we do not make particularly long-term commitments. Combining that with the Chancellor's initiative—the international finance facility, which was largely his idea—bridging the gap between the pledges and the millennium development goals and doing that with the aid of the international financial community, is the right way to proceed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister acknowledged that more resources would be available for development if we could stamp out corruption. What progress has been made on the Prime Minister's initiative: the extractive industry's transparency initiative? How many countries have signed up to that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have that figure on the tip of my tongue. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about it. I apologise.

EU Membership
2.44 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what basis they maintain that 60 per cent of the United Kingdom's trade and 3 million jobs depend on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in 2002, some 53 per cent of the UK's trade in goods and services was with the EU. The Treasury estimates that 3 million jobs in the UK are linked, directly and indirectly, to the export of goods and services to the European Union. This figure is based on the assumption that the share of total UK employment associated with UK exports to the EU is equal to the share of total UK value added generated by UK exports to the EU.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. However, that precise sound-bite was used several times last week by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others when campaigning for the European elections. The obvious aim was to frighten the British people into fearing that we cannot afford to leave the European Union. Is the Minister aware that every reputable study conducted this century has found that leaving the European Union would be trade and jobs neutral for the United Kingdom; and that a new study has
500
found that leaving would bring an economic benefit to our economy of at least £20 billion per annum? If the Government do not agree with those studies, why do they continue to refuse to sanction a cost/benefit analysis?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am delighted to see the noble Lord on his usual Bench in the House. We on this side wish him well in his continuing efforts to divide the Opposition party.
In answer to his question, let me make it quite clear that there are advantages, well documented and easily identified, to our membership of the European Community. They are represented by the level of investment in this country and by the number of jobs dependent on the European position. The Government are prepared to enter into debate at any stage on any statistics which may be developed on the other side of the argument, but they will need to be substantiated with rigour. The government figures are, of course, rigorous.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is peddling his usual line of nonsensical proposals and that if we followed it we would be committed to competing in a single market from which we were excluded from making any of the rules? The rules would apply to us and we would have to sit outside and accept them, even if we still traded. At the same time, the noble Lord would inflict enormous damage on British agriculture which currently receives support from the European Union.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I emphasise that the single market brings significant advantages to this economy. How else can we explain the significant investment by the Japanese motor industry, for example, if we were not part of the single market? When the Opposition produce their frequent rants about so-called red tape in the United Kingdom and from Brussels, perhaps they should bear in mind that the moment we withdraw from the EC and negotiate fresh terms, the amount of red tape in Customs alone would be enormous.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I declare an interest as European adviser to a large Japanese company. Surely this is a time when we should stop the politicking about such a serious subject. If we lost 60 per cent of our trade, that would be total disaster. Can the Minister list the three major sectors about to go bankrupt?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot do that, but I can agree with the noble Lord that this is a serious debate. He will recognise that the essence of political debate in this country is about serious issues. We are not selling our people short when we engage in this debate with a degree of seriousness that the nation expects.
If at times that looks as though a government Minister might be prone to a little point scoring on the Opposition, that is merely part and parcel of the necessary debate on this serious issue. I have no doubt

501
that it will feature prominently in the next general election and will certainly feature in the subsequent referendum.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the director-general of the CBI, who said earlier today that leaving the EU would be a disaster for British industry as it would deny it a voice at the table at which the regulatory framework, in which it has to operate in relation to 60 per cent of its exports, is determined? If he agrees with that, can he urge on his Cabinet colleagues rather greater effort and energy in making the case which he has made so eloquently this afternoon?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I could not possibly suggest that my right honourable friends in the Cabinet could be more energetic in prosecuting the essential case before the British people. However, I agree very much with the noble Lord and the director-general of the CBI that it is clear that a substantial amount of British exports from our manufacturing industry is dependent on our participation in the single market. Should the country make the tragic mistake of following the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, we shall risk that being put in jeopardy.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does the Minister accept that governments must govern with consent and, given the results in the European elections, would not a little humility be in order? I share the Minister's view on the importance that he attaches to our continued membership of the Community. Can he therefore confirm that the Government will now abandon their plans to adopt the European constitution, given the clear voice expressed by the people? If we are to govern with consent, should we not react to the clear concern in the country at the continued integrationist stance in Europe when people wish to be in a Community that provides prosperity and free trade?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is putting his own gloss on, and giving his own interpretation of, the events of last week. But I certainly agree that it ill behoves any of us not to be responsive to the votes expressed by the people. I emphasise to the noble Lord that, so far as concerns the proposed treaty, the Prime Minister has made it clear that, when a Labour government are re-elected at the next general election, the people will be consulted and will have the right to vote on these issues after they have been duly considered by the British Parliament.

Cross-Channel Rail Freight
2.53 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to encourage cross-Channel rail freight from 2005–06.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government's proposals for rail freight will be announced as part of the conclusions of the rail review. Current arrangements for cross-Channel freight services derive from the contract between Eurotunnel, British Railways Board and SNCF. The Government hope that the parties can agree a way for services to continue for the benefit of freight users.
With regard to the long term, we await the new Eurotunnel management's plans for the development of freight services through the tunnel. Until those are available, no definitive proposals can be put forward by other interests.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Is my noble friend aware that, as part of these negotiations, there is a good chance that all services will stop from next April or May unless someone finds about £25 million to bridge the gap in the serious contractual situation that he has outlined? Given the Government's duty under the Transport Act 2000 to promote rail freight, will he take that into account and ensure that there is no disruption in service?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the present situation is serious but perhaps not quite as serious as the total suspension of freight through the tunnel envisaged by my noble friend. However, we are in a very difficult position. My noble friend will recognise that, in these circumstances, the Government's scope to play a role with state aid is very limited. But he will also know that we are about to announce our general proposals regarding rail services, including freight, and we shall seek to safeguard as far as possible, and, in fact, enhance, freight services through the tunnel.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister remember that it was John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, who created the Strategic Rail Authority, and Stephen Byers, the then Minister for Transport, who created Network Rail, but that the structure of the railways has just been called a "crazy bureaucracy" and an "absurd system" by Kim Howells, the current Minister for Transport? Does he agree with those statements and, if that is the case, how can anyone plan a proper rail service in the future?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the development of those two concepts relating to rail services was derived from the fact that, following the previous government's privatisation, we found rail services in chaos. The noble Viscount will recognise that we are not satisfied with the position. That is why the rail review is currently being carried out, the results of which will be announced in June or July. We intend to identify a structure for the railway system which enhances its performance and enables it to recover from the years of underinvestment by the previous administration and the chaotic system that they left behind them.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the Question. Freight services through the Channel

503
Tunnel face a real crisis because of the need to conclude a new arrangement for the financing of Eurotunnel. If that has to be done by next year, we do not want to send out an uncertain message to freight forwarders. Can the Minister give some kind of assurance that there will be no increase in the amount of money which freight forwarders must pay for the use of Channel Tunnel freight services, whatever the outcome of the negotiations between the Government and the owners of Eurotunnel?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking for an assurance from the Government which would involve a degree of subsidy, but that would cause real difficulty in the way in which provision for the Channel Tunnel is managed. I accept what the noble Lord says. This is a serious situation. There are two aspects to it: there is a short-term dimension, to which the noble Lord alluded; and there is the long-running issue of freight services through the tunnel. I assure the noble Lord that these are major issues which concern Ministers.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while SNCF has many admirable qualities, a willingness and a determination to promote interoperability between the different railway systems of Europe is not terribly high on its list of priorities? When my noble friend's colleagues in government speak to their French counterparts, can they do their utmost to ensure that the French are prepared to move on the issue of interoperability?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is, indeed, a critical concept. We all know that SNCF is extremely jealous of its own services and that, at times, it is reluctant to come to terms with the necessary interface that the Channel Tunnel offers in terms of both freight and passenger traffic. But, of course, this is a matter for negotiation, and I am grateful to my noble friend for helping to strengthen the hand of the railway system in this country.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as this country depends on imports and exports and as only a limited amount of trade can go through the Channel Tunnel, what are the Government doing to help our importers and exporters with respect to shipping and ports, given that they have just turned down the extension of Southampton at Dibden Bay?
Lord Davies Oldham: My Lords, the noble Earl is right to refer to planning consent not being granted for that particular project. However, he will also recognise that there is extensive investment in the development of rail freight services in relation to several of our major ports, including Felixstowe. We plan to enhance rail links with the main rail routes throughout the United Kingdom on the basis of investment in those areas, and I can assure the noble Earl that freight is a significant dimension of that work.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I refer to the answer given to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of
504
Worcester. Given the attitude of SNCF, which can be compared with the defence of the Maginot Line, is it not likely that this line is to be breached in the very near future? Does this not go back to the original Question asked by my noble friend Lord Berkeley; that is, that as interoperability becomes the norm between France, Germany, the Netherlands and so forth, it would make cross-Channel freight through the tunnel economic? That is the gap that we have to bridge, or in this case, tunnel, I suppose.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is right to refer again to the fact that SNCF is very clear about its interests. However, we should not exaggerate the position. The real problem with regard to the Channel Tunnel, as all noble Lords will appreciate, is with the border, the control of the company, and the strategy that the company has less than 90 days to produce in order that users can make appropriate arrangements. That is a very real difficulty, which at this stage probably outweighs the issue of the negotiations with SNCF on interoperability of services.

Universities Online
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the online university UKeU is being dismantled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the board of the Higher Education Funding Council for England decided in February 2004 to seek a restructuring of the activities and services of eUniversities. This decision was made in the light of the results of a review of the plans of UK eUniversities Worldwide, the company taking forward the project. This review noted the changes in the global financial market and the fact that student recruitment had not met planned targets in the first year.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can she explain to the House how the Government got it so badly wrong? Why did they invest £62 million of taxpayers' money on a projection that hundreds of thousands of students would apply when I gather that only 900 applied, resulting in a cost of about £44,000 per student?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Question would be more easily understood by looking back to 2000 when the proposals were put forward by the Higher Education Funding Council in what was felt to be an appropriate move to consider the role of e-learning worldwide. The noble Baroness is right about the numbers and costs. Indeed, it was for those reasons that the Higher Education Funding Council asked for the review and took the decisions it did.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what has happened to the

505
e-learning platform developed by Sun Microsystems, which I gather was a very substantial part of the project and which has been part of the cause of the problems that the project has hit?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not entirely certain that it was a substantial part; certainly, it was a substantial investment in the learning platform. Noble Lords may know that the decision was taken to create a new platform as opposed to building on any other platform. My understanding is that discussions are currently under way with those who might seek to develop the platform further.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, what representations have the Government received from universities and the private sector since 2000?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not entirely certain that I understand the question asked by the noble Baroness. I am not aware of any representations per se. All bar one of the institutions were part of the holding company for UKeU and, therefore, were involved in the process in that sense.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister say whether one of the partial reasons for failure was the lack of accessibility of broadband to people who live in country districts, certainly in south-west Scotland and elsewhere?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot give a specific answer to the noble Lord. What I can say is that this was aimed primarily at worldwide markets. The noble Lord will, of course, include Scotland in the worldwide market. We know that 38 countries were involved in studying online, from which we have 900 students, so there has been some attempt to develop this in a worldwide context.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, despite the difficulties with this project, to which my noble friend Lady Perry and the Minister referred, does she not agree that learning online and the related training for industrial subjects is very important and needs to be encouraged to the maximum extent?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I could not agree more. This is a critical part of our future, not only through curriculum online within schools and the opportunities that that gives but in terms of language learning and other studies where being able to deal directly with other countries is critical.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, what market research was done and by whom, which resulted in this projection of hundreds of thousands of applicants?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not have information on what numbers were originally
506
projected in 2000 when HEFCE put forward the proposals, but I am very happy to obtain as much information as I can and write to the noble Baroness.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, a Statement on the G8 Summit will be repeated this afternoon by my noble friend the Leader of the House at a convenient time after 4.30 p.m.

Business of the House: Standing Order 43
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 43 (Postponement and advancement of business) be dispensed with on Friday 25 June to allow the Motions standing in the name of the Baroness Byford to be advanced to Wednesday 23 June.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 5,
Schedule 1,
Clause 6,
Schedule 2,
Clause 7,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 8 to 12.—(Lord Bach.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ipswich Market Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Higher Education Bill
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 29 [Director of Fair Access to Higher Education]:
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 14, line 6, at end insert "who shall be subject to the principles of the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34A, 45, 47, 48, 51 and 53. This group of amendments attempts to create a rather different Office for Fair Access—OFFA—from that which is currently in the Bill while retaining all the necessary tools to ensure that every university works to widen access.
I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful letter to me on this subject. As she will see, I have changed several of the amendments to which I spoke in Committee in the light of her comments. I am grateful to her also for her Amendment No. 24.
Amendment No. 23 subjects the Secretary of State to a requirement that the principles of the Civil Service Commissioners' recruitment code should be followed in the appointment of the director of OFFA. We believe that the commissioners' code offers exemplary practice. In the words of the first commissioner, it is a way of ensuring that recruitment is impartial and that there is no political patronage. We want a director of OFFA—a very important post—who is neither a creature nor a crony of the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 34A lays out an alternative vision of the plans that universities will have to submit, but leaves the initiative with the universities' own creative ideas and not subject to very tight regulation. It removes regulation in the detail of how the plans for widening the pool of applications will be undertaken, but it also leaves out the phrase about "groups under-represented" in higher education, which is an infelicitous phrase and needs qualifying. Are we talking about social class groups, ethnic groups, geographical or perhaps groups from the north-east? "Groups under-represented" could mean anything, such as there not being enough blondes with long hair. I am unhappy with that phrase and our amendment does not include it.
Amendment No. 45 also removes the regulation-making power of the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly in this regard. However, in relation to the financial detail—such as the fees to be charged and the amount of bursary the university will give—the Secretary of State will make regulations as determined under Clauses 22, 24, 25 and 26. We believe that there is no need for such regulations from the Secretary of State on the universities' broader plan for widening access.
Under Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, all universities' strategic plans would continue to be sent to the funding councils. As I said in Committee, I believe that it is wrong to ask universities to develop their plans for widening applicant pools and improving access arrangements separately from their overall strategic plans. Universities submit strategic plans across
508
the board—for financial development, buildings development, new courses and so on—and all of them are highly relevant to access. Widening access is currently part of those plans. To expect them to take out that part which relates to how they will recruit—how they will bring in their customers, if I may use business language—seems to me a very unusual and strange way to ask universities to do their planning.
Therefore, these amendments will make it possible for universities to continue to submit one set of strategic plans which include plans for widening access and leaves the funding councils to determine the plans' format and the timing of their submission.
However, Amendment No. 47 also requires the funding councils to pass on to OFFA the parts of the plans that deal with widening access. OFFA will then comment on the plans in dialogue with the universities and, if it thinks fit—that is crucial—approve them. That gives OFFA a considerable amount of power. If it does not approve the plans, the universities cannot charge fees. So it will clearly be extremely important for universities to get their plans for widening access approved by OFFA and to get them right.
The chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, speaking on behalf of his board, told the House of Commons Select Committee that he sees no need for OFFA. He pointed out that the funding council has power to reward institutions which do well in recruiting these minority groups and that, indeed, it has already approved plans for widening access and rewarded the universities' efforts in that regard. He pointed out that the amount of money which the many institutions receive for their efforts in widening access is more than they get from the research assessment exercise.
Our amendments further require OFFA to report to Parliament on the plans and their progress. That will give further power to the director of OFFA to ensure that universities take appropriate action.
Most importantly, we believe that OFFA will be more effective as a promotional body than as one which controls by regulation and by punishment. That is why Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 take away OFFA's punitive power in respect of universities that fail to take the steps they outlined in their widening access plans. Power is left to the funding council and to OFFA, as directed by the Secretary of State, to penalise universities that do not follow their financial plans; in other words, those that do not charge the fees precisely as they said they would and do not provide the bursaries stated in their plans.
I believe that making OFFA a body that has powers of punishment is not an adequate response to the kinds of behaviour we are talking about. Institutions should be committed to widening access, not simply to doing something in order to avoid punishment. I am thinking particularly of the welfare of applicants who, for example, are from groups that do not have a family tradition of higher education. I want those groups to receive genuine encouragement from the universities to which they apply and I want their applications to

509
receive a warm welcome. That would not happen if some universities were engaging in this activity simply because they wanted to avoid any kind of punishment.
When we discussed this matter in Committee the noble Baroness said she expected universities to develop a very positive relationship with OFFA. I cannot help but feel that if OFFA had these punitive powers, it would be rather like asking a motorist to develop a positive relationship with a traffic warden who had just slapped a fine on his car windscreen.
3.15 p.m.
We believe that institutions should be helped through powers of persuasion. I am therefore delighted to see the Minister's Amendment No. 24—although we have added an additional amendment to it, which we will discuss later. We do not believe that institutions should be brought to their knees—as they could be, as the fine could entail up to a whole year's grant if it were levied towards the end of the year—simply because they failed in their efforts.
I want all institutions to address the widening access agenda, and I believe that HEFCE's current initiatives go a long way to ensuring that that becomes so. I do not believe these powers of OFFA are necessary. I think that all of these amendments go together as a total package. I beg to move.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, perhaps I may take a little time to go through this comprehensive list and plead for forgiveness in doing so. On the involvement of the Civil Service Commission, since that body appointed—am I wrong about that? Would the noble Baroness clarify?
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the amendment does not involve the Civil Service Commission. It simply asks that the Secretary of State shall follow the principles of the Civil Service Commissioners' recruitment code.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I shall not pursue that matter. Had the noble Baroness wanted to draw an analogy with recruitment to the Civil Service, I would have said that the civil servant is by nature one who dances to another man's tune. The last thing we want is this man to dance to the Secretary of State's tune. However, forgive me.
I move on to the diminution of the regulating power. I have for many years been a public servant and the chairman of several public bodies. As one who has on behalf of Ministers stroked the ear in private of various people in public positions, and as who has been on the receiving end of such informal encouragement to do a Minister's will, I find such a proposal worrying. I would much prefer the Secretary of State to discharge whatever he wishes to achieve through something that is on the public record; namely, a regulation.
On the changes in the job of the organisations to which we are referring, and on the particular task of widening access, I am honestly concerned that Amendment No. 34A seems to water down the vigour of what is in the Bill. Although I have them in front of
510
me, I shall not read out the different passages. However, I must say that I was very confused by new subsection (1B), which is concerned with attracting,
"applications from as wide as possible a number of prospective students".
I am not sure what,
"as wide as possible a number",
looks like. Possibly it is an infinite series. But I am clear that it takes away from the emphasis on attracting students from less advantaged homes and other under-represented groups. It could even mean that they had a duty to seek to encourage applications from foreign countries that are "under-represented"—whatever that might mean—in our universities. So I would not favour the wording and the thinking that underlies that particular amendment.
We have discussed the involvement of the funding council before. It is much clearer if we have a body with a particular responsibility under statute. It should then get directly the information that it requires to discharge its responsibility and engage directly with institutions, rather than rely on another body to provide the information that it needs and then start to engage. That would mess it about.
On the reduction of powers, the noble Baroness referred to punitive powers. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said earlier—he will forgive me if I remember wrongly—that in politics, perception is everything. It may not be everything, but it is an important part of life. We need to carry conviction with those who are worried that aspects of the Bill may, in spite of all that the Government are doing, reduce participation by young people from disadvantaged homes. We should not remove the power that enables the director to act, if he can reasonably conclude that the institution has not taken all reasonable steps—as provided in the government amendment, which I welcome—to obtain applications. It is reasonable for us to provide conviction that we mean something by the OFFA proposals by providing those reserve powers. Of course, they will have to be used sparingly. It would be unacceptable if the director were to impose swingeing financial penalties on institutions. The regulator will have to use the powers with discretion. He will have to retain the confidence of the institutions.
If we are to get through the other place the kind of changes in funding that the universities so desperately need, we must leave the Cheshire cat visible, so that it is not just a smile on the face of those who want to see the back of the Bill.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I shall be brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and I have a similar view of how OFFA should work. It should have no remit over admissions; it should encourage applications from a wide range of potential students; and it should not impose a bureaucratic burden on institutions. However, although we share those aims, I am not convinced that the amendments will take us there. They remove the power of the Secretary of State to issue guidance under the clause, but he or she would retain the power to issue guidance to OFFA under

511
Clause 30. It would be less satisfactory to have OFFA steered in that non-statutory way than to have regulations subject to stakeholder consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. It is difficult to believe that the Secretary of State would have no influence over OFFA. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, pointed out in Committee, it is better that that influence should be in the form of public regulation rather than private pressure.
Also, through the package of amendments, the body to be set up would be very different from OFFA. In fact, it is so different that I fear that it would be viewed by another place as a replacement for, rather than an improvement of, OFFA. As your Lordships know, my aim has been to improve OFFA rather than to reject it completely. My preferred route to reach our shared aims is for the regulations on OFFA under this and other clauses to be subject to affirmative resolution and for there to be consultation with the higher education sector. That is the subject of a group of amendments in my name that we shall reach shortly.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I do not normally disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. In fact, we have worked together on a number of areas concerning university education. But I must say that I cannot support this group of amendments. I tend to take a line more like that described by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and my noble friend Lady Warwick, but would perhaps go even further than them. My opposition to the amendments is because, as the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks, they would bring about a completely different set-up for OFFA—a set-up that I think would be less effective in what I feel is the fundamental thrust of the Bill: to widen access.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is second to none in her anxiety for access to be widened and has done much work in that respect. But we cannot just allow universities to freewheel and, at the same time, widen access. I said in Committee that access is more than just trying to ensure that state-educated young people with two or more A-levels have the same choice of university as do young people educated in the private sector, important though that is. It is much more fundamental than that.
Amendment No. 34A, which would remove the reference to under-represented groups, destroys the whole basis for widening access. To me, widening access is a question of bringing in under-represented groups in our society. Sometimes they are geographical; sometimes they are ethnic; sometimes they are based on class. There is a whole range of young people who have not had an opportunity—because of their earlier education, I accept—to enter higher education. The Bill must deal with that effectively.
Widening participation cannot be left to schools; universities, schools, the Learning and Skills Council and all the various networks of access programmes must be involved. Ultimately, it means that universities themselves must make modifications to their ethos and
512
to the whole range of support facilities that they provide for young people. That cannot be done completely voluntarily; it needs regulation.
To take my university as an example, anyone who examined the profile of the University of Bradford as it is now and as it was 10 years ago would find that it is completely different, with much greater involvement of young people from working-class areas, ethnic groups and the regions. Many factors have contributed to that. During the past 10 years, strategies have been developed to try to involve those groups of young people, but they have been adopted by certain universities, not across the board. If we are to widen access and change the nature of the courses provided in our universities, as my university of Bradford has done, more universities must not only present but monitor programmes to ensure that they are followed through.
It is significant that in our debate on the Bill, little mention has been made of foundation courses or of the new 14 to 19 strategies, which are all aimed at bringing young people up to a standard at which they can benefit from higher education. It may not be a classical higher education; it may involve more workplace training and vocational education. Nevertheless, it can and will be of just as high a standard. I can claim for my own university, on the basis of assessments of teaching, research and student retention, that it can modify courses, change its ethos and adapt mottos to accommodate such young people without lowering standards.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, I do not think that that can be done in an unregulated way. If we are not careful, we might find ourselves giving more power to HEFCE in this area than to OFFA. Surely, under the Bill as drafted, HEFCE is much more liable to influence by government than OFFA would be.
The amendments might be counterproductive to what the noble Baroness wishes to provide, so I am afraid that I oppose them. I want some regulation in the system, as it is the only way that we will achieve the objectives and aspirations of the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we support this group of amendments. In speaking in support of the amendments, I should like also to answer some of the questions that have arisen. It seems, for example, that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, is wrong in suggesting that there is no regulation in the proposal. As noble Lords know, we originally argued that we did not need OFFA and that HEFCE already had the necessary powers. The aim of the amendments that we tabled in Committee was to subsume OFFA within the powers of HEFCE. There was a lot of dissension on that based on the argument that it would bring funding and regulation together into one body.
I was much influenced in what I said then, and am influenced in what I say now, by the evidence given by the chief executive of HEFCE, Sir Howard Newby, to the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee last March. As the noble Baroness,

513
Lady Perry, mentioned, he made it clear that, so far as he was concerned, HEFCE already monitored what was happening on access, and regulated it to some extent, because it already punished those who did not have access plans by withholding funds from them. Therefore, there was already mixing of the regulation and funding functions.
The extent to which extra moneys have now been given to HEFCE to promote the access agenda indicates that it has yet further power to promote that agenda. The notion of what I call "OFFA within HEFCE" did not meet with favour in Committee. I concluded that this group of amendments was a good substitute for our proposal. The amendments contain many very sensible ideas. Rather than OFFA being a punitive, vindictive organisation, it becomes one concerned to help to promote, encourage and develop best practice in access. That is its main function; it is what the director of OFFA will do. It will do it separately from HEFCE but alongside it. The access plans are to be conceived within universities' overall strategic plans, which must be submitted to HEFCE.
During our previous discussions on Report, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, told us about the sets of plans that universities must produce constantly for HEFCE—in some senses, HEFCE's bureaucracy. Now we suggest that the proposal will not create extra bureaucracy, because the access plans will be produced within the context of the broad strategic plans for HEFCE. They will place real emphasis on access. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, would like to speak for herself, but I do not believe that she wishes in any way to diminish the emphasis on widening participation in this agenda.
Originally, I hesitated to back this group because of the two little amendments at the very end, Amendments Nos. 51 and 53—the "or(c)" amendments. I argued that, if you have plans for access, it is very important that there is some sanction. What would you do if a university developed an access plan and then did nothing about it? One must recognise that two aspects are retained in this group of amendments. The first goes back to Clause 23(1)(a). Any university that does not have an approved plan will not be able to charge higher fees and will be stuck with the lower, basic Dearing fee, as I call it. If any university wants to charge a higher fee, it must have developed an access plan. That provision remains.
What happens if a university just ignores the access plan and does nothing about it? What sanction is there? Amendment No. 47 has brought me round to backing this whole series of amendments, including Amendments Nos. 51 and 53. Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 47 states:
"The Funding Councils shall provide to the relevant authority copies of that part of the Institutions Strategic Plans relating to Fair Access arrangements, which will then comment to each institution on the content of its plan and may, if it thinks fit, approve the plan".
In other words, the process of approval of plans is still written into the amendments. The one thing lost is OFFA's ability to suggest to HEFCE that it eliminates grants and moneys other than those gained through raising fees. When we discussed the matter in
514
Committee, we were generally agreed that there was a degree of vindictiveness in taking away other grants and loans, which was a sanction available to the Secretary of State. This proposal limits the sanctions to not being able to charge higher fees, which, in the circumstances, is probably fair and reasonable and would hit universities very hard. They are all looking forward to being able to charge higher fees, regret it though I may from these Benches.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, will bear witness to the fact that I have not been won over that easily, because I was not convinced initially that this was what I wanted. I am now convinced, because we have changed the wording to provide that plans must be approved, otherwise universities may not charge higher fees. That seems a very sensible way forward. I thoroughly support the amendments.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, in supporting the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Perry, I congratulate her on the dogged determination and persistence with which she has pursued these matters. Perhaps the Minister will surprise me by accepting all the amendments, but I am genuinely puzzled about why the Government should have any difficulties with them. The exposition of the amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was masterful and set out the case. I do not propose to detain the House by going over the details.
However, one thing, which is perhaps a little harsh, must be said. Having listened to the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and even the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who told us that she was with us in spirit but could not quite bring herself to support the amendments, and that she had similar views but felt the remedy lay elsewhere, I feel that we are witnessing people making speeches in support of a deal that they made many months ago.
The deal was that the Government would produce a Bill that would provide for the introduction of fees; and the price was an attack on the independence of the universities by the establishment of OFFA. At the beginning of the discussions on this, I was influenced by the arguments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that perhaps the best thing would be to get rid of OFFA altogether and to leave it with HEFCE. That appealed to my radical instincts.
There is considerable concern in universities about the role of OFFA. I spent the weekend with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who arranged for endless academics to come and talk to me about this Bill. There is indeed a great deal of concern about OFFA. My noble friend's amendments put in the Bill, and give substance to, the assurances that the Government have been giving us. The Government keep telling us that OFFA will operate with a light touch. My noble friend has gone with the spirit of what was part of that deal, without actually encroaching on the autonomy of the universities. That is an important principle. We must see these amendments as a package.

515
Since starting this exercise, the Government have published the Schwartz report, which talks about creating a central source of expertise and advice on admissions while adhering to the principle that autonomy on admissions should remain with the universities. That is what my noble friend's amendments seek to achieve. If there is general support for this amendment—and perhaps we will have to test the opinion of the House—but the Minister is not able to support it, I hope that she might go away and think about how she can respond to the real efforts that have been made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Perry, to find a way through this difficulty that meets the legitimate concerns of universities.
In conclusion, I address the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, of civil servants as people who dance to another man's tune. Even he is finding it difficult to keep a straight face now. Next Christmas, I shall send him a copy of the collected works of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister". One of the great values of civil servants is that they tell Ministers what their options are; Ministers then decide what to do. One of the great strengths of our Civil Service has always been its independence. With the amendment in respect of the appointment of the director, my noble friend seeks to give that imprimatur of independence that is always taken for granted as part of the Civil Service.
I was concerned by the noble Lord's suggestion. Of course, civil servants act finally on the instructions of Ministers, but in giving advice and ensuring that the functions of government take place, they operate in an impartial way. That is what we would expect of the director of OFFA, and that is what my noble friend's amendment seeks to achieve. I support the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will feel able to do so, or at least offer us the prospect of being able to do so at a later stage.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin by saying that I was thrilled to hear about the noble Lord's weekend. Perhaps he might have taken the academics fishing with him? Sadly, no. Those of us watching the football perhaps had less of an enjoyable time.
I recognise completely the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, in supporting widening access. I will address my remarks in that context. It is important to reiterate to the House that we see the creation of access plans, and their approval and enforcement, as absolutely fundamental to our package of proposals in this Bill. The real, widespread concerns are not to be underestimated. They have been expressed in another place and elsewhere, and in our debate by my noble friend Lady Lockwood in relation to the implications for and the potential impact on those from particular backgrounds who may feel that this is a deterrent. This is not about making deals or packages. It is about saying that if we wish to move to the kind of variable fees that have been described, and
516
which are fundamental to this Bill, hand in hand—side by side—goes OFFA. That is a clear Government position.
I have said all along that I am happy to clarify the director's role; his independence and his non-interference with admissions and academic freedom. We have already accepted some specific amendments on these subjects, and I am happy to continue to listen to arguments about how these could be improved. Perhaps noble Lords will see later that I have indeed listened carefully with regard to the way in which the director works, his role in relation to good practice and part-time students and similar issues. What must remain unchanged is the basic model of the director's existence and core functions; approving, monitoring and, if necessary, enforcing access plans. We have had months of discussion with universities about our approach, and they understand that this Bill comes as a package. The vast majority of universities recognise it as reasonable. The director, as we have proposed his role, is part of that package, and it would not be right to unpick it.
I will now address the individual amendments in this group. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, Amendment No. 23 concerns the appointment of the director. I am well aware that in debating these issues in Committee, the noble Baroness focused on the need for the independence of the director. She felt strongly then, as did the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that for independence to be secure the director needed to be a civil servant recruited through the Civil Service Commission.
As I said in Committee, an executive non-departmental public body, headed by an independent office holder appointed in accordance with Commissioner for Public Appointments Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies is the most satisfactory solution. It would be odd for the director to be appointed subject to the principles of the Civil Service Commission when he is not a civil servant. There is another mandatory set of guidance for ministerial appointments to public bodies which achieves the same fundamental principle of selection for appointment on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.
I was strengthened in my view when I studied the sixth report to your Lordships' House of the Select Committee on the Constitution, with its most distinguished membership, representatives of which are present in the House today. I am sure that they will correct me if I misquote. That report, The Regulatory State: Ensuring its Accountability was published on 6 May, and I apologise that it was not to hand in Committee. The committee looked closely at the relationships between regulators and Ministers, and we have had debates and discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and others on other aspects of the Bill. In chapter 7, the committee looked carefully at the question of ministerial appointments to regulators, many of which are classified as non-departmental public bodies, and at how successfully the Nolan principles, enshrined in the OCPA code, offered reassurance. In paragraph 126, the committee concluded:
"We recommend that Ministers should remain responsible for appointing regulators, subject to Nolan rules, to ensure proper responsibility and accountability".

517
The Select Committee did not offer a view as to whether an NDPB or a non-ministerial government department was the better solution. The committee did, however, say that whatever level of independence has been granted by Parliament, Ministers have generally sought to maintain that independence, and commented that if a regulatory body's role is clear, its independence is better secured. That precisely summarises the principle that we have tried to bear in mind in creating the director, and it is the reason why we have resisted amendments elsewhere that would widen the director's remit and blur his responsibilities. We have also spoken to the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners who have confirmed and agreed to be quoted as saying that the Commissioner for Public Appointments code is the correct code to follow for this particular appointment and not their own recruitment code, which applies only to civil servants. Of course, the Civil Service Commissioners' code and the OCPA code support the fundamental principle of selection for appointment on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. On the OCPA guidance, Dame Rennie Fritchie said:
"My task is to ensure that all government departments have systems for public appointments which are visible, fair and open. Further, that all appointments within my remit are made on merit and contribute to the development of strong and balanced boards and public bodies".
But the code is for ministerial appointments to public bodies and the other is for civil servants. The Office for Fair Access will be an NDPB, and the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, has accepted in her amendments that the director will not be a civil servant. So, it is self-evident that the OCPA code of practice should apply.
Amendment No. 34A would remove regulation-making powers and put details of the content of plans in the Bill. I understand the desire to take a cautious approach to regulation-making powers in any Bill. That is why we have produced draft regulations that, I hope, make it clear how we propose to use the power that we are taking. It is for institutions to determine the detail of the content of their plans, but it is reasonable for them to do so within a regulatory framework. Regulations are a legal constraint on the director that Parliament must, in that instance, approve. Lack of regulation-making powers leads to greater uncertainty and the risk of a more arbitrary approach.
Concern was expressed that the Secretary of State might have too much power. Any regulations laid in respect of this or any other clause will be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. As noble Lords will know and my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe will acknowledge, we amended the Bill in Committee to make the regulation-making powers in respect of the content of plans, which the amendment would remove, subject to affirmative resolution.
Regulation-making powers also give greater flexibility. Without regulations, the requirement that plans should include measures to attract applications, provide financial support and provide financial information will be fixed in the Bill without any opportunity to qualify that requirement or even
518
remove it in due course. The amendment would also pre-empt any decision that the National Assembly for Wales might take on the contents of plans, should it decide to introduce variable fees.
Another effect of the amendment would be to remove the reference to the promotion of higher education. In Committee, I explained that we had no intention that plans in England should be related to the promotion of higher education; they should be related solely to fair access. However, in recognition of the concerns that noble Lords expressed in Committee, which are reflected in the noble Baroness's amendment, we have tabled Amendment No. 33, which will ensure that the phrase "promotion of higher education" does not apply to English plans. I hope that that reassures noble Lords, as far as England is concerned.
There would be two other effects. First, the reference to under-represented groups would be removed and instead institutions would have to take measures to attract applications from,
"as wide as possible a number of prospective students".
That changes the focus from widening access to general recruitment, which is not the purpose of the director. Also, it is far from clear what a wide number—as opposed to, for example, a wide range—of prospective students means.
Another effect would be to remove the requirement to provide information to the director. We have made it clear that that is not intended to be a bureaucratic burden and will not involve onerous reporting requirements. However, it is vital that it happens. If the director cannot seek information where necessary, he cannot make informed judgments. They could be bad decisions: bad for students and bad for institutions. For those reasons, I must continue to resist the amendments.
Amendment No. 47 would create some difficulties, not least for institutions. One problem is that it would delete the power for the director to issue guidance. We are giving the director that power to ensure that universities are clear about what will be expected of their access plans. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that institutions need certainty about the expectations of the director; otherwise, they will draw up plans on the basis of guesswork. That would not be helpful. The institutions need to know where the goalposts are, an appropriate analogy at the moment. I cannot see how removing the ability of the director to issue guidance would help anyone, let alone the institutions.
The amendment would also delete the regulation-making power in Clause 32 and create a requirement that institutions produce a strategic plan for HEFCE in perpetuity. I am sure that that goes beyond what institutions or the funding council would expect. Noble Lords referred to Sir Howard Newby's comments to the Select Committee. They were made some months ago, and I can say that HEFCE has been closely involved in our discussions and planning and accepts the Government's view that OFFA should be a separate and independent non-departmental public body.

519
I reiterate what I said as early as Second Reading: of course, we said that HEFCE could regulate fees, but we do not believe that it is the best body to do so. HEFCE is a funding body. It is much closer to the Government and has a specific remit to fulfil with regard to the institutions. Here, we are creating a regulator, and that is different.
The amendment would delete the regulation-making power and place a duty on the director to require institutions to supply him with details of the financial assistance provided to students. That would be a separate return in addition to the widening participation strategy. The noble Baroness is concerned that picking out part of an institution's strategy—widening access—is the wrong approach, so I want to explain the distinction.
In England, institutions are required by HEFCE to produce a range of strategies covering different areas, such as teaching and learning, human resources and so on. We believe that they serve a useful purpose, but they are different from access plans. They are intended to be strategies, as their name suggests. They are general statements of aims and purpose. They may well contain details of what universities hope to do and their expected direction of travel. Access plans are different. They are a commitment by an institution, on the basis of which the director agrees that the institution can raise its fees above the standard level. They may have some of the same elements, but we expect them to be more specific. They are firm commitments.
To ensure that the institutions need not provide returns to the director and to HEFCE, we have, I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, made it clear that we expect that access plans will subsume widening participation strategies after 2006. That position has been discussed with the sector and with the Higher Education Funding Council for England. It has also been discussed with, agreed with and welcomed by the Better Regulation Task Force, which has been concerned to minimise the cost of producing plans and avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. The amendment would create uncertainty for institutions in preparing and producing their access plans. It would add to, rather than reduce, bureaucracy.
Amendment No. 48 is an unusual amendment. The idea that a funding council might make regulations is probably unprecedented. Its spirit is consistent with Amendment No. 47, in that it would give the funding councils the right to decide how long an access plan should last. I do not agree that that is the right way forward. I have explained why access plans should not be coterminous with other plans or strategies, and I do not believe that responsibility for determining the duration of access plans should rest with the funding councils. It is right that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales should make the regulations, which will, of course, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as I have already said.
Through Amendments Nos. 51 and 53, the noble Baroness seeks to prevent the director or the relevant authority in Wales imposing any sanctions for
520
breaches, other than those relating to fee levels. It is not unreasonable that an institution's plan should be looked at and monitored as a whole. Approval of a plan confers on an institution the right to charge higher fees, providing a significant stream of income. We have always made it clear, in England, that that should come with a responsibility to ensure that access is protected and broadened, a responsibility that we envisage being enshrined in the commitments that universities will make as part of their access plans. It is a something-for-something arrangement.
It is important that universities and students should know that those are real commitments. The existence of possible sanctions is a part of that. I have said on several occasions that I do not expect the sanctions to be used other than rarely, if ever, not least because I recognise the sincere desire of the sector to ensure fair access based solely on merit and ability. In the Bill and in our draft regulations, we provide a framework that constrains the relevant authority's action on sanctions, but they are still an important part of making a reality of access plans. They are not simply a commitment to stick to the fee level; they should be considered as a whole. It is the measures that an institution proposes to protect and widen access that the director will consider when making a decision to approve a plan.
Such commitments are important—if an institution unreasonably breaks or ignores them, some sanctions may follow. It may be that traffic wardens do not go down well with the people to whom they give penalty notices, but the principle that there should be consequences for parking in the wrong place is not a bad one. It is important that we are clear about that; otherwise, the commitments will be just aspirations, when they need to be firm commitments.
4 p.m.
I recognise the need to provide safeguards and to avoid sanctions being applied unreasonably, which is also a concern that was expressed by noble Lords. For that reason, we have brought forward a government amendment to achieve the intentions expressed so eloquently in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who, sadly, is not in his place. Amendment No. 52, which stands in my name, will ensure that sanctions cannot be imposed on any institution that can demonstrate that it has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the provisions of the plan.
In summary, the amendments create a great deal of uncertainty and bureaucracy. I have not even begun to look at issues such as what would happen if the director and HEFCE disagreed about a component that was common to plans and widening participation. That would simply be unworkable. The director needs to be appointed in the way that we have said. I have given reassurances from all those who are involved, on which I hope the noble Baroness will reflect.
We expect the director to operate independently within a clearly defined framework. He or she will be appointed fairly, in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Code of Practice. Regulations will be open to scrutiny by Parliament. On the basis of

521
everything that I have put on the record, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that careful reply. I think that she has some misconceptions about what the amendments would do. She has not reassured me at all about the appointment of the director. Recently, we have had too many examples of appointments to public bodies that have not demonstrated complete independence and have led to widespread criticisms of "cronyism" or "creatures of government".
I find it surprising that the Minister resists so strongly what seems to us to be a fairly reasonable and mild amendment. The processes should be widely recognised as exemplary practice of the Civil Service Commissioners' recruitment code. It was a carefully conceived code to ensure that there is impartial recruitment and that no political patronage is possible. The Minister has acknowledged that we have withdrawn any suggestion that this person is a civil servant, although I believe that civil servants are independent in their mind and in their advice, exactly as my noble friend said. Nevertheless, this is an appointment to a public body: it is right that the most exemplary practice should be used.
Briefly, I turn now to three points made by the Minister. First, I am surprised she said that our amendment excludes from the plan a way for universities to describe how they will improve access to higher education for those groups that, currently, are poorly inclined to apply. That is an aspiration which we share. Amendment No. 34A clearly states that the plans of the institutions,
"must include provisions relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education".
That clearly states that the plans must include the steps that will be taken in order to provide access. I simply find the phrase "groups under-represented in higher education" ambiguous. It is simply a linguistic matter that we have put much more clearly and in a much more straightforward way.
Secondly, I turn to the Minister's reservations about whether OFFA has any suitable powers left. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, powerfully said that the power to approve the plan is extremely important. If a plan is not approved, fees cannot be charged and a great deal of money will be lost. In addition, if a plan is approved but the university is not up to scratch, the fact that every year the director of OFFA will report to Parliament on progress is a very powerful incentive. What university wants Parliament to be told that it has not been pulling its weight in respect of promises that it has made?
Finally, the Minister said that she thinks that we have left the universities "freewheeling"—a phrase that I think was used by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. Of course, the funding councils already issue quite precise guidance about the format and timing of university strategic plans, which they
522
will continue to do. Therefore, universities will not be freewheeling. They will, however, be able to be creative.
I am sorry but I am not convinced by what the Minister has said. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 142; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Home, E.

Ampthill, L.

Hooper, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Attlee, E.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Avebury, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Barker, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jopling, L.

Blackwell, L.

Kimball, L.

Blaker, L.

Kingsland, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Luke, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Caithness, E.

McNally, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maddock, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L.

Cobbold, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Courtown, E.

Montrose, D.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Naseby, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Newby, L.

Cuckney, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Noakes, B.

Deedes, L.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L.

Northover, B.

Dholakia, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Onslow, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elles, B.

Palmer, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Parkinson, L.

Elton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Erroll, E.

Peel, E.

Ezra, L.

Perry of Southwark, B. [Teller]

Fearn, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Fookes, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Plumb, L.

Fowler, L.

Prior, L.

Freeman, L.

Quinton, L.

Garden, L.

Rawlings, B.

Glentoran, L.

Redesdale, L.

Goodhart, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rennard, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Renton, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Henley, L.

Roper, L.

Higgins, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

523

Sandberg, L.

Tebbit, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Tordoff, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Trumpington, B.

Sharples, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Waddington, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Wakeham, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Walmsley, B.

Slim, V.

Walpole, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wilcox, B.

Stewartby, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Windlesham, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Ahmed, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harrison, L.

Alli, L.

Haskel, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Haskins, L.

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.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Billingham, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jones, L.

Borrie, L.

Judd, L.

Bragg, L.

Laming, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman, L.

Lipsey, L.

Burlison, L.

Listowel, E.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carey of Clifton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chorley, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Christopher, L.

Marsh, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mitchell, L.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

David, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Dearing, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Quirk, L.

Dixon, L.

Radice, L.

Drayson, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Richard, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Rix, L.

Rooker, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Filkin, L.

Sawyer, L.

Fitt, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Sheldon, L.

Gavron, L.

Simon, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gilbert, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Golding, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Goudie, B.

Tenby, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Grantchester, L.

Triesman, L.

Greengross, B.

Turnberg, L.

524

Turner of Camden, B.

Whitty, L.

Warner, L.

Wilkins, B.

Warnock, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Winston, L.

Whitaker, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 14, line 6, at end insert—
2 (2A) The Director is to have such functions relating to plans as are conferred on him by or under this Part.
(2B) In addition, the Director may, where he considers it appropriate to do so—

(a) identify good practice relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education, and

7 (b) give advice about such practice to publicly-funded institutions.

(2C) In subsection (2B)(a), "publicly-funded institution" means any institution receiving grants, loans or other payments from the Higher Education Funding Council for England under section 65 of the 1992 Act or from the Teacher Training Agency under section 5 of the 1994 Act."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we debated in Committee whether the Director of Fair Access should have a role in promoting best practice in fair access and I said then that I was willing to accept in principle the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, but was unable to do so because it was technically defective.
The director's main role is to regulate fees, but through his overview of access plans he will also be well placed to see what interventions are most successful, and to make institutions aware of one another's successes. To that extent, he is likely to have a view on good practice and would certainly be able to offer further guidance to any institution that sought it. Certainly we would hope that there would be regular dialogue between the director and organisations such as HEFCE and its Action on Access co-ordinators to ensure that best practice is shared widely.
I have therefore tabled my own amendment, as promised, which I believe embraces the spirit of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, giving the director a power to identify and promote good practice. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, Amendment No. 24A:
Line 2, after "have" insert "a general duty to encourage applications to institutions of higher education by prospective students who are members of groups which are under-represented in higher education, and"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a number of the concerns which most of those involved in higher education have expressed in relation to OFFA and the Director of Fair Access have been mitigated by

525
amendments already accepted and others which we hope will continue to be considered and perhaps passed today.
However, I would still like to understand precisely what the Director of Fair Access will achieve in practice. We are assured that he or she will not be involved in admissions. Amendment No. 24 usefully clarifies that he has to have functions relating to plans. That we already knew and the focus, as we have just discussed, is on those plans. Clause 31 indicates that every university charging top-up fees must have a plan for every course, to promote higher education and equality of opportunity in connection with access. Reference is made to groups that are under-represented in higher education. That was the phrase questioned by my noble friend Lady Perry, but I have incorporated it in my amendment.
I take it that it is the Minister's understanding that these plans will include grants or bursaries for underprivileged students, and that these will vary within a given university from subject to subject. Presumably these grants or bursaries refer to the costs of student maintenance. However, I am still uncertain as to whether they will include remission of fees and, if so, to what extent they will duplicate the loan provisions already planned for.
My main point, however, and the reason that I felt it appropriate to table this modest amendment, is that the central problem with access to higher education is that of encouraging applications; it is not a question of what happens to the applications once they have been received by the universities. To that extent, the nub of the problem does not lie within the universities themselves; the under-representation lies in the applications, not in the admissions. If prospective students will not apply, they cannot be admitted. I remain doubtful about the efficacy of all these plans and modifications of plans in achieving that objective.
In Committee, I tabled an amendment drawing attention to the circumstance that all the key decisions are, in practice, made in the schools by the pupils, who decide whether to apply for a particular course at a particular university or whether to apply to university at all. It is there that pupils decide whether to apply.
In a recent letter the Minister kindly provided me with some figures, for which I thank her. They simply underline the case that this is an area of deep concern. I shall not quote extensively from the figures, which are well known and refer to participation in higher education by social class. I note that in the most recent year for which the Minister sent me figures—2001—class one, the professional class, had a representation of 79 per cent; then, as you go down through the classes, the percentage reduces until you come to class five, the unskilled class, which had a representation of 15 per cent.
I totally agree with the Government, Universities UK, HEFCE and everyone present that it is a sad reflection on our current system that that low figure of 15 per cent is to be compared with 79 per cent for professionals. The question, however, is how to modify the situation.
Does the Minister really imagine that every department in every university in the land busily writing plans at the behest of the Director of Fair Access is going to greatly change matters? The lack of ambition lies in the schools; the ignorance of opportunities lies in the schools; and sometimes the prejudice against some of our best universities lies in the schools. As we all recall, that prejudice has been promoted rather than countered by some senior Ministers in the Government. If the noble Baroness wishes me to be more explicit, I shall be happy to oblige; otherwise, I shall not trouble the House with a familiar story. It is that kind of prejudice that leads to low applications and low ambitions.
That is the motivation behind my very modest amendment. I have taken the point eloquently made in Committee by the noble Baroness that extra obligations imposed upon schools may be unwelcome, so there are none in the amendment. I have taken her point that data will be available elsewhere, so I have not put any obligation upon the director to publish data. I note, too, the anxiety of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that the powers of the Director of Fair Access should not be unduly widened, and I share her concerns.
I have come to the conclusion that fiddling around with plans is unlikely to be enough. My prediction is that the introduction of top-up fees—albeit met by student loans—will have a negative impact upon access which all manner of plans will do little to counter. I believe that the effects of the Bill will be to diminish fair access. That is my concern, of which the amendment is but a pale reflection. I fear that the participation of members of groups who are under-represented in higher education will not significantly increase as a result of the Bill. I shall not go over that ground again.
Students in the lower financial groups, particularly group five, are debt averse. Although noble Lords have made clear how very fair, in a sense, are the provisions for loans to meet the fees, it is also clear that students from families in group five are much less likely than students from families in group one to take up such loans and their parents are much less likely to pay those loans off for them.
The unfortunate director does not even have a clear mission other than adjudicating upon these possibly irrelevant plans. The issue is applications—applications by people who are at school when they make them. Unless we give at least some recognition to this factor, I predict that the entire process will be counter-productive. That is the purpose of my modest amendment. I realise that if it is carried it will not significantly change the situation. My fear about the Bill is that in two or three years we shall be lamenting its negative effects because students—particularly students from poor families—are debt averse. Although the plans are no doubt intended to counter this, the real problems lie in the schools, and the Bill does nothing at all to address that factor. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 25 in the group. I thank the

527
Minister for bringing forward Amendment No. 24 in response to our discussions in Committee. It gives the director the duty of identifying good practice and giving advice about it.
Amendment No. 25 seeks to add to that, not the original duty of providing appropriate training—which previously the Minister had said would be inappropriate—but simply the duty of promoting appropriate training. There are very good precedents for this; many other government departments promote training for matters in which they have an interest. For example, when I chaired the Chartermark Judges Panel, we promoted training around the country to help people who wished to apply for a Chartermark. There are many examples of this kind.
Secondly, I believe that training will be urgently needed for the reasons so powerfully given by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, when she spoke to an earlier group of amendments. Reaching out to inner city schools, further education colleges and people in their twenties who are tucked away in jobs or in their homes, is very difficult. There will be a need for a great deal of expertise to be shared with the universities which have not yet made much inroad into widening access by those which have.
I hope the Minister will feel able to accept Amendment No. 25, which is very much along the lines of what she said in her response to the earlier amendment in Committee.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am a little puzzled by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in support of his amendment. I do not have too much difficulty with the amendment, but some of his statements in support of it puzzled me.
I am particularly worried by his suggestion that every department in every university would be writing plans. That does not seem to me to be a likely consequence of what is being proposed. It might be true of the research assessment exercise, under which universities are being assessed department by department, but in this case a central plan would be produced by that part of the university concerned with dealing with applications from students, with the marketing of the university and with the outreach of the university. It would not require every department to write a plan. Surely the noble Lord would agree with that.
I also wish to comment on one other matter that he raised. He said that it is entirely up to the schools to improve the range of students applying to our universities. I accept that the schools have an enormously important part to play, as do parents and others who influence young people, but I think that the universities have a part as well. It is a partnership between the student, their family, friends and those who influence them, schools, further education institutions and employers. We must not keep thinking that everybody who goes to university these days comes from schools. We know that huge numbers of mature students study in our system, many part time, and it is employers who count.
528
In dealing with schools, FE colleges or employers, the universities have to be proactive. They have to play a role; they cannot simply sit there and wait for people to come, as happened 30 or 40 years ago. Therefore, I want to emphasise something that I did not think was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. There is a part that universities have to play in supporting wider applications. The way in which universities do this can put people off; it can lead to fewer rather than more people from a wider range of backgrounds going to university.
If I may be anecdotal for a moment, I remember, when I was at Birkbeck, being worried by the very small number of ethnic minority students who were coming to study in an institution which was, after all, giving a second chance to a wide range of Londoners and people from beyond London. I found that we had not done anything to go out and encourage them to come and they did not see it as a place to which they could go. When we did so, however, a large number of students from black and Asian communities in London went there to study.
I support what the Government are doing here because it encourages everybody who works in universities to try harder by a whole variety of different policies to work with employers and educational institutions which support young people, and older, mature, people who want to continue their studies in higher education.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, in supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I feel I must respond to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on two counts. First, in a number of universities, individual departments will have to make their own plans or at least contribute very heavily to those of the university. Part of what makes it difficult to attract applicants from some schools is the immense gap between what they have done at school and what they will be expected to do at university, and they are very conscious of that. There are particular difficulties in attracting applications to study modern languages, to say nothing of the classics, and mathematics. Special courses have been laid on for years in Cambridge—this would be part of the plan—to introduce candidates who have scraped through their A-level mathematics but no more to concepts that they would never have heard of if they had not had at least a month of special teaching when they came to Cambridge.
On the second point about universities being inactive, I am sure that some have been. However, in 1971, when my husband became principal of Hertford College, Oxford, a very energetic project was already ongoing, which was supported by undergraduates and by a specially appointed Fellow of the college, to talk to pupils in schools in inner cities and try to persuade them to apply to Oxford. So I do not think it is true that universities have been doing nothing for 30 or

529
40 years. As for the plans, I am afraid they would involve a good deal of work by the university, department by department.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I welcome the Government's proposal, even though I am something of a minimalist regarding OFFA's role. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that if we are to solve the problem of access, the main solution must lie in schools improving achievement at GSCE, achieving increased staying-on rates and achieving increased numbers of students getting at least two decent A-levels. However, I am not with the noble Lord in undervaluing or underestimating the contribution that individual universities can and should make.
I know something of the University of Hull, my own university. I have been engaged with it in taking very determined action in a city which for years had the poorest GCSE results in the country. We went out to young people to get them to raise their aspirations by guaranteeing them a place at the university if they attended a course and did reasonably well. The University of Dundee does the same in summer schools, as does the University of Glamorgan—the University of the Valleys. Universities can do a great deal. In addition, generous bursary schemes will be very influential.
I believe that the essence of the thinking here is to get each university to take personal responsibility for going out to and encouraging those from disadvantaged backgrounds to raise their aspirations and help them to see their opportunities. I am a little doubtful about what OFFA, sitting somewhere with, it is to be hoped, a very small number of people, can do with regard to this. I am not sure that those kids would be very influenced by worthy pieces of paper sent out from some central body. I think it requires personal contact and the people, in great numbers, who can make those personal contacts are the institutions.
On training, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has changed the wording of her proposal to "promote". However, I have a problem about the word. I took the trouble to look it up in my dictionaries and I was not much wiser. I am in favour if it means to encourage. In sport, it means taking financial responsibility for; does it mean removing responsibility from universities or minimising it in their decision to train their staff in good practice, as is necessary? I am in favour of encouraging them but not of telling them what to do. I have some reservations about the word.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, I have no difficulty with Amendment No. 25. It would give the Director of Fair Access the responsibility and duty to promote training. To my way of thinking, to promote training will ensure that appropriate training takes place. Where it is not taking place, there will be a power for OFFA to ensure that or to work through other institutions to ensure that.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, I think there is a great need for training in this area. The more organisations that are aware of that, the better that
530
will be, so long as their efforts can be co-ordinated. I see that as part of the duty to promote that OFFA would have.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was much taken with what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said about the importance of raising aspirations. I shall not go over ground that has already been covered in terms of the need for this to be a "both/and" provision, not an "either/or" one. It is about all those who have the ability to empower young people or help them make the right decisions to act in their various different ways to achieve that. There is a great deal of unanimity among noble Lords about that.
There is an important distinction to make between the role of the Director of Fair Access and the role of the institutions. We have said that the role of the director is, in principle, to approve and monitor the access plans, which set out the measures that the institutions are taking. In return, as we described—this is the something for something—they will be able to raise their fees.
I believe that the director's role in overseeing access plans will result in more applications from under-represented groups. But it is important that it is the institutions themselves that do the outreach and provide the bursaries. It is they, not the director, that will be directly involved in encouraging applications from under-represented groups, building on—as has been indicated many times—the good work already being done in this area. The director's role is that of regulator. It is important that this is in the context of all the other players who help young people strive for greater opportunities in their lives.
The director will have a role in identifying and disseminating good practice. However, it is the good practice of institutions that the director will be identifying rather than his own. Therefore, although I share the noble Lord's concern for fair access, I cannot agree that the duty to encourage applications should lie directly with the director. It should be a duty placed on institutions by the commitments they make in their plans, should they decide to charge higher variable fees. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord is able to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment No. 25 would add a duty for the director to promote appropriate training to the power to identify and advise on good practice proposed by my amendment. The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that there is a technical defect with the amendment because "may … have a duty" is not correct. However, I recognise what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve. I am grateful for her explanation of the change that she has made from Committee by asking the director to promote such training. However, I assure the noble Baroness that an amendment is not necessary to achieve that aim because the director would be empowered, through the government amendment that I put forward, to promote opportunities for training and encourage institutions to take them up, although it would be for the institution to decide whether to do so.

531
I acknowledge the importance of training and development. As the noble Baroness will know, probably better than me, a lot of informal training is already available through individual institutions—Aimhigher Partnerships, Action on Access, the National Disability Team and the Learning and Teaching Support Network—a great deal of which is shared at conferences and workshops held by different bodies. I have every expectation that the director will use these opportunities to promote good practice.
I do not feel that it would be right to place a legal duty on the director to promote appropriate training. He is empowered to promote good practice through the government amendment, and on the basis that he is likely to become aware of a great deal of such practice, including training, I am sure that the director will, over time, play a significant role. I am not sure that giving him an explicit duty adds anything in that context. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I have no wish to trouble the House with a Division on my amendment, so I shall withdraw it in a moment. I agree with much of what has been said and with many of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I fully accept that it is important that universities continue to make every effort to attract applicants to their courses in very much the manner described by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. The problem is that I feel that, although all these multiple efforts such as university lecturers rushing round the country on buses and talking in schools are worthy, they will not really get to the heart of the problem. However, I have already indicated that in my speech and I do not wish to detain the House, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 24 agreed to.

G8 Summit
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on the G8 Summit in the United States, which I attended last week. I thank President Bush for his chairmanship of the summit and the people of Georgia for hosting it. I have placed copies of the Chair's summary and summit documents in the House Libraries.
"At the outset, I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing my condolences to the families of the two British contractors killed in Iraq this morning.
"At the G8 summit, we all agreed on the importance of transferring authority in Iraq at the end of the month to a fully sovereign Iraqi Government. We welcomed the formation of the new Iraqi Interim Government. The unanimous adoption by the UN Security Council of the resolution on Iraq demonstrates the international consensus to support the new government of Iraq under Prime Minister Allawi and to support the vision of a modern, democratic, federal and stable Iraq.
"The new president of Iraq expressed his thanks for the sacrifices made by the coalition forces to free his country from the evils of the Saddam regime. He was absolutely clear that there was no desire among the Iraqi people to go back to the past. He entirely rejected the notion that the people of Iraq were unable to make democracy work or that the insurgents represented anything other than a small minority of Iraqis. Indeed, he described the reality to us vividly. Those who carry out violent attacks, blowing up water and oil pipelines, leaving ordinary Iraqis to go without power, are not patriots, he said. They are terrorists whose agenda is to cause chaos. They are determined to stop us succeeding. But we will succeed, with Iraq not just a better place for Iraqis but for the wider region and the world.
"This led on to a discussion of the initiative to help build reform across the broader Middle East and North Africa region. We agreed a set of proposals to help bring greater democracy, freedom and stability to the whole of that region, working in support of those in the region who want to make progress towards modernisation and reform. Reform must of course come from within. The G8 responded positively to ideas from regional leaders, most notably at the Arab League Summit in Tunis, where Arab leaders expressed their determination
"firmly to establish the basis for democracy".
"We met a number of leaders from the region—from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen and Turkey. We agreed a comprehensive and detailed plan of support to give momentum to the initiative. We set out concrete measures to address the illiteracy, poverty and under-development of the region, to make the most of the region's entrepreneurial and cultural traditions on which it could thrive. We established the Forum for the Future, which will bring together foreign and economic Ministers from the G8 and countries in the region. The inaugural meeting will be held in the autumn.
"We also discussed the Middle East peace process. We agreed that the basis for progress is still the road map, which sets out the path to the two-state solution. We agreed that the quartet should meet in the region before the end of this month, and that it should now come up with a specific set of actions to restore momentum on the road map. Those should cover political reform of the Palestinian Administration, a security plan and an economic plan.
"Taken together, all these various initiatives amount to a vision of a Middle East which is no longer a source of instability and extremism, but of

533
increasingly more democratic states which respect different religions and human rights and can live peacefully within the world community.
"On the final day of the summit, we concentrated on Africa. Leaders from Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Algeria and Uganda joined us. African issues are now a well established part of the G8 agenda. We agreed a number of new measures. We have to ensure that, when there is a conflict in Africa, we have the peacekeeping ability to back up and support a political settlement. So the G8 made a commitment to ensure that up to 75,000 peacekeeping troops will be trained and ready to be deployed on peacekeeping operations by 2010. The UK intends to train, directly or indirectly, 17,000 African troops in this period.
"We also discussed the grave humanitarian and political crisis in the Sudan, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited last week. The UK is the second largest donor to Sudan, giving £36.5 million this year alone. The G8 pledged assistance in ending the conflict and bringing humanitarian assistance to those in need. We agreed to work together to help the UN lead the international effort to avert a major humanitarian disaster. We also agreed a new initiative to extend AIDS vaccine research. We confirmed the polio eradication target. We agreed on new measures to help break the vicious cycle of famine and food insecurity in the Horn of Africa.
"The Heavily-Indebted Poor Countries Initiative has given welcome relief to the crushing burden of debt that has held back so many of the poorest countries. We have already agreed some 70 billion dollars of debt relief for 27 countries, 23 of which are in Africa. We reaffirmed our commitment to implement and finance this initiative fully. We agreed to work with all parties concerned to extend the initiative from the end of this year to the end of 2006. This agreement opens the door for another 10 countries to benefit from over 30 billion dollars of debt relief. This will free up vital resources which can be spent on health and education and the eradication of poverty.
"This series of initiatives confirms the growing importance of Africa for all of us in the G8. The UK alone will spend £1 billion in Africa next financial year. A major part of the agenda for our G8 Summit next year will be the work of the Africa Commission that we have established. The commission will report back next spring with a series of agreed recommendations for action. We will then work with the rest of the G8 to take them forward.
"The other major part of the agenda for the UK presidency of the G8 in 2005 will be climate change. We need to make progress with ratification of Kyoto; but we also need to look beyond Kyoto and its 2012 time frame.
"We had an extensive discussion of the world economy. We agreed on the need for further structural reforms in our economies to accelerate growth. We discussed the current level of oil prices,
534
notably the recent pledge by OPEC to increase production. On trade, there was broad agreement to press ahead with the Doha Development Round. We called on all parties to take the measures necessary to get the round moving forward. The benefits are clear: substantially reducing trade barriers could boost global incomes by 500 billion dollars a year, with most going to developing countries.
"On non-proliferation, we adopted an action plan building on and enhancing the existing global non-proliferation regime. We recognised the need to strengthen controls on the transfer of nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technology. We agreed to have new measures in place before next year's summit.
"The G8 was originally created to discuss economic issues. Of course we still do this but, increasingly, the focus has moved towards issues of international solidarity. This is because it is clear that in an interdependent world, what blights or enhances one part of the world affects the other parts too. It is morally right that we extend democracy, cut poverty, remove the causes of conflict and instability and bring the hope of advancement to all nations. But it is also now clearly in our enlightened self-interest.
"If global terrorism and the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are the new security threat that we face, we recognise that it cannot be defeated by security measures alone. Political freedom and rising prosperity as much as force of arms will be our ultimate shield. The G8 this year recognised this reality. We look forward to deepening it under British chairmanship next year".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. In doing so, can I also thank the Prime Minister for attending the funeral of President Reagan last weekend? This was a very moving occasion in which the world recalled a great American and a great world leader. Is not the very fact that President Putin is now a part of the G8 process a reflection of the giant contribution to world peace and freedom of Ronald Reagan and my noble friend Lady Thatcher, in leading the free world to victory in the Cold War?
Themes of liberty, freedom and vigilance against threat were foremost in our minds this last weekend, both in view of the Sea Island summit and elections here at home. We have been critical of aspects of the planning of the aftermath of the Gulf War, but our position is clear. We believe that the Prime Minister was right to align government and country behind President Bush in the war against terror. Indeed, it is clear that the names of Bush and Blair will be as inextricably linked down the years as Reagan and Thatcher.
The Statement describes the kind of people arrayed against us and against Iraqi freedom—and we are right to oppose them. So may I ask for an assurance from

535
the noble Baroness that, whatever Liberal Democrats may do to Labour councillors in Newcastle, her view is that the Government must stay the course in Iraq? Does she agree that, after the debacle of Spanish withdrawal, it is vital that the enemies of a peaceful and stable Iraq get the message that this Government and this Prime Minister will not waver?
Of course, I welcome wholeheartedly the unanimous vote on UN Resolution 1546 endorsing an interim Iraqi Government and setting out a timetable for future progress. The challenge is to translate that into progress on the ground. If the new government are to be, and be seen to be, sovereign, what does that mean for decisions on the use of troops? Clarity in this area is essential.
Last month the Prime Minister said that, while operational control of our troops in Iraq after 30 June must remain with British commanders, political control over their deployment will be a matter for the Iraqi Government. Is that still the position for us and for US forces too? Can the noble Baroness tell the House of any further international contributions now expected to share the burden in Iraq? In particular, are there any prospects of other UN members, including Arab states, agreeing to provide troops? What is the latest position in respect of NATO and, in particular, its role in the training of troops?
We are told that President Chirac liked the American food, but his views on NATO assistance to Iraq were less digestible. Would not training for Iraqis from other NATO countries be greatly helpful to our forces and to the Iraqi Government?
The G8 pledged to "work together" on cancellation of Iraqi debt. How is this work to be taken forward in light of the differences between the United States and France on the matter? Furthermore, when there are elections in Iraq, have the Government considered, in the light of the experience of the past few days, whether will they be all-postal elections or whether we will argue for a fully verifiable secret ballot?
We welcome the constructive discussion of the still grave situation in the Middle East. We also support strengthening of co-operation on global counter-terrorism, with a focus on the security of international travel, though we hope that a balance will be struck between the need to confront terrorism by all legitimate means and the vital personal liberties of the law-abiding.
We also support steps agreed against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. What progress can the noble Baroness therefore report in the case of North Korea? On Iran, the G8 said it deplored Iranian behaviour on nuclear weapons and urged it to comply with its commitments. The UK, through the Straw initiative, has laid great emphasis on the closeness of its links with the Government of Iran. So what are the Government doing to persuade the Government of Iran to do what is required of nuclear powers—to co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency?
536
We very much welcome the resolutions on combating polio and on HIV. But can we on this side urge more resolute action on two other tragic problems concerning Africa? First, in respect of the disaster in Darfur, I express our horror at recent developments and welcome the extra £15 million in UK assistance announced last week. But if government bombing occurs in Darfur, could the Security Council not authorise a no-fly zone to protect civilians? Are we pressing urgent consultations on this?
Finally, can the noble Baroness say—and this has been a special area of responsibility for her—what discussions took place at the G8 on the issue of Zimbabwe? Was I alone in finding it bizarre that, in a Statement devoting so much time to Africa, Zimbabwe was not even mentioned?
The last time that the noble Baroness answered questions in this House, her line was ineffective in the face of Mugabe's growing catalogue of humanitarian atrocities. She said that she would check the following points. What is the latest number of refugees from Mugabe's tyranny now seeking sanctuary in Botswana, Mozambique and other neighbouring countries? How is it that the sanctions in place do not prevent the visit to Britain of Gideon Gono, the Governor of the Zimbabwe Reserve Bank? Does that not illustrate a need for urgent tightening of EU sanctions to include, in the words of the Movement for Democratic Change,
"all individuals who play a leading role in perpetuating the illegitimate rule of Mugabe"?
If the International Cricket Conference can withdraw Test status from Zimbabwe, surely the British Government and the G8 can bar the door to Mugabe's henchmen. In her response, will the Minister say whether she might ask the Prime Minister to make sure that this subject will be on the agenda at the EU summit in Dublin? That will give us another subject to debate when we deal with the Statement on that next week.
5 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I also offer these Benches' personal condolences to Mrs Reagan and her family on the death of the 40th president of the United States. We would have expected the Prime Minister to attend the celebrations of a great man's passing and are glad that he did so.
My first question is about the Iraqi situation. Given that it is of crucial importance that the coalition partners mean exactly what they say about the return of sovereignty to Iraq, can the Minister say whether the new Iraqi Government were consulted in any way about the proposal that NATO might become the successor to the coalition in Iraq? It seems to these Benches to be crucial that Iraq should have been consulted but there has been no clear statement one way or the other on the matter. Can the noble Baroness also confirm whether it is now absolutely clear that political control over military actions that affect the people of Iraq will be an issue of consultation with the new government? The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked a similar question.

537
Turning to the question of the greater Middle East initiative, which was a substantial part of the outcome of the G8 summit, first, was any consideration given to the current membership of the G8? It is interesting that a large part of the time was spent on the Middle East and Africa and yet the G8 continues to be dominated by the western world, with the addition of Russia. China, India and countries from Africa or anywhere else in the developing world, to which so much of the discussion was directed, were not represented. It seems to many of us to be curious that this political anomaly should continue.
The greater Middle East initiative refers to a partnership with the Middle Eastern states. In that context, can the Minister say what that partnership is meant to constitute? For example, will there be any attempt to bring the Arab nations into a closer relationship with the question of the Middle East, which is regarded as the second crucial issue discussed at the G8 summit? Is there any possibility of involving Arab nations in the discussion of Iraq and of the Middle East? Can she tell us what relationship there is with the Barcelona process, which has been the leading method by which the European Union has tried to discuss our relations with North Africa and the Middle East, which are central to the whole concept of the Middle East initiative? I am concerned that there is a relationship between the Middle East and Japan, a relationship between the Middle East and North Africa and the United States, and a relationship between the Middle East and North Africa and the European Union, but there appear to be three separate initiatives that are not, so far, clearly brought together.
Turning to the Israeli/Middle East conflict, I express profound disappointment from these Benches on what has been the reiteration of a continual theme. I do not hold Her Majesty's Government primarily responsible. I am well aware of the tremendous efforts that have been made by the Minister and her colleague on the Bench beside her. But we have now heard over and over again about the so-called,
"common vision of two states, Israel and a viable, democratic, sovereign and contiguous Palestine, living side by side in peace and security',
as stated in the Declaration on the Middle East. Every single time this statement has been made—it has been made in one form or another at at least the past three summits—the Palestinian territory becomes less and less viable. I must express my profound disappointment and that of these Benches that once again no reference whatever is made to the continuing spread of settlements; to the wall, which now goes deeply into the West Bank; or to the possibility of withdrawal from the West Bank. That is what really matters for a viable Palestine, not just withdrawal from Gaza which, frankly, could not add viability to any country at any time as it is largely what is sometimes known as a "basket case", with 60 per cent of its people unemployed.
It is crucial that G8 summits address this issue. It is the cancer of the Middle East and nothing will be resolved unless it is resolved. I am well aware that Her Majesty's Government have made huge efforts but I
538
must express profound disappointment that once again the G8 has reiterated the same tired old formula. It is not altogether surprising that so many people no longer believe in the words of G8 summits because so often they seem to mean so little in practice.
In that context, I must say that on Africa the continuing support of the HIPC initiative for another two years is not a great step forward. It might be described as the minimum to keep that initiative going. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has continually pushed out and expressed ambitions for much more effective dealing with African debt. In some cases, African debt should clearly be written off. He has again and again brought forward initiatives. Rather sadly, one must say that so far the G8 does not seem to have mobilised behind those initiatives. This is a minimal proposal.
On the issue of peacekeepers, they have been mentioned at the previous three summits. Yet we now face a disaster in Darfur, which may almost equal what happened in Rwanda, and so far no peacekeepers have been available and none has been sent. If we are to train more peacekeepers, can the Leader of the House tell us what steps we will take now to try to deal with the unfolding tragedy of Sudan? The attention of this Government, and many other Governments, has been drawn to this time and again by Members of the Bishops' Benches, the Cross Benches, the Opposition and, indeed, by Members of the governing party. Some day we may turn around and ask ourselves why those peacekeepers were not ready at the time when they were desperately needed.
In that context, a scorched earth policy is clearly emerging in Sudan. Members of this House may have heard the discussion this morning on the "Today" programme. A witness to what is going on clearly indicated the scale of the disaster there and very strongly indicated the probable involvement of the Government of Sudan. I do not want to say that we know that that is so but we do know that the Government of Sudan could stop it if they chose to do so, at least in the localities where these terrible mutilations and sacrifices are happening. Can the Leader of the House comment on that issue?
Finally, the G8 summit rightly refers to the issue of ending export subsidies in trade, which is probably the single greatest thing that can be done to help Africa. The Leader of the House understands the African economic situation very well indeed. At the summit two years ago, it was suggested that export subsidies would be withdrawn within the following year. One year ago, that was reiterated. To the best of my knowledge, export subsidies continue, both from the EU and from the United States. Does the Leader of the House agree that if we are seriously to help Africa with regard to AIDS and economic development, at a minimum the G8 summit must mean exactly what it says and export subsidies should be withdrawn by no later than the time of the next G8 summit?
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their comments. I shall try to address the points that have been made. On the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about seeking an assurance from the Government about staying the course on Iraq, I think that this Government have shown their absolute determination. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have made it absolutely clear that we intend to stick with the Iraqi people.
On the issue of sovereignty and political control, which was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, it will be a sovereign Iraqi Government and political control will rest with them. We have made that absolutely clear. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister confirmed that only this afternoon when making the Statement in another place. Noble Lords will know that troop activity is being dealt with through an exchange of letters. There has already been some discussion of that matter.
As regards NATO, the issue here is not as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. It is not a matter of NATO being a successor to the coalition. There has been discussion about the possibility of NATO engaging in training of the new Iraqi army on the basis of requests from the new Iraqi Government. I do not see any problem with that, but clearly that would be a matter for discussion between the new Iraqi Government and NATO members.
The issue of Iraqi debt will be resolved through the Paris Club. I refer to differences with respect to the percentage of debt to be written off, rather than the principle of debt write off. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, regarding his comment about elections and postal ballots, nice try! Clearly, it will be for the Iraqi Government and the UN to determine the best method in that regard. The noble Lord will not draw me on that point.
As regards North Korea, six-party talks are ongoing although they are somewhat slow. Noble Lords will know that the EU and a number of EU Foreign Ministers, including my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, have been involved in discussions with Iran and have taken centre stage in them. IAEA meetings are ongoing today and tomorrow.
We are the second largest donor to Darfur. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said that we shall look into the possibility of a no-fly zone. I shall, of course, report to the House the outcome of any discussions on that.
As regards Zimbabwe and the refugee issue, I sent a letter on 26 May, which I put in the Library of the House, which makes clear that the Botswana Government issued a press statement on 22 April in which it made reference to the number of Zimbabweans in Botswana. The statement said that in 2002, 26,214 Zimbabweans had been involved in criminal activities in Botswana, and as of 25 March 2004, some 681 Zimbabweans were held in Botswana prisons. The statement also said that between 1 January and 25 March 2004, 8,394 illegal
540
Zimbabwean immigrants had been repatriated to Zimbabwe. However, we have no way of clarifying those figures. The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth spoke about the number of Zimbabwean refugees in Botswana and Mozambique in October 2003 and put the figure at some 400,000 in Botswana and 200,000 in Mozambique.
The Governor of the Zimbabwe Reserve Bank is not on the EU banned list. Noble Lords know that that list was expanded to include those at the heart of the Mugabe regime, but the Governor of the Reserve Bank is not on that list.
I rather think that the decision that was taken that Zimbabwe could not participate in Test series related to its inability to play cricket at the highest levels, rather than to anything else, due to an internal dispute with its cricketing authority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to the membership of the G8. The noble Baroness will know that a number of outreach events have occurred; two at this summit and others at other summits. This is a meeting involving the richest countries in the world. Discussions have occurred about whether or not the G8 should be extended. Obviously, the extension from the G7 to the G8 was one aspect of that. As with discussions about the UN Security Council and whether that should be extended, noble Lords will understand that these are difficult and sensitive ongoing discussions. However, for the time being, we have to accept that the G8 involves the richest countries in the world. The outreach events are an important element of that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to Israel and the Middle East. I found the noble Baroness's comments somewhat negative, particularly in view of the progress that has been made recently. The noble Baroness is normally extremely fair in addressing these issues. I do not think we can say often enough that we seek a two-state solution. There are still many who do not even agree that that is something for which we should aim. It is important that we restate that commitment.
A UN Security Council resolution has condemned what happened in Raffa. That is very important indeed. There was no veto of that resolution on the part of the United States. The Quartet has come up with a number of practical measures that need to be taken forward. I refer to the issue of security for Palestine. The noble Baroness will know that we have played a very important part in that regard. A World Bank trust fund for Palestine has been established. Progress is being made. It is not as fast as some of us would wish, but we all know that when dealing with peace processes one can take steps forward, steps back and sometimes one has to go sideways. However, the important thing is that the G8 has made the statement. There has been activity in the UN and elsewhere, and we need to concentrate on that.
I turn to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative and to trade. The write off of 70 billion dollars of debt, and the potential for the write off of another 30 billion, with the addition of 10 further

541
countries to the HIPC initiative, is very important indeed. Again, I found the noble Baroness's tone on that matter somewhat negative. I cannot agree more with the noble Baroness regarding trade. We need to see an end to export subsidies. We have worked tirelessly to achieve that. The G8 has called for decisions to be made by July with respect to the framework for continuing WTO negotiations. We need to continue on that path.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I note that the noble Baroness did not say why the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe is not on the banned list. That is surprising considering that he is well known to be more important than most members of the Zimbabwe Cabinet.
Did the G8 leaders, possibly at the lunch they had with six leading African statesmen, urge the African leaders to speak out against Mr Mugabe's recent announcement that all arable land in Zimbabwe is to be nationalised with all the terrible consequences that will have for the Zimbabwe economy, which is already in a terminal state, and the bad effect that it will have on the economies of the neighbouring countries? If they expressed those wishes, and urged the African leaders to speak out accordingly, what was the response of the African leaders, and if they did not do so, why not?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will know, because I have said it many times from this Dispatch Box, as has my noble friend Lady Symons, that we have had ongoing discussions on Zimbabwe with our African partners, including with a number of the leaders represented at the G8 meeting. I believe that on the previous occasion that I answered a Question on Zimbabwe I made it absolutely clear why I considered that African leaders felt able to make very strong comments in private but not in public; namely, because of the history of Zimbabwe, the perceptions of their people with regard to the role of the British Government in that, and the fact that UK governments historically have been seen as supporting white farmers and a grab for land—that is how it has been described to me by Africans—and not supporting the black population of Zimbabwe when it needed to have its land back.
Lord Prior: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the deep resentment of the United States and Britain that still exists, not so much regarding their part in the war but its aftermath? Will she impress on her colleagues the importance of not believing that a western-style democracy will come quickly to the Arab world or is necessarily the right answer to the problems that the Arabs face? If we try to do too much to press that, there will be an even greater reaction and greater resentment among people who are very proud and independent?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord heard what was said in the Statement, which is
542
that the G8 made it absolutely clear that it wants to support the reform agenda of those in the Middle East. It is not a matter of us seeking to impose anything, but very much one of supporting the reform activity being undertaken in the Middle East by those countries and leaders who are moving in that direction.

Higher Education Bill
5.21 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Schedule 5 [The Director of Fair Access to Higher Education: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 31, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) The Director shall report on the equity and effectiveness of the schemes of financial assistance provided by institutions under section 31(4)(b), and the Director may make recommendations on a national scheme of financial assistance."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 is a probing amendment affecting Schedule 5 to the Bill. Unfortunately the Minister is not in her place, but I am sure that she is well aware of all that I shall say—and here she comes. At the risk of some repetition I again declare my non-pecuniary interest as chancellor of the University of East London, as I return to the subject of the Government's proposals for bursary schemes.
"Oh, no", I can hear some of your Lordships sighing, "he's playing his one-string fiddle yet again". Well, so I am, because the last line of my amendment calls on the Director of Fair Access to make recommendations on a national scheme of financial assistance for students. "Why harp on the subject?" I sense the Minister thinking—she is now in her place. I have now added a harp to my fiddle. Those of us who are cautious about the Government's plans believe that a Bill designed to produce variable fees will end up producing variable bursaries. Universities which have relatively few poor students will end up either paying out significantly more than the £300 minimum bursary to their students or paying bursaries to students who would not qualify for a bursary in other universities.
We fear a situation where, say, two hypothetical twins, in identical financial situations, go to study in different universities and receive markedly different bursaries. A further education college offering degree programmes from a number of different universities could have to administer different bursary arrangements from all its different universities. As an extension of my hypothesis, that could lead to two identical twins, in identical financial circumstances, studying at the same institution, but again receiving markedly different bursaries.
However, this is where I cease playing my out of tune one string fiddle and battered old harp and bring my string quartet to the party. My amendment is not solely about a national bursary scheme that some have suggested could be a voluntary coalition, although I hesitate to use that term, but is about the equity and effectiveness of financial assistance to students right

543
across the board. Furthermore, it places the responsibility firmly on the shoulders of the Director of Fair Access to live up to his title and ensure that the Secretary of State has a full and comprehensive report in front of him on an annual basis. That report should detail not only how the director has performed his functions during the previous year, but how all the varied and various grants and loans which are intended to ease the burden on struggling students are working out and how, in turn, they are affecting the universities themselves. The Secretary of State will then be able to act effectively and speedily to correct any imperfections upon which, quite rightly, the director has reported.
On the other hand, the director could also report that the Government's schemes of financial support for students were a raging success, with the universities full to overflowing, generating wider participation—and everything in the quadrangle would be lovely. I should then be likened to Cassandra, with my prophecies never being believed. That is the beauty of my amendment. If I am wrong, no harm can be done by it; each year the Director of Fair Access would write his or her report and devote a couple of paragraphs saying, in effect, that barmy old octogenarian Lord Rix was barking up the wrong tree yet again. However, if those of us who are concerned are correct, Parliament would receive notice of that in the quickest possible time and could then put matters right.
I trust that the Minister will not yet consider me a barmy old octogenarian and will give due and sympathetic consideration to my amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the only problem about the amendment relates to the recommendation for a national scheme. I have a letter from the vice-chancellor of Exeter University, which other noble Lords may have received, pointing out that he felt that it was extremely important that bursaries should be tailored by universities themselves to their needs and their circumstances. A national scheme could not allow for that.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I wonder whether I may respond to that question?
Noble Lords: No.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has produced a rather good solution to this problem. There is a basic inequity in that those universities that have relatively few students from lower income groups will have plenty of money to disburse in bursaries, whereas those such as the University of East London, of which the noble Lord is chancellor, or London South Bank University, will have a major problem, because 60 to 70 per cent of their students come from low income families, and therefore bursaries will hang heavily around those universities' necks.
544
We have had much debate on this matter, both at Second Reading and in Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who is not in her place, has been greatly concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is, as I understand it, parrying the issue for the moment. He wishes to place it firmly on the plate of the Director for Fair Access to see how well the bursary schemes will be run by the separate institutions—which answers the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. But if, after two or three years, the schemes turn out to be inequitable, then some other scheme might be proposed by the Director of Fair Access. The amendment seems to be a good solution to this problem and I congratulate and support the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that I was not in my place when he began, although he will not mind me saying that I had the benefit of reading what he was going to say earlier today, when we met. So I understand his argument and "a barmy old octogenarian" is the last phrase that I would use to describe the noble Lord—far from it.
We had an interesting debate in Committee and I understand the concerns raised by the noble Lord. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, the amendment would not itself bring in a national bursary scheme. It would place a duty on the director to report on the equity and effectiveness of bursary schemes provided by institutions and would empower him to make recommendations about a national scheme.
I assure the noble Lord and your Lordships' House that there is no need to legislate to allow this to happen. The Secretary of State's letter of guidance to the director asks that his annual report should contain a brief survey of access agreements, the methods that institutions are using to improve outreach and typical practice on bursaries and financial support.
There is also the independent three-year review, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State described in his statement of 26 January. That made clear that the director would also be involved in the review. Bursaries will be key to safeguarding access and therefore their impact across the piece will be a key feature of that three-year review.
The director should, and I am sure will, report on the effectiveness of bursary schemes both at individual institution level and nationally and make recommendations based on his analysis. These recommendations could include a recommendation about a national bursary scheme if that were where the analysis pointed. However, I do not agree that this needs to be enshrined in primary legislation; guidance is the place for it.
I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am delighted with the Minister's response from the Dispatch Box and I thank her and her department for it.

545
I am sure the vice-chancellors whom I know—they have doubts about whether the scheme is as effective as the national bursary scheme—will also be delighted by the response. The fact that the scheme can be examined and decided on in the future is a major step forward and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 31, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) The Director shall take account of views expressed in Parliament in response to his report under this paragraph."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall not detain the House. When I tabled a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister replied that there would definitely be parliamentary scrutiny. I would like her merely to repeat that so that it can be on the record. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for raising the matter. As I said in Committee, I have no doubt that Parliament will take a great interest in the director's work. His annual report will be laid before Parliament and Parliament, through the relevant Select Committee, may decide to scrutinise it further.
We have previously discussed Parliament and one voice. Unfortunately, the amendment does not alter the problem I indicated in Committee. However, I recognise the noble Baroness's concern to ensure that Parliament will scrutinise the report. I discussed that with the chairman of the Select Committee, who said he would be keen to ensure that his committee takes a keen interest in these reports. Knowing Mr Barry Sheerman, I am sure that will be the case.
I hope that on the basis of that reassurance, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [General duties of relevant authority]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 14, line 11, after "to" insert "full-time or part-time"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36. There has been much discussion in our debates about part-timers. The core issue is that the Bill makes no provision for them and is concerned wholly and entirely with the 60 per cent of students who sign on as full-time students.
Many of us in this Chamber who have taken up the interests of part-timers are concerned on a number of scores. First, we are concerned about equity. We have often pointed out that the fees for part-timers have been unregulated for some time. However, that does not take away from the fact that part-timers have for a long time been badly treated.
We accept that the Government have already done more for part-time students than previous governments, but they are still much less well treated than full-time students. Furthermore—and this is the central issue today—the Bill widens the gap rather than helps to fill it. Under the Bill, full-time students will he given facilities which enable them, at generous rates, to repay fees after graduation on the basis of loans with zero-real interest rates. No such facilities are being offered to part-time students who will still have to pay their fees up-front.
In addition, the Government, to their credit, are re-introducing maintenance grants for full-time students based on their parents' income—or, for mature students, based on household income. While they have increased the grant available to part-time students to £575 a year, and made a one-off £250 grant available towards the cost of books and travel, for which I am grateful, the means-test for part-time students is much tougher than for full-time students. Pro rata, the grant is on a much lower scale than for the equivalent full-time student. On the ground, therefore, of straight equity, part-time students are getting a very raw deal.
My second concern is that the Government are ignoring the way the world is going on part-time students. Again, this picks up on debates we had previously in the Chamber. In these days of mass higher education, widening participation, life-long learning and portfolio careers, we are already seeing an increase in the number of people seeking to improve their skills by studying part-time. And that has been growing and is likely to continue to grow.
In particular, we should recognise that widening participation is likely to pull in many who, given the choice, would prefer to earn and learn at the same time, rather than to run up vast debts on living costs, and to pay for that from their current earnings while devoting evenings and weekends—and, if they are lucky, time off from work—to studying. This is indeed the agenda of the vocational foundation degree, seen by the Government as the main instrument for expanding numbers in higher education. It is therefore fundamentally wrong that this relatively rare Bill on higher education—we will not see another for two or three years—makes no mention of part-time students. Like the White Paper, it ignores part-time students. It is absurd that the Government should be making it harder, not easier, for students to pursue part-time courses and be skewing the stakes yet once more in favour of the full-time 18 to 21 year-olds.
Thirdly, the Government are confronted by a real dilemma. The package they have put together to finance higher education—that is, fees and maintenance grants for low-income full-timers—is expensive. We have pointed out many a time how expensive the package is and how they will ultimately spend more than they are pulling in in fees. However, time and again they tell us that it is the only way in which they can bring in more money for higher education. We have a little dispute about that, but I will accept it for the moment. It is an expensive package.
In the process, the Government have exhausted their credit with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The cost of providing for large numbers of part-time students are substantial and as yet unknown. They are unknown because remarkably little research has been undertaken into who the part-time students are and whether they need or would take up extra help if it were available. We have been told that HEFCE has put in hand a survey and that we must wait three years for its completion before anything can be done about part-timers.
That is unacceptable. I have tabled the amendment to try to help the Government in their dilemma. Our proposal remains firm to the principle that the Bill should provide for part-timers. Amendment No. 28 seeks to add powers to the Director of Fair Access so that in Clause 30(1)(a) not only must he,
"promote and safeguard fair access to higher education",
but it will be his duty to,
"promote and safeguard fair access to full-time or part-time higher education".
Likewise, we are proposing to add the words "full-time or part-time" to paragraph (b) of Clause 31(2) so that it reads,
"the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to full-time or part-time higher education".
In other words, both the director of OFFA and the plans relating to access which the higher education institutions must draw up need to take account of access to part-time higher education. That says nothing about spending money now. The Office for Fair Access will not come into effect for another two years. Only in two years' time—in 2006—shall we begin to see fees introduced. We are saying that during 2007—the director will have a year in which to start work—he will have to consider the issue of part-time students, along with full-time students, when the plans are presented to him, and he will have to say to the universities, "What are you doing about part-time students?".
I recognise that ultimately the question is: is there any money? It will be for HEFCE to answer that question, but I can say only that that will be another comprehensive spending review down the road. Let us hope that we can see some more money for part-time students in the next comprehensive spending review. However, at least this amendment would put the issue of part-timers on to the face of the Bill and, as with the previous amendment pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, it would give the director a responsibility to remind the Government, time and again, that they must do something about it. I beg to move.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I have tabled two amendments on this subject. The first—Amendment No. 54—is an amendment to Clause 38, which concerns the interpretation of Part 3, and it complements the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp; in other words, it would bring the whole range of part-time education within the ambit of the Bill. As the noble Baroness said, it would have the value of
548
ensuring that part-time education was one of the responsibilities of the director of OFFA, and therefore it could, as it has in the past, form part of universities' programmes to widen access.
My second amendment—Amendment No. 55—differs slightly from that. It would not bring part-time education within the ambit of OFFA but it would provide the same support facilities for part-time students as are available for full-time students. All institutions which have part-time students would benefit from both amendments, but the two institutions which would benefit most from my second amendment are Birkbeck College, which is part of London University, and the Open University.
As has already been said, those two institutions are seriously and adversely affected by the Bill because, whereas other universities will have an opportunity to increase their funding automatically through their access programmes being accepted by the director of OFFA, Birkbeck College and the Open University are not covered in that way. They feel that it would be disastrous for them to increase their fees pro rata without some assistance either to the institutions or to the students so that, if the fees were increased, the students would have some financial support.
The amendment which relates to Birkbeck and the Open University would ensure that grants and loans for part-time student courses were brought, pro rata, within the full ambit of the student financial support regime in the same way as financial support is available for full-time courses. That would allow part-time students with an income of less than £15,000 per annum to receive a loan to pay their fees, and that would be repayable only when their income exceeded £15,000 per annum at the end of the course.
5.45 p.m.
At a previous stage of the Bill, we discussed to some extent the nature of part-time students. It was pointed out that perhaps some of the wealthier students were studying part-time at some institutions. The amendment would ensure that students in real financial need had the same support as full-time students. Taking Birkbeck as an example, it would make a difference of £5 million to its income if the college were able to charge the full £3,000 fee. But Birkbeck feels that if it does not receive any support, the market will not stand it increasing its fees to the level of £3,000. At present, the college receives in the region of £5 million from fees. If it increased the fees, its income in 2006 would be £9.4 million, and that would make a tremendous difference to what Birkbeck could achieve.
In previous discussions, the Minister said that the assumption is that the market will not stand part-time fees being raised. But we have no evidence to substantiate that. Have any of the institutions carried out research on the matter? I have to say that Birkbeck College has not carried out any such research, but its assumption is backed up by the assumption of my own university, 25 per cent of whose students are part-time, and it, too, is of the opinion that its fee is fixed at a rate that the market will currently support.

549
Nevertheless, Birkbeck quotes the Open University, which has carried out a specialised market analysis through an organisation call Planning Business, using a methodology called the Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Measure, which measures the percentage change in the number of students. It states that raising the fee by 1 per cent would bring about an enormous decrease in student numbers. A £3,000 a year increase would mean that the university would retain about 10 per cent of its current number of students. That would make an enormous difference to the Open University and to Birkbeck College. Neither organisation would be a viable institution if it was to meet with such a drastic reduction in student numbers and consequent loss of income from student fees. So, it is a crucial issue which needs to be addressed.
The Government, through my two amendments, have a choice. They can bring the whole of part-time education within the full ambit of the Bill or they can isolate the financial support for students by providing this additional support for part-time students. There is a price to this. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned that it would appear that there is no more money in the government coffers to support part-time students in this way. If HEFCE did decide to do this it would be at the expense of other universities and would be taken from the support they are being given. If that is so and the Minister has no solution to the problems, I support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp; that is, that we must have a fundamental review of the entire part-time system very soon. We cannot wait for the full review, which HEFCE is undertaking by 2006, to make a difference to the position not only of these two institutions but of all universities which have a substantial number of part-time students. We want immediate action.
I would ask the Minister if she could at least commit the Government to provide for a review of the whole position, financial and otherwise, of part-time students to take place this year, to be completed by the end of the year and for a report to be presented early in 2005. Unless we can do something with that amount of urgency and along those lines, the whole position of part-time students in all our higher education institutions is under threat.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, very briefly, the noble Baroness said that the Open University has carried out recent research. To my knowledge, from my involvement over a long time with the university, it has put an enormous amount of money into market research. I have heard it said that it spends more on market research than all the rest of the university sector put together. Because of that, Open University courses are very closely tailored to its market. Now the Bill alters the market totally. As a result, the Open University must either receive more money from the Government or put up its fees to match what is required in the Bill.
As the noble Baroness said, if it does that, it will have to multiply by three its average undergraduate fee and will lose nine-tenths of its undergraduate population. That would be lethal. The Government
550
are threatening the very life of the university they created, which is shocking. I hope that the noble Baroness will do something about this. Just to say that the funding council should top slice its funding to other universities in order to help the Open University and Birkbeck, which is probably in very much the same position, is no good. Universities UK oppose that and I agree. Something quite different has to be done, and promptly. The Open University is now at stake. I hope that the Minister realises that.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support all four of the amendments because I feel that we really do have to return to this issue of discrimination against part-time students and part-time higher education institutions. I will, perhaps, draw rather more on the Open University. The case has been made as far as it is concerned, but it would have been even better if made by the Chancellor of the OU, my noble friend Lady Boothroyd. It was clear from her outstanding contribution at Second Reading and afterwards how she feels about it. However, I am afraid that you will have to hear from only a former vice-chairman of the OU—I declare an interest there—which is very much the second eleven.
I have two specific points to make: first, to stress a real unfairness in the treatment of part-time higher education students and institutions, and secondly to emphasise the distorting effect of the Bill on the whole higher education system and on student choice. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, the central mischief is that the whole of the Bill is directed exclusively at the full-time sector. Those institutions which teach part-time students will receive nothing for their labours not one penny. That is particularly the case, as I said, with the Open University, which is and has been for so long the jewel in the crown of part-time higher education. Unlike every other university except Birkbeck, the OU has no full-time provision to make good this particular blow.
To understand the problems facing the Open University we need to turn to the students. From the beginning of the OU, it has been the route to a degree for very many from poor backgrounds with few if any qualifications. They could never have made their way into conventional universities. Many students too are late entries—no doubt we shall turn to that a little later—and have come to realise the benefit to be gained from a degree later in life.
By now I think that your Lordships are clear that all OU students pay fees and have done so from the foundation of the OU; which, as we have heard, are carefully set by the OU at the maximum which students are likely to be able to afford. So, why should they now be discriminated against? It is argued that as a considerable number of part-time students are in jobs, they do not need the same support and access to loans that undergraduates straight from school are to receive under the Bill. Where is the sense in that? Certainly, very few of those OU students who are in employment are earning high salaries. More than half have a personal income of less than £25,000 and only just over one in 10 have their fees paid by an employer.

551
The argument that the OU could match the full-time sector by tripling its fees over three years is manifestly absurd. It becomes doubly absurd when the Bill is framed in such a way as to exclude these students from additional hardship grants and from the very real privileges of deferred fee payments. If the OU was inside instead of outside the world as redefined by the Bill it would benefit by £48 million in the first three years of top-up fees. Why on earth not? It really is counter intuitive for the Government to make it more difficult and comparatively more expensive for those who wish to or can only study part-time. It is not good enough to say that it can all be considered again when the new system has settled down—a point made by other noble Lords.
Government money, as we know, is always a scarce commodity. There has to be a short-term response, which will enable the OU to invest in growth and pay its staff just like the rest of the sector. That will require the Government to make a direct intervention, and frankly, they have to do so now.
Like others, I call upon the Minister today to give such an undertaking. Unless that is done and both lots of students are treated from the beginning on the same pro-rata basis, the part-time student and part-time world class institutions such as the OU are unlikely ever to catch up. If the Government fail to rectify the glaring anomaly in the Bill, they threaten to hamstring the one institution capable of delivering the outcomes to which they are so publicly committed. I hope the Government can, even at this late stage, be persuaded to think again.
6 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I support the spirit in which Amendment No. 28 has been moved, although I believe it is unnecessary. OFFA has a remit over applications, not admissions, so it deals with potential rather than actual students. It will work generally to widen participation. With that approach it is as likely that potential students will be encouraged to apply for part-time as for full-time courses.
As your Lordships know, my aim during the passage of the Bill has been to ensure that OFFA has no remit over the composition of the student body. That is why I tabled amendments in Committee ensuring that admissions were outside OFFA's remit. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in Committee and brought back at this stage with improvements by the Government will also clarify that OFFA cannot punish an institution if an agreed plan does not alter the composition of the student body.
If OFFA's role is only to encourage applications from under-represented groups, and it has no powers over which courses they actually take, I do not think there would be any need to differentiate between full and part-time students. It does not need to do so and I believe therefore that the amendment is unnecessary.
Having said that, institutions have always been free under the proposed legislation to include part-time students in their plans if they wish, and I think many
552
will. But I do not believe that OFFA should be able to require them to do so. That would be a step too far, which I hope the Government will resist.
However, I want to comment briefly on the amendment of my noble friend Lady Lockwood. A very wide consensus has been expressed, not only in this debate but in previous debates in the House, that there must be a movement towards greater equity of treatment for part-time students. The real question is how to achieve it.
The part-time student body, particularly among mature students, is diverse. Although there is evidence available for individual institutions, there is no sector-wide picture of the circumstances of part-time students. At present, there is not even an agreed consistent definition that is applied to part-time students. We therefore—and I echo the views of noble Lords who have also made this point—need a serious study, which goes beyond the problems, clear though they are, that face the OU and Birkbeck on the implications of the Higher Education Bill for part-time students and their institutions, including income yield to the latter. The effects of the Higher Education Bill upon part-time course provision and upon those institutions which have been particularly successful in providing more flexible forms of study really must be examined.
I have argued, therefore, with others that we need evidence to ensure that we target the available resources accurately, so that the really poor part-time students are supported in the right way. I have argued that that evidence does not exist at present. I welcome the Government's decision to include part-time students in the student income and expenditure survey. In recognising the wide consensus on this issue and, indeed, the need for institutions to be able to advise students well before 2006 on what fees they will be charged, I hope that my noble friend will he able to tell us what speedy action can be taken.
My final point is that this will cost money. It is clear that little is available. My fear is that if the amendment is passed, the Government will look to pay for it, as other noble Lords have mentioned, out of funding already earmarked for higher education. We know that the spending review settlement for the next three years averages only 4.4 per cent. That is not enough to meet the needs already identified in the spending review. Many will argue, and have argued, that it is up to the Government to find more money. I fear that that is naïve. I do not feel able to support the amendment without an assurance that new money will be found to make it a reality and that it will not be found from existing resources.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is often said that Ministers are well served if they have eyes in the back of their head. If this Minister had eyes in the back of her head she would see that I was wearing the tie of the Open University. Perhaps I am not its only member in this House but I am a very proud member.
The Minister will recall two or three years ago when we had the great privilege of welcoming the Queen's Speech that I wore a special tie. It was the tie of the

553
Royal Marines. In view of the past few days my job tonight is to strengthen ties between the Government and the part-time sector.
All is not lost. We are almost at the last knockings. I make no threat to the Government about support or otherwise for the amendment, except to say that the Minister could earn credit with a great many people if—despite the words at the top of her brief, which might say "resist"—she were to say, "I am prepared to take this back and talk to my colleagues".
The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, has been mentioned. She has been a great stalwart and has met Ministers and argued the case. I really cannot understand why the Government are so obdurate in this matter. This nexus in the Bill is—in the parlance—part of the doctrine of unexpected consequences. I do not think that the Government or their advisers fully saw the implications of what they were doing.
I certainly applaud everything the Bill does in respect of what one might call the "orthodox university sector". I appreciate that the Government—the first government for many years—are attempting to tackle it. I understand the situation of youngsters and their parents who are faced possibly with an impost that is not welcome.
I started my degree in 1970 in the second year of the Open University. I would think that I was typical of those who left school at the age of 14 and always knew they had a degree in them but never had the chance to get it out until the Open University came along. Harold Wilson said that if he were to be remembered for anything, it should be for the Open University. Also involved were Jennie Lee, who served in this House, and Ted Short, the education Minister. I do not make a party point, except to say that of all the political parties, the Labour Party should have more pride in what the Open University stands for.
Crowther started the thinking about this and defined what the Open University was. He said that it was open to students as well as to many others. On its range of people, in my classes in Enfield there was an 85 year-old lady and uneducated people. We all were inspired by the feeling that we were being treated by the government and the people who taught us that we were worthy of nurturing—and we were nurtured.
I had the great opportunity to be the first Member of Parliament to be given a degree while he was a Member of Parliament. I am still the only Member of Parliament to get a degree while he was a Member of Parliament. Many have come into the House with a degree; many have left and got a degree. So, we are thinking of a special institution in education, but to my dear friend the Minister we are thinking of a special institution in the annals of the Labour Party and what it did.
We can ill afford to lose friends. I say that in a kindly way. We need all the friends we can get. Because of the Open University there are millions of people who are the friends of the Government and of government in general. There are millions of other potential students who I think should be taken care of.
554
Much of what I want to say has been said very well by others. I take my advice from the Open University, just as Ministers take their advice from civil servants. I am told by the Open University that it cannot raise its fees to £3,000. Even with the proposed part-time grant of £575 per annum such study would not be affordable.
I was very impressed when the Open University said:
"Our market research shows that, at the price of £1,500 per part-time course, we would retain less than 10% of our current students".
In other words, our undergraduate student population in England would shrink from 140,000 to 14,000. Can that be true? I do not know. The Open University has said it, so it will have to prove it. I know from conversations that Ministers doubt whether that could happen.
Let us suppose that it were true, and that the legislation had a devastating impact on the lifeblood of the Open University. It would be terrible. The Minister and her colleagues should take the opportunity to think again. Over half of Open University students are unemployed or from low or semi-skilled occupational groups—you cannot say that about the orthodox universities. The Minister has a very important job to do.
I attended a meeting at which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in discussing the matter, raised possible solutions. He acknowledged that the Dearing report, a very valuable publication that was the springboard for many of the recent changes to higher education, had not been able to give adequate consideration to the part-time sector. He suggested that his report had perhaps misled government into underestimating the significance of the sector and misunderstanding its needs. The noble Lord then came up with a solution so simple and inexpensive that I cannot understand why the Government are not prepared to accept it to get them off the hook. His "first-aid" solution was to acknowledge that the position of part-time students would be looked at in the review to be undertaken by HEFCE. In the mean time, he said, we ought to move towards assisting them.
What would it cost? I am told that in 2006, the gap year during which there would be trouble, it would cost £20 million. If that is the cost of the Government's saying to the Open University and the part-time education sector, "We are prepared to recognise your problems; we are prepared to give you that", that is all right. If the arrangement were to continue, after three years the sum would be £58 million per annum, of which £48 million would accrue to the Open University.
When we talk about the millions and billions involved, we are talking about how the Government can get off the hook and recognise the sagacity and wisdom of the argument. Of the 43 noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading, 19 raised the issue of part-time students. The last thing that I want to do is say that the Government have done nothing to assist part-time students; on the contrary, they have done a range

555
of things. No doubt the Minister will be well briefed to tell us what the Government have done. However, those who manage the Open University tell me and others that that little thing remains to be done.
I hope that the Minister has been impressed by the width and the all-party nature of attempts to persuade her to change her mind. If she takes away the amendments tonight, she will have an opportunity to return at Third Reading with a solution. But I fear that, if she presses on and resists the amendment, we will become involved in the game of ping-pong. The Bill will be sent to the other end; eventually it may be accepted. I ask this Minister as I ask others: why go through the purgatory of sticking your toes in at the first opportunity in the knowledge that eventually they will have to change their mind? This is a time when statesmanship is required; I look to my noble friend on the Front Bench to demonstrate it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I have much pleasure in following the speech of my noble friend Lord Graham, much of which I agreed with. I was astonished that the Bill contained nothing about part-time students. I thought that perhaps I had missed the relevant words. In a whole world of universities and further education, I was astonished that there was such a gap in this important area.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who is absent because of a serious accident, received part-time evening education and training as an accountant. In my engineering days I took eight years of classes, studying for national certificates of one kind and another, which led to university degrees, all during the evening. The whole point of part-time education is that it involves learning while one works. Full-time education is an alternative to working; part-time education is a combination of the two. It allows one to use one's learning in a working environment. Sometimes that can be very helpful. I was able to design a tractional horse-powered electric motor, a matter of considerable technical expertise, because of the work that I did in my student days. That is the sort of thing that happens; one should give it maximum encouragement.
Technical colleges started with George Birkbeck, who helped to introduce the London Mechanics Institute, from which the three institutions that I had the privilege of attending followed: Stockport College; Burnley Mechanics Institute, which became Burnley College; and the Royal Technical College, Salford, where I got my external degree. All those developments followed on from the understanding that a gap existed for those unable to go to university, in the days when it was a great privilege to do so. Even today, many people have the enthusiasm and commitment to study or train in the evening. Their commitment is great; one does not give up one's evenings or one's days to do such work unless one is fully committed. We should not be placing such students at a disadvantage; there should be positive support for them. I find it astonishing that we have an education Bill that gives no support to such people.
556
There must be some understanding and appreciation of the role of part-time education; it must find its way into the Bill. There must be a means of giving such students fair access, and the institutions must be encouraged in their work for part-time students. They must not be under any disadvantage in giving whatever assistance they can to such people. I look forward to a substantial rethink by my noble friend on those important matters.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to which my noble friend Lord Forsyth has added his name. I shall speak also to the rest of the amendments in the group.
This has been a well versed subject; it is a concern of noble Lords on all sides of the House. Amendments Nos. 28 and 36, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, aim to reverse the current situation in the Bill so that the contents of plans submitted to OFFA must include provisions for the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education for full-time and part-time students. That would enable the director not only to see the effects of the new system in a holistic manner, but also to encourage higher education institutes to manage their full-time and part-time students regarding widening access on the same basis.
The Minister assured the House:
"There is much that we have to offer the Open University in the passage of this Bill".—[Official Report, 19/4/04; col. 15.]
It is astonishing that at this stage of the Bill we have not yet seen any sign of the wonderful offer that the Bill can make to such students. As I have said before, the Government cannot impose top-up fees on higher education institutes that cater for full-time students without giving special consideration to the treatment of part-time students.
The Government have suggested that institutions such as the Open University should raise their fees to stay apace of those charged by the rest of the higher education sector. However, it has been made clear that such steps, without the safety nets that the Government are putting in place for full-time students, would damage the ability to attract and retain the very students whom the Government argue they want to encourage. Not only that, but part-time, higher education institutions may also end up losing staff to the better-endowed institutions, resulting in a decline of part-time students as a whole. It is clear that the part-time student sector is being "let down by Labour" by its failure to address these issues in this one-sided Bill.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I will briefly add my voice to those who have spoken, particularly for the Open University. I have an indirect interest, in that my wife got a first-class honours degree in English from the Open University while raising our family. I suspect that a great many women in particular are in that position. I do not want to say more than that it provides what I call passionate education. The contact that I had with the group that my wife was part of

557
opened my eyes to the extraordinary commitment that late-life undergraduates bring to their studies, and with it the rich experience of their own lives. In the end, most of them contribute to the commonweal in a fulsome way that more than repays any financial provision that the state gives them through the Open University.
I will also make the obvious point that Open University degree courses reach the parts that the others, on the whole, do not reach. If the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, is even half right in what she said about the potential consequences of this Bill unless something is done to it, we should all take to the streets, because it would be vandalism, to use an overblown but justified word.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I spent more than a few moments yesterday morning in the boiling hot sunshine crouched over my word processor to make notes on Amendments Nos. 28, 36 and 55, because my name is attached to them. However, as a result of the impassioned speeches that I have heard from all around the House, I no longer intend to use those notes.
I had the honour to receive my first honorary degree from the Open University way back some 20 years ago. That was as a result of the co-operation that the Open University had with Mencap at the time. As I said in my Second Reading speech, the Open University was the first university, I think probably in the world, to give credence to people with learning disabilities and their families. As a result, three courses have emanated from the Open University over the years, and they will continue to do so in the future. My support for the Open University is totally and absolutely wholehearted. I support everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in his wonderful speech.
For some inexplicable reason, I find that I may well have added my name to Amendments Nos. 28, 36 and 55, but it seems to be missing from Amendment No. 54. I declare my interest in Amendment No. 54 as well, and I hope that the Minister will give us a satisfactory answer in a few moments.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I apologise for not being in my place at the start of this short debate. I was fully aware of those who are involved in this group of amendments, and I shall be brief. We can all rehearse our own experiences, and rightly so. I was chaplain at Manchester University, which started life as Owen's College. Before it had its charter in 1880, it was a part-time place. On Sunday week, I shall be ordaining 14 priests, the largest number that we have had in the diocese for many years, if not ever, since its founding in 1927. Nearly all of them will have done a part-time course. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, the motivation is high.
These amendments will not only provide a signal—and legislation needs signals—but will ensure a proper provision for what I, and many others, regard as a growth area and as a fact of modern life. We have heard the eloquent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham—I am sorry that I cannot wear a
558
Marines tie, although I saw some of them beating the retreat in Caen at the D-Day celebrations recently. I fear that the Minister will tell us that we are doing this already, or that there are legal difficulties, or that there is not enough money. In anticipation of those three points, none of them will do. These amendments are important, and if we do not pass something like them, in years to come we will regret not having done so.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the great George Birkbeck could hear this debate up in Heaven—and he is in Heaven, I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will agree with me about that—he would be pretty pleased. I hope that when the Minister has spoken, he will also be pleased, and that we are going to see some movement from the Government on this important issue.
I was not here, unfortunately, when this debate took place in Committee. I will say a few words now in favour of part-time students and part-time places in our universities. It is undoubtedly the case that part-time students who, as George Birkbeck said in 1821, work by day and study by night, are among the most committed, most highly motivated and hardest-working of all of our students. They make huge sacrifices to study, and we ought to recognise that. We also ought to recognise the fantastic work that is done by those institutions that have for many years specialised in supporting part-time students The teachers in these institutions are immensely committed to helping, supporting and providing the extra pastoral care that sometimes must be given to mature students who come back to study, perhaps not having done any study since leaving school at the age of 16; some 10, 15 or even 20 years earlier.
Part-time students come cheap; they really do. They come cheap in the sense that they have not been eligible for maintenance support until very recently. I am sorry to be political, but I must dispute something that the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, just said, when she implied that this Government are failing part-time students. We will see whether that is true when we hear what the Minister says. However, previous Conservative governments have failed them far more than this Government, in that this Government have introduced a loan scheme for part-time students, so they are able to take out a loan of up to £500 for maintenance, which was never true before. I know that because I spent 10 years of my life pleading with Tory Secretaries of State to do more to support part-time students and part-time places in our universities.
Many noble Lords have spoken about the value of part-time higher education. It is important that we do not pass a Bill that neglects to recognise the existence of part-time, higher education, but also that we do not pass a Bill that unintentionally—and I am sure that it would be entirely unintentionally—could lead to a situation in which there is an inbuilt disincentive to higher education institutions to recruit part-time students. Universities undoubtedly cannot charge them £3,000 a year in fees, and therefore the facilities that they can provide for part-time students decline

559
relative to those available for full-time students. Given the nature of part-time students and what we have said about them, that would not be desirable; indeed, it would be a tragedy.
We have before us two rather different kinds of amendments. We have the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, suggesting that the regulator, OFFA, should be required in the Bill to consider part-time students. I support that, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister is able to as well. I do not think that she is in her place, but I am sad that I must disagree with my noble friend Lady Warwick, who thought that the amendment was unnecessary. Perhaps it is strictly unnecessary, in that of course in principle OFFA will be able to look at part-time as well as full-time places and consider applications for both, but it should be clearly stated that the regulator has a duty to consider both kinds of students. After all, part-time students make up 40 per cent of our student population, and it is an extremely effective way to widen participation, if institutions are to be encouraged to do more on part-time student numbers. So, I disagree with her on that.
6.30 p.m.
I support what my noble friend said about hoping that the Government would eventually be able to provide additional funding to support part-time student places. However, I do not agree with my noble friend that, were the Government to be unable to do so, all the money should be kept as it is. Were we to be in the undesirable position of having no extra funding, I would like to see some redistribution towards part-time places. There would be widespread agreement in the House, even if not in the sector. However, the sector consists of institutions that have more full-time students than part-time students overall. That does not mean to say that governments and people outside the sector, including your Lordships' House, should not take a different view. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will do so.
There are two possible routes to go down, with regard to what my noble friend Lady Lockwood said. The first is to provide additional support for part-time students, so that they can pay higher fees. The second is to provide additional support to higher education institutions, not just the OU and Birkbeck but all those that have large numbers of part-time places, so that they can continue to provide proper facilities for those most deserving of all students. The Government should take the second route, and I hope that we will hear from the Minister that the Government and the Higher Education Funding Council for England can do that. Even if we cannot produce an immediate solution because of the complexity of the issues, I hope that it will be possible to find a short-term interim solution to protect those places and protect the institutions that provide them.
I know that pledges were made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, in
560
particular, I think to my honourable friend the Member for Milton Keynes North East, Brian White. In the light of that, I am extremely confident that my noble friend the Minister will come up with a response that will meet your Lordships' concerns.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I know of no matter that, during debates on the Bill, has attracted more solid consensus than the need to do something for part-timers. We are a nation committed to the principle of lifelong learning, and we want all people to be able to benefit. I had better declare an interest: I was chairman of the University for Industry and am now its patron. That institution is dedicated to the cause of lifelong learning for everyone.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, referred to his wife's having done a part-time degree and having done very well. However, many other women, possibly of a similar age, do not live in such a well heeled environment. They need financial support to encourage them to persist with their courageous decision to go back into the world of learning after 10 or 20 years out of learning or work. They have high aspirations, and we must support them. I join all those who have spoken in asking the Government to take action.
There is a hole in the White Paper of January last year. We were all so transfixed by the issue of variable fees and what it involved—it was breaking new ground—that we forgot that, in concentrating on the full-time, we were creating a problem, a disparity of funding that would affect the OU, Birkbeck and other higher education institutions that have a high proportion of part-timers. There will not be the money to compete for staff, for example. There must be action.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, teased me about the malleability of civil servants. I assure him that someone who has worked for Mr Benn and then switched to working for Sir Keith Joseph has a fairly malleable mind. Malleable or not, I would, if I were writing the Minister's brief, say, "You have got to do something, but, for goodness' sake, be careful, if you do not know what it will cost or where the money will come from". Perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, would give similar advice.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that it is conceivably possible that officials in the Department for Education and Skills could have forgotten about part-time students in such large numbers? Was it just that the Government did not want to face up to the financial consequences of dealing with the problem?
Lord Dearing: My Lords, as the noble Lord has perceived, I am a man of limited imagination. As one of limited imagination, I must confess that, when I gave a rather lengthy public commentary on the White Paper, I did not focus on the part-time issue.
There is a hole, and we need two things. We cannot wait long; we need some first aid. Before we get a long-term solution, the matter must be properly researched. We must know how much it will cost and how the

561
money can best be spent. The Minister has already assured us that we do not need legislation to do something, so I hope that she will enlighten us about what the Government have in mind.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it has been a long and interesting debate. Mindful, as ever, of your Lordships' desire to hear the detail from the Government and to finish Report stage this evening, I shall be as brief as I can. It is a delight to see my noble friend Lord Sheldon taking part in the debate. I am grateful to him. I shall resist the temptation to go through many of the things that I said in Committee.
This Government have done more than any other to support part-time students. To my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I say that we have introduced a grant from the autumn. To the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, I say that there are no age limits on those grants. We have increased the funding to help part-time students from £18 million in 2003 to £37 million in 2004–05. We hope to more than double the number of students whom we can help. The Government have shown commitment to the matter.
I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton has told me to be statesmanlike; that my noble friend Lady Blackstone has invoked heaven in the debate; and that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is going to take to the streets. I recognise the pressure on me from different parts of your Lordships' House. Knowing Lady Phillips, I know that she would have got a first-class degree, whatever she did. She is an extremely able woman.
There are four amendments in three distinct categories. The first two—Amendments Nos. 28 and 36—are similar and relate to the role of the director and access plans in relation to part-time students. Amendment No. 54, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lockwood, is concerned with regulating part-time fees. Amendment No. 55 is about support for part-time students, and I shall start with it.
The question that I want to raise is about the rationale behind the amendment. We know that part-time higher education is a vibrant and growing market and that part-time numbers are rising faster than full-time numbers and have done so for several years. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, just said, it is critical that, whatever we do, we do it on the basis of evidence. There would have to be a substantial increase in public investment to achieve what Amendment No. 55 would require. That is not to say that we are ruling out changes. Noble Lords have made eloquent statements of the need to consider part-time students, but we need evidence in order to make the changes.
In the amendment is the assumption that part-time students want loans. We had a loan scheme for part-time students, and take-up was extremely low. That is why we have introduced grants from this autumn. We must think carefully about what we would be doing, if we made the amendment. We did some costings, and we found that it would cost about £0.75 billion. The amendment covers students on 50 per cent-plus courses. If the scheme were to be extended to students
562
on any kind of part-time course, the costs would rise to about £1 billion. Those are big amounts of money. Before we take big, costly decisions, we must be sure that we do so on the basis of the correct evidence. So it is not that I do not think that those matters are important or that a case could not be made, but we do not have the evidence to assess the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, who is not in her place, said that we need to think about that group of students as not being all the same. There are many different categories of students who are studying part-time, which make it a rich and vibrant group. But we need to make sure that we have the evidence.
So what are we doing? Currently, we are running a survey of part-time students and their financial backgrounds. The contract for that has been awarded to the Open University and we are grateful for its work on the survey. Next year, we will get more information when part-time students are included in the income and expenditure survey, which will also assess their needs in the light of the new grant that they will be receiving by then. Again, we shall have a much greater evidence base.
We must then decide what we wish to do, which we would be doing on the basis—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the noble Baroness in her search for evidence. Perhaps I may ask her to include two things within it; namely, the possibility that for older people an interesting education may result in improvements and therefore saving in health and, for people of child-caring age, excess expansion reduces the space available for child care.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that I quite understand the noble Earl's second point. But—
Earl Russell: My Lords, the same room cannot be used for child care and lecturing at the same time. So if the college is jam-packed, there is nowhere to look after the children.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the National Childcare Strategy is working precisely to support children and child care in lots of different locations. Of course, we supply support for people who have children, to enable them to take part in education. As I have already said, the question of age and grants available does not apply: the grants are available regardless of age.
It is critical that we get the information that we need and make the decisions based on that information. On that basis, I would ask that Amendment No. 55 be withdrawn.
As regards Amendment No. 54, institutions have always been free to determine the level at which to charge for part-time courses. That unregulated market is working well. We have no desire to interfere with it. If we were to regulate part-time fees, we would be imposing new restrictions on institutions where there

563
have never been restrictions before. A cap might be imposed on fees that are less than some institutions currently charge and employers or students currently pay. That would have a dramatic effect on the income of those institutions: some might stop running the courses. Equally, if we set the cap higher, there might be an upward drift in fees charged. We do not believe that that is the right way to go or that we should regulate. I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment.
I turn now to institutional funding and the review. Noble Lords have mostly talked about the Open University and Birkbeck, but I think that they are also interested in this issue in more general terms. We are very aware of the concerns that some institutions have expressed—particularly those with a high number of part-time students—about the funding for part-time students in the light of our proposals.
Last autumn, the Higher Education Funding Council for England consulted the sector about proposed changes to its teaching funding methodology. That consultation, and the responses to it, led to some changes to the way that the funding for part-time students will be calculated for the 2004–05 academic year. I understand that allocations have been announced. For the longer term, HEFCE has commenced a comprehensive review.
Following debates in your Lordships' House at Second Reading and in Committee, we have had further discussions with HEFCE regarding the scope of its review of the funding methodology. In particular, we have pressed it to ensure that the review is conducted and that proposals are developed as quickly as possible with full consultation with the sector. That consultation needs to take account of the position of those institutions with a strong interest in part-time issues. That does not refer simply to the Open University and Birkbeck, although, of course, they are very important players. We have also asked for an assurance that changes flowing from the review will be implemented at the earliest opportunity.
I am pleased to say that HEFCE has responded very positively and has confirmed that part-time issues, far from being an add-on to the review, will form an important and integral part of it. Its starting point will be to consider whether in the future it makes sense to continue the full-time/part-time distinction at all and how to develop a better approach that is consistent with more flexible learning.
HEFCE has also confirmed that its fundamental review, which is now under way, will involve extensive consultation with the sector on the issues that are to he addressed. Its expectation is that in summer 2005, it will be in a position to consult on the principles of the new system with a view to finalising proposals for a new model in early 2006, which would be before the introduction of variable fees. Those recommendations can then be implemented in a phased way as soon as the associated financial information systems can be developed.
Therefore, before variable fees are introduced, universities will know the funding regime and the broad implications for the sector. Of course, that does not
564
address the very specific issue of the implications of variable fees for those institutions with predominantly part-time students. Here again, HEFCE proposes further consultation with the sector on the detail of what will be the transitional arrangements pending the introduction of the new funding method. It has explained that using its current funding formulas, if it did so happen that full-time tuition fees increased at a greater rate than part-time fees, there would be a natural rebalancing of government funds in favour of part-time courses. It has also agreed to consider the special cases that both institutions—the Open University and Birkbeck—have made regarding their funding, with a view to the HEFCE board coming to a decision in the autumn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. In the consultation by the funding council, perhaps the Minister could ascertain and make sure that consultation is also done with the Scottish funding councils. The Open University exists in Scotland. In fact, it has a higher recruitment per head in Scotland than almost anywhere else in the country. Funding for students of the Open University in Scotland, which will be done through the Scottish funding councils, needs to match that.
I understand that, currently, a lot of consultation is going on in Scotland and that there is very little interest in the matter of part-time students. The Open University in Scotland exists as well.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is saying. In looking across Open University funding, I believe that that would be the case. But I shall confirm that in writing to the noble Baroness with a copy placed in the Library.
I could talk a great deal about the Open University and Birkbeck, which would echo much of what has been said about them. We have discussed with HEFCE that it should look very carefully at the proposals that have been put forward. I have rather galloped through this, but I hope that as noble Lords look back on what I have said, they will see the timescales involved, which reflect some of the concerns that have been raised. In particular, HEFCE will look at those institutions very carefully. There is no disrespect to either institution if I do not go through a whole set of notes that I have. I hope that noble Lords will take that as read.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 26 and 36.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister moves off this issue, can she clarify the timetable again? Will the review be finished in the summer of 2005 and that there will then be consultation with universities?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are three different timetables. First, HEFCE will reach a decision by the autumn in respect of the Open

565
University and Birkbeck. Secondly, all the principles behind the reviews will be established by summer 2005. Therefore, institutions will know what is being proposed and will be able to make plans accordingly. The final part of the consultation will be completed with firm plans made by the early part of 2006, which is before variable fees are introduced. I can clarify that further, but I hope that that gives my noble friend what she needs. In a sense, that is the framework, together with the research that we have put in place, which will give us the evidence base. I hope that that is recognition of the fact that we take this issue extremely seriously.
Amendment No. 28 requires the director to promote and safeguard fair access to full-time and part-time higher education. Amendment No. 36 includes access to part-time higher education as a matter that regulations might require to be included in plans. While the Bill does not rule part-time study into plans, it does not rule it out. For example, within the Bill, it is possible for the Secretary of State to require the director to write a report that relates to part-time provision. Of course, we have also made it clear that institutions can include reference to part-time provision in their plans if they wish.
The draft guidance from the Secretary of State to the director points out that institutions could use additional income from courses for which they are charging higher fees to attract and support part-time students. So part-timers are not ruled out of access plans, but we wish to keep the details of an access plan for the institution to think about and make decisions on rather than prescribe too much from the centre.
I am not able to accept Amendment No. 36, but I think that I can offer something on Amendment No. 28. While I cannot accept it as drafted, I can accept the amendment in principle and bring back a government amendment at Third Reading. I have also reflected on a debate that we had earlier today, on Amendment No. 24. Noble Lords know that that is a government amendment following the proposal put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, which would give the director the power to identify and advise on good practice in relation to the promotion of equality of opportunity in access to higher education. Since I believe that many institutions will in fact include in their access plans measures relating to part-time provision, this amendment might be further amended to include specific reference to good practice in respect of part-time as well as full-time students. If noble Lords agree, I will consider whether we can come back at Third Reading with two amendments along the lines I have indicated.
Within the package, an evidence base is critical and we are working on it, as well as supporting the Open University in that regard. We recognise the importance of the unregulated market for part-time study and the wish to continue in that way. I have made clear the HEFCE position. We accept in principle Amendment No. 28 and we shall bring forward an additional
566
amendment along the lines I have just set out. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the Minister. This is the solution that we have all been looking for. I sense that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, may share my feeling that it would have been very nice if we had been able to go that little bit further, but we knew that that would be extremely difficult. As I said when introducing the amendment, we understand that we do not yet really know who these part-time students are. I am delighted to learn that HEFCE is accelerating the pace of its survey. It was extraordinary that it was going to take three years to complete it; one year is fine. As the Minister rightly indicated, we shall see movement, developments and plans in 2006, and we have it on the face of the Bill.
As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, this is of symbolical importance. It sends a clear signal to the community when a provision is put on the face of the Bill. I take on board the fact that institutions can do as they wish and that perhaps we did not really need the provision—that is the implicit response—but, as I said, it is an important signal to the community. I am delighted.
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate. It has been very long, but extremely useful. Once again, I thank the Minister for what she has offered in her response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Forsyth of Drumlean moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 14, line 12, leave out from "have" to end of line 17 and insert—

"(i) a duty to protect academic freedom, including the right of institutions to determine the criteria and the application of that criteria for the admission of students, and the selection and appointment of academic staff,

(ii) a duty not to require plans to include reference to particular courses of study or research, (including the contents of such courses or programmes and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed) except as provided for in section 23(1)(a) and (b),

(iii) a regard to any guidance given to him by the Secretary of State."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark, as well as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, and of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. I should mention that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, had an important medical appointment this afternoon and

567
thus was not able to be here, but I know that he strongly supports this amendment, to which he has added his name.
While we welcome the acceptance by the Government of the amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the move made by the Minister to recognise the importance of academic freedom—an issue that this House has a long and distinguished history of fighting for—we do not feel that it went far enough in providing all the assurances that are needed.
This amendment maintains the duty of the director to protect academic freedom, including the right of academic institutions to determine the criteria and the application of that criteria in relation to the admission of students. It adds to that the selection and appointment of staff, which is important given the argument that in some circumstances certain staff attract particular students. The amendment also aims to exclude the director from requiring plans to refer to particular courses of study or research, including how they are assessed.
Perhaps I can make the case most positively for the amendment by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, from the debates on the 1992 Act. She said that,
"The principle of academic freedom is indivisible. It is not possible to anticipate or determine what some future Secretary of State with a particular axe to grind might do about, for example, the kind of students who should or should not be admitted, the kind of academic staff who should or should not be appointed, or about departments which the Secretary of State has taken against and wishes to close. The list of exceptions cannot encompass every possibility and an interfering Secretary of State could always find ways of exploiting loopholes".
No doubt the Minister will tell me that my amendment is not absolutely spot-on technically, but she will recognise where the wording has come from. In commending the amendment, I hope very much to enlist the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, because she is the inspiration behind the words used. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I support the amendment, although I have a few minor caveats. However, I am very pleased with its wording. Noble Lords will recall from our debate in Committee that I felt it was important to protect all stages of the admissions process. However, the amendment leaves one area of that procedure vulnerable. One part of the wording inserted by my amendment in Committee meant that admissions decisions are protected by the phrase,
"and to apply those criteria in particular cases".
So there are one or two minor drafting points. It is my understanding that requirements are to be determined by regulations, and hence by the Secretary of State rather than OFFA.
On a minor point, paragraph (ii) refers to provisions set out in "section 23(1)". I wonder whether that should be "section 31(1)"? Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to clarify whether my understanding is correct.
568
Those issues aside, I strongly support this proposal. I have been concerned about the risk that OFFA might require institutions to make reference to particular courses of study in their plans. My noble friend has been most reassuring on this point, but the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would put the matter beyond doubt. I hope that these brief comments can be considered and I repeat my support for the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is a new experience for me to have inspired a Conservative amendment. I am not sure whether to be flattered by that or slightly nervous about my reputation in the Labour Party. However, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, although I cannot comment on its wording. I am not sure whether it will stand up technically, but that is for my noble friend to determine. However, the point he makes in principle should be supported.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendment. In Committee two different versions of moves to protect academic freedom were on offer, but because the Minister accepted the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that was the one to be incorporated. However, I did remark to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, who I think is the author of this amendment, that I had a slight preference for her form of words. I am delighted to see that it has been brought back and I reiterate my endorsement.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too support the amendment. The key principle behind this is that decisions on the admission of students must be made individually. That cannot be done if one has to produce a statistical tally. We have to be able to decide whether he or she is the best person in front of us. That must be done by consideration of the person's mind.
I do not think that people always understand exactly what we are doing when selecting students. We are not assessing past performance. In fact, my objection to using A-levels as a way of selecting students is that it is always like betting that the winner of the Derby will be the horse in the lead at Tattenham Corner. I am told by those who know more about these matters than I do that on that principle one would lose a very large sum of money.
What one is looking for is promise; the ability to develop talent. To achieve that, one needs to get the students thinking about something that they have never come across before; an unfamiliar piece of evidence; a strange idea. One needs to look to see what they do with it. Therefore, the handicap suffered by people from schools which are rather less adequately endowed is that of a smaller library; far fewer things are familiar to them and therefore far more are surprising to them. In some cases the difference has been so extreme that I have been unable to assess candidates except by interviewing them on matters right outside their academic field and on which they could not possibly have been expected to prepare.

569
But the word "require" in Amendment No. 29 is, I hope, understood in Amendment No. 30. It is absolutely vital because one cannot carry out this duty according to any conscience but one's own. A colleague of mine resigned from an extremely good job because her superior demanded that she alter the transcription of a word in a manuscript which he had not seen. He may perfectly well have been right, but he could not possibly have known he was right. He had not seen it, she had; he simply did not have the authority to do what he did. For that to be met by a resignation was perfectly right.
Were I to be still in office—I have now, unfortunately, retired—and were I to be faced with a requirement to select student X in preference to student Y, even if I intended to do so anyway, I would feel bound to resign rather than submit to an order to do it. One cannot delegate one's conscience in that way; one has to make one's own judgment and has to be free to stick to it. Without the guarantee of academic freedom one cannot have that and the wonderful variety of the academic conscience allowed full play.
I remember listening to and speaking opposite the right honourable gentleman Mr Oliver Letwin when he spoke at the Oxford Union on 26 February. He began his argument from the proposition that the state has failed. When he said that, what he meant was that it had failed as a manager; that the state does not understand how to manage universities. It does not understand how to manage hospitals or schools or railways simply because it does not have expert knowledge of the bodies concerned.
What he left out, which is also important, is that the state has equally failed in any attempt to hand over to the public the selection of people who are to receive these privileges. There is no way of making a market carry out an equitable allocation according to merit and without reference to money. In fact, to do so without reference to money is to contradict the very nature of the market. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would not disagree with that.
My noble friend Lady Sharp, in her Second Reading speech, mentioned figures—to which I do not think the Minister will object—showing that the proportion of people from the lower social classes at Harvard and Yale was less than half what it is at Oxford and Cambridge. So, if the market cannot select and the state cannot manage, you need some kind of combination; you need the state to provide the money for the selection but to keep out of the management. If it does not keep out of the management, you simply cannot do the job. That is why the principle of academic freedom is so vital. If it is not enshrined it will be eroded. The Civil Service, like Hobbes's man, has a perpetual and restless love of power after power that
570
ceases only in death. If we do not go for death—which is a little draconian—let us see whether an Act of Parliament will make a good second best.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who brings to debates his experiences as a university teacher, which I half-shared in a previous don manqué existence.
One of the clichés often hurled at modern leadership and government is "control freakery". I come to legislation as a layman. What it is intended to enact is in itself important but, as I said earlier, the signal that it gives out to the wider community is, to me, equally important. The academic community would find the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, welcome, appropriate, right and proper. I hope that it is taken very seriously.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I have little to add to the splendid points that have been made already by other noble Lords. Not only is academic freedom indivisible, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said in 1992, it is also a very delicate plant. On it rests many of the freedoms on which this country depends. I do not think it is possible to repeat too often in legislation the defence of academic freedom.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I have indicated already to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I cannot accept the amendment as drafted. However, let me begin by stating that we fully appreciate and support the need for the director to respect academic freedom. That is why at Committee stage we accepted the amendment that makes explicit on the face of the Bill that the director must have regard for academic freedom, particularly in respect of the admission of students. I know that is an issue of real concern, as has been indicated in your Lordships' House.
This amendment seeks to go further and would give the director a duty to protect academic freedom. This is not necessary because, used in this context, the phrase,
"have regard … to the need to protect academic freedom",
obliges the director to perform his duties with his in mind. Were he demonstrably to fail, he would be open to legal challenge. I am very happy to consider how best we might meet the noble Lord's concern and to spell out—as he has attempted to do—what we mean by "academic freedom".
I know that my noble friend Lady Warwick has retabled an amendment, which we shall debate in due course, which would preclude the Secretary of State including admissions policies or procedures in the content of plans. As I indicated during the debate in Committee, I am inclined to accept the amendment if the noble Baroness moves it.
The combined safeguards of these amendments offer a real reassurance on the face of the Bill. So, with the commitment that I shall accept the amendments in principle, I shall work with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my noble friend Lady Warwick to

571
agree an amendment which, if you like, encompasses the amendment to the amendment I am going to accept in order to take on board the noble Lord's points. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. It is always a joy to hear that what is being proposed will be enshrined in the Bill. I look forward to seeing the text. I accept that my precise wording may not be right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, suggested that we were referring to the wrong paragraphs in the Bill. I believe that they are the right paragraphs because they relate to the powers in respect of the raising of fees. However, I should be happy to follow up the point with her.
I am very grateful to my noble friends Lady Perry and Lord Sutherland who have worked on this with me. To have the amendment pretty well accepted is a treat. The contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would in itself have made tabling the amendment worthwhile. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Contents of plans]:
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 32 had been retabled as Amendment No. 34A.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): I remind the House that if Amendment No. 33 is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendments Nos. 35, 36 or 37, due to pre-emption.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 14, line 27, leave out subsection (2) and insert—"

"(1A) In relation to England, a plan under this section—

(a) must also include such provisions relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity as are required by regulations to be included in the plan, and

(b) may also include further provisions relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity.

(1B) In relation to Wales, a plan under this section—

(a) must also include such provisions relating to—

10 (i) the promotion of equality of opportunity, or

(ii) the promotion of higher education,

as are required by regulations to be included in the plan, and

(b) may also include further provisions relating to either of those matters."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as I made clear in Committee, it has always been our intention that plans in England should be concerned with fair access and not with the promotion of higher education more generally. I recognise the value of placing a restriction on the face of the Bill which reflects that intention. I have therefore laid Amendment No. 33, and
572
consequential Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 41 and 44 to ensure that the term "promotion of higher education" does not apply to English plans.
Amendment No. 33 makes it explicit in the Bill that English plans must include provisions that relate to the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education. That will ensure that the promotion of higher education applies only to Welsh access plans. As noble Lords will know, the National Assembly has yet to determine whether to introduce variable fees and, if so, how it will do so. It is appropriate that this legislation should give it the flexibility to determine policies suited to Welsh circumstances, following the precedent set by other post-devolution Bills.
I hope that noble Lords will understand the need to allow for devolution to operate in this context, and will support these government amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 33, Amendment No. 34:
Line 10, leave out "or" and insert "and".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when we discussed Clause 30 in Committee, I was one of those who was unhappy about the wording of the original clause, which was very similar to that in Amendment No. 33 for Wales. It provided that the duties of the director must include such provisions relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity or the promotion of higher education. I was objecting to the use of "or" rather than "and".
I have tabled this amendment on behalf of the Royal National Institute of the Blind and of Skill, the body that promotes the interests of students with disabilities. They have come back to me and said that they are still confronted by a problem with Wales. There are disabled students in Wales as much as there are disabled students in England. The two organisations are very concerned that the wording might imply that equality of opportunity was not to be promoted in Wales. It is a little thing, but there is implicitly a conflict as the Bill stands, about which RNIB and Skill are very concerned.
Having agreed to promote this amendment, I then found that I was stirring up a hornets' nest, because education in Wales is a devolved matter. My party, in particular, is concerned that Wales should be able to do its own thing and should not be dictated to by this Parliament.
There is another issue arising, which the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, will talk about. If we leave the wording as it is, there is an implicit contradiction and a difficulty for disability groups. It ought to be considered, but it gets swept up into the wider area. Therefore, I shall leave what I have to say at that. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, it is known that I have not been inclined to support government Amendment No. 33. I do not think that it

573
goes far enough. With respect to Wales, it leaves in place a power which I firmly believe is unacceptably wide.
Vice-chancellors in Wales have no idea what the Welsh Assembly intends its regulator to do. There have been no discussions with institutions in Wales. It seems clear that the priority will not be access.
Would we in England accept the creation of a regulator with the power to fine institutions up to half a million pounds—the whole of their grant—without knowing what the regulator will regulate? We certainly would not.
I have reconsidered my position in the light of the House's decision on Amendment No. 23. That amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 34A. In my view, it would be disastrous if Amendment No. 34A were passed, for two clear reasons. First, as I said when I spoke to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, I do not believe that the package of amendments will be acceptable in another place. The ability to amend the Bill constructively could well be lost. I am very concerned that there will be no opportunity at all to remove the words,
"the promotion of higher education",
with respect to Wales as well as to England.
My amendment to remove admissions from plans would also be lost, as I understand it. My admissions amendment, the second of a pair which was moved and accepted by the Government, prevents OFFA requiring plans to contain reference to admissions. It is a vital amendment, which I think the House felt very strongly about. I failed to move it in Committee, sadly, for which I apologise, but I very much hope that it will be passed this evening. This is too high a price to pay for an amendment that will not remain after another place has considered the Bill.
To avoid such an outcome, I intend to support government Amendment No. 33. Welcome though it is—and it is very welcome that the Minister has accepted the arguments we have made in relation to England—the amendment does not go far enough, and I intend to bring this issue back at Third Reading.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, and with the leave of the House, I am a little confused. Is she saying that the Welsh universities which belong to Universities UK are complaining that the Assembly has not discussed this properly with them, and that they are worried about it? Is that the case, despite the fact that the noble Baroness supports the government amendment? I believe that the House has a certain responsibility when we legislate not just to do what the Assembly says it wants but to pay attention to the people who are affected. I wonder whether we should be accepting the amendment.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I can clarify my intention. There has been no discussion about the intention of the Welsh Assembly as regards the regulator. It simply wants to take on what we regard
574
as a very wide power, which is of great concern to the institutions in Wales. I am anxious that we have an opportunity to ensure that the provision is removed for England, and I intend to come back with an amendment to remove it for Wales on Third Reading.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, there has indeed been considerable concern expressed in Wales about Clause 31. I am not sure that government Amendment No. 33, which I am happy to welcome on behalf of England, has not exacerbated rather than ameliorated the situation in Wales.
I have a letter from the secretary of Higher Education Wales, which comprises the 14 vice-chancellors and principals of higher education institutions. The letter sums up the situation very succinctly. Mr D G Lewis writes:
"If enacted, the clause will allow the Welsh Funding Council (as the body likely to be designated by the National Assembly) to use the power to require an Institution's plan to 'promote higher education' in ways not directly connected with fair access to higher education".
He then goes on to quote from a debate on 17 May, when the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, said:
"I am clear that higher education institutions are autonomous bodies, and the provisions in Clause 31 are in no way intended to undermine that long-established principle".—[Official Report, 17/5/04; col. 631.]
Mr Lewis continues:
"However, in Wales there has been no discussion with HEW, and some of its members are deeply concerned that this power will be used, for example, to direct their business plans and even to force mergers. This is not a permissive power—it is a restrictive one. Some members of HEW fear that the power is there to ensure that institutions comply with the Minister's wishes, and to fine them if they do not".
Of course, the Government now propose to remove the power to promote higher education in England from OFFA, but to retain it in Wales at the insistence, we are told, of the Welsh Assembly government for that relevant authority in Wales—which is likely to be the Higher Education Funding Council. So there would seem to be a direct link between funding and the promotion of higher education.
There is not much doubt in my mind why this difference is proposed between England and Wales in Amendment No. 33, and Higher Education Wales appears to agree with me. What is at the bottom of all this is the amalgamation of institutions. That has been discussed in Wales over the past year. The University of Wales College of Medicine, of which I am president, approached Cardiff University, and voluntarily and successfully negotiated a merger that will benefit both institutions. The combined institutions will become a separate University of Cardiff. The new university will still have a close relationship with the rest of Wales. The necessary legislation to effect these changes is currently proceeding through Parliament.
At least two other amalgamations have been proposed—between the University of Wales, Bangor and the North East Wales Institute of Higher Education and between the University of Glamorgan and the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff. Both

575
proposals have made no headway for one reason or another. I strongly suspect that what the Assembly has in mind is to force the amalgamations through in the name of promoting higher education.
I will not go into the pros and cons of such mergers, but I wonder whether it is appropriate for the Assembly government to lean on the parties concerned and force them to merge when they have sought to do so and failed, for the time being at any rate, to find enough common ground to warrant amalgamation. I may be wrong that the desire to merge institutions lies behind the Assembly government's insistence on the retention of the promotional element in the contents and plans. I would be grateful if the Minister would correct me, and in the course of correction, tell us what the Assembly government do have in mind. It is glaring that what has been withdrawn from England voluntarily by the Government is insisted on for Wales. Surely, the same principle should apply.
The promotion of higher education sounds a high enough ambition, but, like liberty, it is possible to commit many crimes in its name, I am sure. The proposed new Section (1B)(a)(ii) is causing deep concern in academic circles in Wales and will be deeply unpopular. The Assembly Government have botched the health service in Wales and it looks as if they are well on their way to botching higher education as well. I therefore have every possible sympathy with Amendment No. 35 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and that sympathy may extend to a similar amendment at Third Reading. However, I also welcome the Government's amendment in so far as it refers to England. However, I beg the Government to answer, why grant to England a blessing that is being denied to Wales?
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, there is a difference between what is proposed for Wales and what is proposed for England. I declare an interest as Chancellor of the University of Glamorgan. I have watched very carefully and actively from the sidelines the immense effort that has gone into achieving an amalgamation that has not come to fruition despite the views of many people such as the funding council and so forth. I would like to know—and this is the principle with which I approach all legislation affecting Wales—whether this difference is at the behest of the Welsh Assembly, or not. That would help me and my deliberations.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have a couple of questions. The first relates to proposed new Section (1A) of Amendment No. 33, which states:
"a plan under this section … must also include such provisions relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity as are required by regulations to be included in the plan".
Such proposals,
"as are required by regulations to be included in the plan",
are a pig in a poke. "Must" is draconian. A draconian pig in a poke is a zoological curiosity of the first water. It is one that I view with considerable suspicion. I wonder in particular whether the draconian quality of
576
"must" is capable of overriding the vital and very welcome concessions that the Minister made in the course of our debate on Amendment No. 30. I would like to hear it spelt out that that was not the case.
My other question relates to "and" or "or". The basic skill of Opposition has been described as the ability to see all hell in a grain of sand. My noble friend Lady Sharp has exercised that ability to perfection. In general, obviously, greater equality of opportunity would be likely to lead to the improvement of higher education because it draws on a wider pool of talent. The chance of selecting the best people is improved. However, if it were to interfere with the right of individual judgment, on which I was speaking on Amendment No. 30, that would cease to be the case.
For example, if we use "and" instead of "or", quotas are not ruled out. If we use "or" instead of "and" quotas are ruled out. "Or" allows a particularly vital judgment of the merits of the student to be made irrespective of any social consideration whatever. It directs people to look for merit in students from social classes not hitherto adequately represented, which I am sure most of us do already, and which I am sure all of us will do even harder if this Bill becomes law. That I welcome. However, when we get to the draconian prescriptions involved in the use of the "and/or" dichotomy, I feel that an authority is being claimed that should not be there, and I hope it goes out.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I shall say a few words in support of the second part of Amendment No. 33 on the understanding that this part of the clause has emanated from the Welsh Assembly. My noble friend made that clear in her introduction.
Of course I am aware of the concerns expressed by Higher Education Wales; those concerns have been voiced in this Chamber this evening. I also note the letter from the chairman of Higher Education Wales and his statement that there has been no discussion with HEW. In spite of those worries, I believe that it is hardly for this House to oppose a clause initiated by the Welsh Assembly when it is also acceptable to the UK Government. However, I readily accept that there is a problem here.
7.30 p.m.
It was always envisaged in the White Papers that the Welsh Assembly would have the opportunity to influence primary legislation affecting Wales. However, I recognise that we did not foresee the problems that would arise. The problem has been identified by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in the commission considering the powers of the Assembly, and this evening we are in a situation that he described well in his report. The difficulty is this: the clause has been initiated by the Welsh Assembly but the initiators are not present to explain their policies in the forum that scrutinises and legislates. That is a fundamental flaw in the devolution model and will have to be addressed.
I hope that the Minister can say something to allay the fears of those noble Lords who have expressed concerns, but I would find it difficult for the House to

577
oppose a clause that has emanated from a representative body in Wales and is supported by the UK Government.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I welcome the government amendment. The Minister has done much to reassure the House by introducing it. I contemplated voting against it and supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, but I am delighted that she has decided not to press it tonight.
I act on the basis that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The problem with Wales arises because of devolution. It seems to me that the Welsh Assembly would like the proposed phrase to be kept in because it wishes to use OFFA to do something that the Government have assured us that OFFA will not be used to do—to pursue wider issues, namely the economic ones. I do not want to venture into the merits of integration of different departments or institutions, as did my noble friend Lord Roberts, who spelt that out very clearly. That is clearly a matter for the Welsh Assembly. But it is also a matter for the Government and for this House, that legislation introduced on one basis should be used for another purpose when we have been specifically assured by the Government that that will not be the case.
The Minister has been extremely helpful and positive throughout the consideration of the Bill, and I recognise that she is between a rock and a hard place, because she cannot tell the Welsh Assembly what to do. We shall accept the government amendments and come back to the matter at a later stage. That is probably the best position to be in, for it gives the people in Wales time to reflect on what they are doing and the Minister time to extricate herself from between the rock and the hard place.
I support the government amendments and support the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in her decision not to press her amendment to a Division. However, I put the Minister on notice that the issue is not off the agenda; it is clearly there, for the reasons that I have given.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that I am not clear where we got to with her amendment, so perhaps she and I should have a conversation about it at the end of this stage of the Bill to ensure that the issues that she raised are covered.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether "must" overrides the duty not to interfere with academic freedom. Not at all—I can be very clear on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, made some very important points, as ever. I do not have the specific answers, as I am sure he will not be surprised to hear, but I shall endeavour to get responses to his questions between now and Third Reading so that he can make his decisions on the basis of that information.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, were both concerned that the Welsh Assembly had put
578
the amendments forward. That is right; it was the Assembly that asked specifically for this differential. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, rightly said, that is the nature of devolution.
I hope that my noble friend Lady Warwick will be reassured that the membership of the group led by Professor Rees considering the future includes representatives of Higher Education Wales, which represents the interests of the sector. As I said before, there is no question of the Assembly passing regulations under this clause without due consideration. It has a duty to consult and propose subordinate legislation with significant cost.
There are different issues in Wales, which the National Assembly, as a democratically elected body with responsibility for higher education, wishes to put forward. Between now and Third Reading, I am sure that there will be the opportunity to discuss these issues and to get the kind of responses that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in particular, wanted. I have been put on notice by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister say something on the question of "and" or "or"?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Not easily, my Lords. We had some of these debates in Committee, and it is probably better, if the House and the noble Earl will permit it, that I write to him on that matter. I would take too much of the House's time at this point.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I get the impression that she was quite sympathetic to my little "and" instead of an "or". We need to discuss the matter further. The amendment has clearly stirred up a hornets' nest in devolution terms, and we shall return to it on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 34, as an amendment to Amendment No. 33, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 33 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 34A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 37 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
Page 14, line 36, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsection (1A) or (1B)"
Page 14, line 38, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsection (1A) or (1B)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before twenty minutes to nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Government Communications
7.40 p.m.
Lord Wakeham Lord Wakeham rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following the independent review of government communications.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ought to declare an interest as for a number of years I was the Minister responsible for the co-ordination and development of government policy and, as such, had some ministerial responsibility for the Government Information Service. In addition, as I suspect most noble Lords will know, I was the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission for seven and half years.
My Question has in a way been answered by the Leader of the House in her Written Statement of 19 January. I found that answer unsatisfactory and I am grateful for this opportunity to raise some of those concerns. Any government information service has the difficult task of serving the Government of the day, but not serving the political party in power, and to do this with all impartiality and integrity. That is the Civil Service tradition. This is sometimes irritating to Ministers—it was to me from time to time—but it is essential.
The Government Information Service, in serving the government of the day impartially and with integrity, comes in for a great deal of criticism, which is misplaced. It has a negative as well as a positive job to do: stopping Ministers acting outside the rules and conventions; for example, issuing party political press notices through the government machine or spending public money on publicity, not to inform people about their rights and obligations arising from government actions, but for party political advantage. This is why Parliament should look critically at the Government's emergence as the second largest advertiser, at something approaching £200 million per year.
The report refers to a three-way failure in the breakdown in trust between the Government and politicians, the media and the general public. I do not accept this. It was due to a failure by this Government and their special advisers to maintain that proper balance, and to the outcry at the excess of spin, that Phillis committee was set up in the first place. The Moore affair was only one of many examples, but this is not the time or place to rehearse the press management of the past seven years for one could perhaps go on all night.
However, whatever the problems that caused the setting up of the Phillis committee, I doubt very much whether its report is the answer. A lot of the report is unexceptional, and some of it is welcome, but I fear motherhood and apple pie come to mind for much of it. It is the central conclusions of the report that need challenging.
I am in favour of the presentation of issues being taken into account at an earlier stage in policy development, but in my opinion, this is best done by strong communications people in departments and not by a centrally controlled press machine.
The report is somewhat sparing about the lobby, and quite simply wrong to advocate only on the record briefing. The fact is that the lobby is not, and should not be, a creature of government. It is an association of journalists for journalists. There will always be a lobby or association of journalists working at Westminster, whatever it is called, and it will continue to meet. The existence of the lobby will always be of greater help to those representing smaller news outlets than to those representing the larger ones. How the Government react to the lobby is a matter for them but I suspect they will find it much to their benefit to continue to use it. Indeed, in my view, a certain amount of unattributable briefing is essential to get a proper understanding of policy. On the record briefings are likely always to be far too cautious. The larger organs will always be treated somewhat differently by the Government and will get their favoured briefings whatever the Phillis report says.
Phillis's attachment to on the record briefing is, I fear, politically correct nonsense. The prime rule should be that governments should have on the record press briefings or press conferences when they have something to say or they should, through unattributable twice-daily briefings of the lobby, give journalists an opportunity to seek reaction on the events of the day. It is interesting that, in putting the No. 10 spokesman on the record at lobby briefings, this Government have insisted on not identifying the spokesman by name and the media have acquiesced with that. It is even more interesting that the broadcasters have not insisted on being able to record the briefings with microphones and cameras. I wonder why. But I am clear that no civil servant or political adviser paid by the public purse should do twice-a-day briefings that are fully on the record and broadcast and remain a civil servant or in receipt of public remuneration. Such briefings should be done by a Minister.
But here we come up against a constitutional point. Parliament would rightly soon object, or should rightly object, to this usurping of its constitutional role of holding the executive to account. I am all in favour of on the record briefings where there is something to say, but they should be given by Ministers and they should mostly be given by Ministers to Parliament.
However, the most serious aspect of this report is the constitutional one. It is an acknowledgement that this Government's centralising tendencies are acceptable, and so undermine our traditional constitutional position. Under our system of Cabinet government, the Prime Minister is primus inter pares and power is spread among members of the Cabinet. It is not for No. 10 to usurp the proper role and position of members of the Cabinet, which would be the result of a centrally controlled press machine. Individual Ministers are responsible for their own departments' policies, actions and staff, and the staff owe their first allegiance to their Minister, and not to the Prime Minister, the No. 10 Press Secretary, the Director of Communications or whatever he is called.
The report's endorsement of its earlier conclusion for a strong central communications structure takes centralisation as desirable and a move to a more presidential style of government as acceptable. It is, I fear, another illustration of the Phillis report's alarming ignorance of the constitutional position in our parliamentary democracy. I for one would not accept this Phillis theory of centralisation if I was a Minister and member of the Cabinet and I am surprised that members of Mr Blair's Cabinet are prepared to do so. Perhaps they are not. I have my doubts whether Gordon Brown has bought into it.
I suspect that the Phillis theory of centralised communications stems from what the committee would describe as a rational analysis of the purpose of government communications: the need for a single, consistent government voice. But British government is not, and never has been, about selling soap flakes or popcorn. It is about a Cabinet system of collective decision-making and parliamentary accountability. That is inevitably a less tidy and controlled system than the centralisers would like. But that is what our constitution is about: the dispersal of power, not its centralisation in the hands of presidential Prime Ministers and their obsessive spin doctors.
It is not my task to blame Bob Phillis and his colleagues who gave their time to serve on the committee. Indeed, on this occasion I warmly congratulate him on the knighthood that he was awarded in the recent honours list. He is a very distinguished man and does a very good job well, even if I do not think much of his report. My purpose was to point out a serious manifestation of the undermining of our constitutional arrangements in this country and a weakening of Cabinet government and parliamentary democracy that started in 1997 and is doing great damage. That is the real mischief of the Phillis report.
7.49 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, for his initiative in putting this matter on the Order Paper. As he rightly says, he has form on these matters and therefore his comments are to be taken seriously. I thought that we might perhaps have a love-in about the Phillis report but, from what he said, that will clearly not be the case. I take a more positive view of its recommendations. I take on board what is said about the over-centralising nature of No. 10, but a reading of the report suggests that other aspects of Phillis counteract that.
It is not my habit to quote Daily Telegraph editorials, but today's editorial talks of the public being alienated by,
"the bossy, spin-ridden politics of the past decade".
Phillis talks of,
"the breakdown in the level of public trust, and credibility of, government communications and the disengagement from the political process".
Where I start to depart from the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is that I do not think the fault lies entirely with the Government—a great deal lies with the Government but the media have motes in their own eye
582
so far as this is concerned. Wherever we attribute blame, alienation and mistrust are damaging weaknesses for a democracy that must be addressed.
Lord Phillis—I am giving him even more honours—rather, Sir Bob Phillis answers one of the tests of a good servant to a government. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, was reputed by Mrs Thatcher to come up with solutions and not just with problems, there are solutions in the Phillis report that deserve better consideration.
Spin did not begin with new Labour. However, the bruising experience of the 1992 defeat and the lessons learnt, particularly from the Democrats who had themselves learnt the hard way after the Dukakis debacle in the United States, produced an over-aggressive approach to government communications that was also influenced by a mistrust of a Civil Service machine that had been in the hands of the Conservatives for 18 years—a mistrust that I consider was misplaced. However, that lack of confidence, and a desire to deliver the project via a more powerful No. 10 policy unit and a better co-ordinated and "on message" media exercise in joined-up government, was what started all this.
In retrospect, it is clear that far too much power was given to Alastair Campbell. As he himself has now admitted while "treading the boards" round the country, the carrying into government of the opposition style of press tactics was a mistake. I refer to the abuse of position on the part of special advisers—the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, referred to the Jo Moore case—the collapse in morale in the Government Information Service, and some questionable use of public funds; that is, the Government annual report and the upsurge in government advertising prior to the 2001 election.
I turn to the Phillis solutions. I believe that there are doubts about the creation of the new post of permanent secretary for government communications. It is slightly odd that, having separated the roles that Campbell occupied of both political and government spin doctor, and in finding someone to reinvigorate the Civil Service side of the act, a former Conservative appointment, Howell James, was selected. It is fair to say that he went through the most rigorous of appointment procedures undertaken by the Civil Service Commission. One must accept its judgment that he was the best man for the job. The job is a tough one. The Phillis report recommends:
"The new Permanent Secretary should be tasked with forging a new communications function across government pulling together current members of the Government Information and Communications Service and other departmental communications staff into a fully functioning communications operation. At its heart should be the principle that communications are a professional function that is core to the Civil Service".
I agree with that. There needs to be better training of civil servants in communications, better use of outside expertise and more use, as Phillis mentions, of the practice of both the Foreign Office and the Treasury of bringing civil servants in from other disciplines to give them experience in their news departments. However, that can be done only if it is underpinned by other

583
action. That is the real test of the Government. There must be a Civil Service Act to underpin any strengthening of the role of the Civil Service communications sector.
There must be a robust implementation of freedom of information. One of the core recommendations of Phillis is that the Government should carry through their commitment to freedom of information. I made my next point to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, the other day. I wonder whether the Government are embarking on a real programme of training in a new spirit of open government. One of the most damning phrases in the Phillis report is that "the culture of secrecy" is alive and well seven years into this Government's term of office, when they were supposedly elected in 1997 to remove that culture of secrecy.
I am not as relaxed about the lobby system as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. I consider that it is corrupt and corrupting. The sooner it can be removed, the better. I refer to the findings or non-findings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, regarding the impact of Campbell's aggressive spin on news organisations. However, one point that emerged from the Hutton report which was a real plus was that he showed that government could reveal large amounts of information directly to the public and the media and let people make up their own minds about it.
Another recommendation of the Phillis report that is worthy of consideration relates to an independent statutory statistical body. CP Scott said:
"Comment is free but facts are sacred",
and he was right.
I still believe in the merit of the special adviser system. It has been well tested. I declare my own special interest in that I served as a special adviser more than a quarter of a century ago. Few mistakes and misjudgments have been made, and most civil servants find that it is a plus to have a political adviser within a department.
As I say, we must accept that the media have responsibility regarding the damaging failure of trust. People as varied as Martin Kettle of the Guardian, John Lloyd writing yesterday in the Observer, and Professor Steve Barnett have all drawn attention to something that Phillis calls for; namely,
"a clearer separation of fact from news, comment and entertainment and a greater willingness to admit and to correct mistakes and inaccuracies".
A parallel recommendation was made by the Puttnam committee, on which I served. Yet certainly most of our popular media, rather than reporting news, initiate predetermined campaigns that distort and preselect news. One has only to consider the u-turn on the European referendum or the treatment of asylum seekers to appreciate how that is exercised.
I would hope that as well as journalists taking responsibility for higher standards of journalism and the Government resisting any further concentrations of media power—perhaps the test of that will be the fate of the Daily Telegraph—the Prime Minister might recapture some of his old radical spirit. Would it not
584
be radical if, in the next few weeks, he took time to recommit his Government to an effective Freedom of Information Act and give a pledge that a Civil Service Bill will be in the Queen's Speech? I am not as pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, about the recipe proposed in the Phillis report. The Government have a problem of credibility, but, to use a phrase that is popular at the moment, his report provides a road map back to respectability and the Government should take it.
8 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, by drawing attention to the Phillis report, my noble friend Lord Wakeham has done the House, and members of the public who notice such things, a service. His experience in government as Leader of both Houses, which is a rare feat, as Chief Whip in another place and his experience since leaving government as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, give him a special insight into these issues. I take seriously his warning of the dangers to Cabinet government and Parliament's place in our constitution.
The review committee was chaired by Bob Phillis. I echo the congratulations on his well-earned knighthood in the Birthday Honours. The committee was set up to help to help the Government get out of the mess following the Jo Moore affair—or, if one prefers, the Martin Sixsmith affair, or the DTLR crisis, or whatever one might wish to call it. That was not an isolated, freak affair, it was a particular example of what can go wrong when spin doctors and other special advisers get out of hand.
Two trends have occurred since my noble friend and I were Ministers—a massive centralisation of power and detailed control by No. 10 and a massive shift from reliance by Ministers on civil servants to reliance on special, that is to say, political, advisers. I am not against special advisers. Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I was one myself—in my case, over 30 years ago—but I had no responsibility for media relations and it is not a healthy development that so many special advisers are now appointed primarily with such responsibilities. The report emphasises the reasons for that.
The centralisation of decision-making—presidential style government—and the enormous numbers and influence of special advisers has led to worse decisions and has damaged trust. One reason for those decisions becoming worse is that presentation has been given too big a role by comparison with the substance of a decision. Like my noble friend, I believe that centralisation has devalued the role of Cabinet Ministers and hence Cabinet government. It has also devalued Parliament.
I am disappointed that the report, while it contains hints in such a direction, was not more forthright about the desirability of decisions being made known to Parliament first. When I was first involved in such matters, there used to be huge inquiries when there was a so-called leak. But now we take leaks in our stride. There are leaks first thing every morning on the "Today" programme. Even the Budget is leaked to the

585
"Today" programme, which would have been unthinkable a few years ago. As my noble friend said, briefings should normally be made by Ministers and should normally be made to Parliament, not constantly spun in advance. We should try to return to that position in the interests of our constitution. The centralisation of communications is an element in the centralisation of government and my noble friend made some excellent points about the dangers of that.
The review has to be seen against the wider background. It reviews the issue arising out of a particular example of trust breaking down between the Government, the media and the public. That trust has been damaged many times, before and since and, after all, the electorate has recently demonstrated its view of how much it trusts government. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, the fierceness of media competition is partly to blame, but those organisations respond to government actions. It is the Government that to a large degree provide the ammunition with which the media operate.
It is important that that trust between government and the public is redeveloped. That should particularly be the case in the event that we found ourselves having to respond to a 9/11–type situation. If the Government cannot be believed about the reasons for going to war, will they be believed in an emergency? Ministers say that they do not wish to talk about threats and what to do about them in case people panic. But the British are not a panicky nation and we want to feel that the various possibilities, which everyone realises exist and which from time to time Ministers confirm exist, have been thought through as much as possible, although we all recognise that no-one can prepare for them completely, and that the responses have been though through.
However, those matters are not central to this report and I wish to make some particular points. Regarding the role of special advisers, there is a devastating account on page 10 of what has gone wrong. It says:
"Many of them concentrate their limited time on the political reporter in the 'lobby' and on a handful of specialists. We have been told that this has created an 'inner circle' of reporters who have good access, but a disenfranchised majority who do not. This can leave reporters dealing with a sometimes poorly informed and demoralised press operation. The way some have operated has also led to a blurring of information and comment"—
a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. That paragraph, in itself, is a key to what has gone wrong and what requires to be put right. I think that special advisers, and particularly those with responsibilities for talking to the media, need to be reined in. Recommendation 7 makes some suggestions. I would have been happier with stronger wording, but the analysis is excellent.
Next, as my noble friend said, it is a mistake to try to pretend that briefings will all be on the record. That will be a pretence, and I do not believe that it will happen quite like that. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, may not like it but the lobby will exist, formally or informally, and I think that, in general terms, it is much better that it should do so formally. I do not necessarily mean that everything about the system is perfect, but I believe it is better that it exists formally.
586
Another part of the report struck me very forcefully—indeed, it shocked me. Recommendation 9.2 on page 25 states:
"If Ministers choose to use such data"—
that is, statistical data—
"in speeches or argument, ahead of publication of the official statistics, they should be under an obligation to release all the relevant data, not just quote selectively from it to make a case".
What shocked me was the use of the word "if". I do not think that Ministers should use statistical information, which is due to be given out according to clear timetables set out in other recommendations, in speeches or in argument ahead of publication. Like everyone else, they should wait for it to be published. I do not object to Ministers being given advance information of statistics in confidence in a limited area—other recommendations deal with that—so that they are in a position to comment when the statistics are released. Clearly, that is an important part of day-to-day management in government. But I do not think that they should be able to choose to release a statistic in advance if they feel like it, even in the circumstances of Recommendation 9.2.
Incidentally, the report goes on to state:
"This would be an equivalent discipline on Ministers to the legislation which requires formal disclosure of material information to the stock market by companies".
The fact is that, if Ministers came under the same rules as now apply to company directors, their treatment of statistics would have to be very different from what has been the case. From some of the wording, one might also think that that should be so even if that recommendation were carried out. However, I do not believe that Ministers should anticipate the regular issue of statistical services for any purpose.
Nevertheless, as a whole, we should be grateful for the report, grateful for the analysis that it contains and grateful for many of its recommendations. Like my noble friend, I think that it is wrong in some, potentially damaging, ways but it is also a very useful guide to thought on all these matters. I hope that the Government will respond, but I urge them to treat the recommendations with caution and to study the points made by my noble friend Lord Wakeham.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, on raising this issue. I greatly appreciated the thoughtful way in which he and the other noble Lords involved in this short debate approached the matter. I was particularly charmed by the way in which all noble Lords made it plain that they have form on this issue. I am not sure that I have form—or perhaps, going back to my local government days, I have. I was always accused of being a master of spin in my own locality, so that is on the record too. I also take this opportunity to congratulate Bob Phillis on the occasion of his knighthood in the Birthday Honours List. I believe we all agree that it is well deserved.
I was intrigued by, and interested in, the comments of all three noble Lords who participated in the discussion. They covered the same area to a large

587
extent, although there were some disagreements. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, took a rather more positive view of the Phillis review and report, and the noble Lords, Lord Wakeham and Lord Cope, said that it was a useful document and a valuable guide to behaviour. I believe we all agree with that.
This is a helpful opportunity for me to summarise the Government's position with regard to our plans for government communications, and I shall take my time to do just that. It is worth reminding ourselves that communicating with the public is one of the Government's most essential tasks. There have been criticisms about the level of government spend, but we are massive organisationally. We have the ability to make tremendous impact upon public life, on people's happiness, their wealth, sorrow and opportunities. A government who are dedicated to improving the opportunities for all have an important job to do to explain their policies, decisions and actions and to ensure that we have an informed public who understand their rights, responsibilities and liabilities. I doubt whether there is much difference between any of the political parties about that responsibility of government.
It is hardly a new set of responsibilities. In preparing for this debate I asked my advisers to look at the origins of public information campaigns. I was told that one of the first of those was carried out in 1876 by the Post Office, which in those days was a government department. It was charged at that time with telling the public about government saving schemes, life assurance and annuities. That was one of the first examples they could find of a protracted government information campaign.
During the 20th century, under the twin influences of conflict and a diversifying news media, the government's means of communicating with the public became more structured. More recently, the public's expectations have changed. They are no longer simply content to be told what the Government have decided; they want to be consulted, listened to and informed about policies and decisions which may in some way affect their lives, their families, those close to them, their communities and what they do. That is an important point.
I am sure that there would be agreement that successive governments have in their different ways strived for more effective ways of communicating with the public. It is an issue that both the Select Committee on Public Administration and the Committee on Standards in Public Life have reviewed recently. Both were especially concerned to maintain the political impartiality of government, a matter which all noble Lords who have spoken were particularly seized of, and it is right that that should be the case. The Select Committee on Public Administration also focused on the need to join up communications across departments and integrate them more effectively into policy making and policy delivery. The last report from that Select Committee on the issue called for a radical external review of government communications. The Government responded to this positively by commissioning the Phillis review.
588
Under the chairmanship of Bob Phillis, the chief executive of the Guardian Media Group plc, the review team carried out what has been recognised as a very thorough examination of all the issues. It published its interim report last August and a final report in January this year. We are grateful to that review team for its work and the way in which it considered the issues. The Government have already taken steps to address the review's key recommendations. That underpins the Government's commitment to improve our methods of communication with the public.
As we all know, one of the most important recommendations of the Phillis review was the creation of a new Permanent Secretary for Government Communications. Howell James has now been appointed to the post. He will be head of the profession responsible for the strategy, co-ordination and effectiveness of government communication across Whitehall. He will also be responsible for increasing the professionalism and capability of government communicators. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, acknowledged that that was long overdue and much needed, particularly in terms of training. I do not see that as a centralising measure. Indeed, the objective is to ensure effective communication from all government departments. The relationship between the Minister and the head of communications within each department will obviously be very important. However, I am sure that most Members of your Lordships' House would agree that co-ordination and drawing together the threads of government is an important role too.
Howell James will take up his post in the summer. He will focus on the redefinition of the role and scope of government communications to ensure that we are communicating with the public in the widest possible way. That includes increasing two-way communications to help improve policy-making and the delivery of public services. It also involves more communication with the public at a local level, one that matters to them, and more direct communication, especially through the electronic media.
The Government have recently taken a significant step forward in joining up its web presence to make information more accessible, as Phillis recommended, with the recent launch of the Directgov website. The Government have also accepted and begun to make changes to the way in which Number 10 Downing Street operates. The Phillis recommendations were quite clear about the operation of government communications at the centre. The Prime Minister's special adviser on communications no longer has executive powers, a matter that was objected to. The Prime Minister's official spokesperson, a civil servant who conducts the lobby briefings, will report to the Permanent Secretary. The Government also remain committed to the long-standing principle reflected in the ministerial code that, wherever possible, announcements of government policy should be made in Parliament, as noble Lords have argued in the context of this debate.
The other issue raised this evening is the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was

589
suggesting that we should have a government recommitment to an FOI policy. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that the major part of the Freedom of Information Act comes into effect in January of next year. That will allow the Government to demonstrate their commitment to openness and transparency, which is part of effective communication with the public. People will have the right to be told if information is held on them and to see it; they will get real, important information about the issues that affect them. This openness will encourage greater participation in democratic life and help to build confidence in public institutions.
I thought that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on that point were important. I was grateful that he too shares that objective. It needs to be fostered and developed across parties to ensure that we rebuild that trust and take steps to counter an apparent disengagement, which many people have commented on in the past few days.
A great deal of work is going on to ensure that departments are fully prepared for the Freedom of Information Act. The Phillis review's recommendations will be carefully taken into account as part of the implementation process.
The central contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, was his concern about the centrally controlled press machine. I take issue with his description of the role; it was by implication an attack on the role of the new Permanent Secretary. The role is to redefine government communications. In essence, that is a much more strategic role. It is not about managing news; it is about improving communications with the public. Individual Ministers will remain—exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, wants—individually responsible for their departments. As I said earlier, joined-up government requires a more strategic approach to communications. That needs to take into account the importance of getting messages right so that the public understand what government are about, what they are trying to achieve, what their objectives are and what that means for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, forcibly made the point that briefings should be carried out by Ministers, not officials, and that they should be conducted directly in Parliament. By and large that happens. Government remain strongly committed to the long-standing principle reflected in the ministerial code, that wherever possible in the first instance announcements should be made to Parliament.
It is agreed that more Ministers should host lobby briefings and that those should be open and televised. The Government are discussing with the relevant public authorities, including Parliament and the parliamentary lobby, how best to pursue that particular proposal.
I have dealt with the issues relating to the freedom of information and our commitment towards it. It is a strong commitment and an important statement in legislation. We were the first government to introduce freedom of legislation in this country. I think that we should take more credit on that issue than perhaps we have been given to date.
590
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, never misses the opportunity to criticise government spend and the relationship between that spend and the electoral cycle. It is worth reminding ourselves that that spend has to be properly audited. The National Audit Office specifically undertook a review at the request of the chair of the Public Accounts Committee. It concluded that rules of propriety had been followed and advice and propriety was a significant part of advice provided by the Central Office of Information.
Government spend on advertising includes campaigns that I know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will find entirely laudable. Examples include recruitment to the Armed Forces or the Police Service; encouragement for people to take up places in higher education or become nurses; for more doctors to work within the National Health Service; or to ensure effective promotion of literacy training, energy efficiency or a constant stream of blood donors. All those are at the core of what the Government promote through our spend on advertising. As I said earlier, given the size of the Government, it is hardly surprising that the budget is as it is and that it has increased over the years. All of that takes place within the rules and is conducted with propriety.
My time has almost ended. I simply restate that we as a Government are working hard to improve how we deliver on one of our most essential tasks: communicating with the public. The Government agree with the independent Phillis review that we must communicate with the public in the widest possible way. The appointment of a new Permanent Secretary for Government Communications is a first and important step in taking that work forward to develop a communications service that better meets the needs and demands of today's environment. I am confident that we will meet that challenge.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, for introducing this debate. It is important and we should continue it, because it reflects well on how the Government work.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.26 to 8.40 p.m.]

Higher Education Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 31.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 15, line 2, at beginning insert "subject to the approval of the Director of Fair Access under subsection (4A) below,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my probing amendments, Amendments Nos. 40 and 43, relate to the tax and benefit implications of bursary schemes.
It was said of John Erskine, the Earl of Mar—a distant kinsman of my noble friend Lady Mar, who is certainly non-Jacobite—after he had lost the battle of

591
Sheriffmuir, that he was a better Churchman than he was a general because his right hand knew not what his left hand was doing. I have tried to imagine our present Secretary of State for Education and Skills clad in tartan, claymore in hand, striding through the heather; on the whole, it is an exercise in the imagination best left unattempted. Yet there are concerns that the Secretary of State's policies have a passing resemblance to those of the ill-fated Jacobite general.
There is a concern that our current taxation and welfare benefit systems will take away with the Chancellor's left hand what the universities through their schemes of financial assistance provide with their right hand. There is a concern that all these arrangements will generate much churning of finances but leave few of the neediest students better off. Indeed, there is also concern that mature students and part-time students will be at particular risk of being net losers.
At the very least there needs to be an urgent ministerial statement to confirm that students will not lose benefits or be penalised through the tax credits system if they are in receipt of bursaries. I look forward to hearing the Government's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, noble Lords will know that I am deeply concerned about the lack of clarity about whether bursaries and government grants will be taken into account in the assessment of eligibility for means-tested benefits. It is not at all clear that the very poorest students will not have the support given to them with one hand taken away with the other, as the noble Lord has said. Furthermore, it is by no means clear that universities will not be required by OFFA to use precious resources to provide bursaries to students, only to see the Government claw back the same amount or even more by reducing the appropriate benefits. We are particularly concerned that students with children might lose tax credits.
I understand that there are complicated arguments involved but I should be grateful if the Minister could assure the House that the Government will recognise that university students from poor backgrounds will not lose benefits as a result of the Bill. After all, the Government are committed to providing a significant increase in support for students on the grounds that that will enable and encourage the poorest to participate.
Universities have agreed to offer bursaries and to submit their plans in this regard to OFFA for approval on the grounds that the poorest students may need additional financial support and incentives to apply to university. We know that, when striving to attract poor students to apply to university, the perception can be as important as the reality. The perception that students will lose income from benefits may constitute a major barrier to participation from this group. I urge the Government to consider that university students are a special case and should be treated as such by government. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
592
That said, I note that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, refers to OFFA having a role in approving provisions for financial assistance. That is not what OFFA will do, as I understand it. I think that it is important to hold on to the principle that OFFA will look at an institution's widening participation strategy as a whole and make a summative assessment, rather than approving individual components of it.
I am also not convinced that it should be OFFA's role to sort out the problem of eligibility for means-tested benefits. That is a matter for the Government. Having said that, I support the thrust of the presentation by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, happily devolution means that my right honourable friend Charles Clarke will not have to go to Scotland on any war-like missions. I ought to tell the House that so expert are the civil servants who are helping us on this that they have already given me a briefing note on Sheriffmuir and the battle of 1715, just in case there was any gap in your Lordships' knowledge. Apparently, there are some who say that we won, and some who say that they won, and some who say that no one won at all. I think that I have got it right.
I welcome the opportunity that these amendments provide to explore the impact of bursaries and other financial assistance on students' entitlement to welfare benefits and their tax status. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for providing this chance to debate further an issue that has been raised by Universities UK and by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who has played a vital role in advocating this case.
Let me deal first with the question of tax status and tax credits. Section 331 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, the ICTA, states that income arising from a scholarship held by a person receiving full-time instruction at a university, college, school or other educational establishment shall be exempt from income tax, and no account shall be taken of any such income in computing the amount of income for income tax purposes. In this section, "scholarship" includes an exhibition, bursary or any other similar endowment. The Inland Revenue has advised us that in practice any grant of money for support of students in full-time education would qualify. As for tax credits, we have been advised that income that is exempt from income tax by virtue of Section 331 of the ICTA is disregarded in calculating a claimant's income. Therefore, it appears that bursaries and other financial assistance that institutions will offer to full-time students will not affect students' tax status or entitlement to tax credits.
The position with benefits, as was explained to noble Lords in Committee, is more dependent on the purpose for which the additional assistance is given. Assistance towards fees or course costs is normally disregarded for benefits purposes. I expect that institutions' proposals on financial assistance will be many and varied. The impact of different schemes will

593
no doubt vary according to students' individual circumstances. For example, a student who had the option of cheap lodgings with friends or relatives might not be persuaded by cheap halls of residence, should an institution decide to offer its financial assistance in the form of subsidised accommodation. The same principle will also apply in the case of welfare benefits. In other words, students on welfare benefits can look at the bursary options available to them in deciding which best suits their needs.
We are working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to reach an agreement on arrangements for the small proportion of full-time students who can simultaneously be eligible for benefits. Our objective, like that of the noble Lord, is to ensure that students receive real additional benefit from grants and bursaries, although I cannot give a firm commitment at this stage on the precise outcome of those discussions. However, in the interim period, I do not think it right to pass the burden of responsibility for this issue on to institutions through the Director of Fair Access. I hope that the noble Lord agrees with that point and will decide to withdraw his amendment.
I confirm that we are working actively with the DWP on this. Only a small proportion of full-time students receive benefits, but they are in the most vulnerable groups, and it is therefore right that we should pay the greatest attention to their position. I am referring to lone parents and those with disabilities. Fee support and targeted support are not set against benefits, but support for living costs is taken into account in assessing benefit entitlement.
We have reached an understanding with the DWP that the HE grant, which will be introduced for new students in 2004–05, will not be taken into account in assessing entitlement to means-tested benefits. Looking forward to 2006–07, we are working with the DWP to reach agreement about arrangements for the proportion of full-time students who are in receipt of benefits. Our objective, like that of the universities, is to ensure that students receive real additional benefit from this grant and bursary. We hope to be able to ensure that.
Lord Rix: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, the stress of his answer, which is largely acceptable, centred on benefits accruing to full-time students. He made no mention of part-time or mature students. Will he elaborate a little on that?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, mature students could be full-time or part-time. They would not necessarily be only part-time, although I do not take that to be the imputation of the question. Our aim in discussions with the DWP, which have not reached a conclusion because of the intricacy of the issues, is to ensure that grants and bursaries of any kind should not damage the student's benefit regime.
Lord Rix: My Lords, with that assurance and, like many noble Lords in the Chamber, not being totally
594
au fait with the tax system, I am happy to accept the Minister's response. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, is satisfied—
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: So far!
Lord Rix: My Lords, so far—and it is a question of so far. We will look closely at the Minister's response. I shall consult with various vice-chancellors and directors of finance at one or two local universities. If I need to return to the subject at Third Reading, I shall do so, but at the moment I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I hope that the Minister's answer will suffice.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth moved Amendment No. 40A:
Page 15, line 2, after "assistance" insert "and high quality financial guidance"
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, these amendments concern the broad question of how to manage money responsibly. At Second Reading, I used a shorthand expression "debt education", which was perhaps not entirely helpful. In Committee, the Minister drew a distinction between what she called "traditional debt" and "contingent repayments". I accept that they are not the same thing, but I want to return to the issue, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who is in his place but has asked me to speak to these amendments, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who has considerably more students in his patch than I have.
In discussion of Amendments Nos. 86A and 87A in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, made a good case for the need for high-quality financial advice for students. The Government need to acknowledge that they must be the default provider. The amendments before the House today take account of that discussion.
Some students, particularly those outside the qualifying thresholds, will find themselves under increasing pressure. Others who are entitled to the maximum support may find themselves in receipt of cheques for substantial amounts of money which they will have to manage. In the earlier debate, there was strong support for the amendment on the provision of financial advice and the responsibility which government and the institutions need to take. It was acknowledged that many are already doing so.
However, if the provision of advice is over-burdensome for regulatory reasons, perhaps guidance would be more acceptable. I trust that the word "advice" is not problematic in the second amendment as others will be providing it.
There are difficulties in asking universities to provide ongoing financial advice or guidance for graduates up to 25 years later. The amendment would help ensure that students were properly equipped to know where to seek support in the future.
I shall go briefly into the question of the citizens advice bureaux. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who wishes to be associated with the amendments but did not get his name to them in time, spoke to me this evening.

595
He told me that citizens advice bureaux are sympathetic to the idea of endeavouring to supply a service to universities. There are a thousand CABs in the country, and a major commitment to debt advice is part of their remit.
In conclusion, I shall, at the risk of boring your Lordships, use the word "signal" for the third time this evening. The amendments would provide a signal. It is not just that financial support is necessary, as many of us believe, in information and guidance as well as cash if students are to have the best opportunity to thrive. The amendment will be a signal—I end on a slightly lugubrious note—that will help make the Government's higher education finance policy marginally less unacceptable to those who have been opposed to it. That is the bottom line of my enthusiasm for the amendments, but I hope that I indicated it at a rather higher level earlier. I beg to move.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am inclined to support the amendments, although I have a reservation. Amendment No. 40A refers to "high quality financial guidance". That sounds good, and it had better be good if we make the amendment. The Bill says,
"to provide, or secure the provision of".
I suspect that it had better be the latter. We have heard about the deprivation of universities, but one wonders where the liability will lie if the advice is not very good. It would be better to have such advice given by people who are suitably qualified and who will carry the can, rather than placing another burden on the universities.
It is certainly right that people who do not have a clue how to organise themselves financially should have a clue and that such advice should be provided. However, we are talking about advice to people taking on different forms of debt or, in a minority of cases perhaps, advice on making some form of investment. There should be proper guidance, and the people who give it should be properly qualified.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I identify entirely with the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate. Everything that I said at Second Reading and in Committee related to the quality of advice, which should come from the most expert sources that we can find. It is not a complicated matter.
I take issue to some extent with those who say that someone seeking graduate education ought to have the kind of inquiring mind that will automatically seek out advice. That just is not true. I shall not trouble the House with it, but I have any amount of anecdotal evidence that makes it clear that very bright students are perfectly capable of getting themselves into the most appalling mess in such situations. It helps neither the House nor the students to pretend otherwise.
In fairness, I must say that the Minister has been helpful. We have continued the discussion, and we will have some meetings this week with the sort of high-quality advisers to whom the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, was referring. I have every hope that we will not have to press the issue at Third Reading. That
596
would be unfortunate. There is no particular reason why such an issue must find its way into the Bill, but there is a feeling around the House that the Government must say something to make it clear that they are conscious of the need to ensure that some form of default provision is available to students who need it.
9 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and my noble friend Lord Puttnam for bringing us back to this issue. I shall not detain the House for long because, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam said, we are continuing our dialogue. This week, we are meeting others to discuss those issues further. I, too, have the ambition that my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate will not need to bring this matter back at Third Reading.
As interesting as the comments about the citizens advice bureaux were, members of the National Association of Student Money Advisers—NASMA—already provide that advice to students. Of course, they have specialist knowledge of student affairs and finances. I am not suggesting that the CAB is not an important organisation, but we just need to be aware that there are organisations in place.
Amendment No. 40A would change one of the provisions of an access plan; namely, the provision of financial assistance to students. I appreciate that in their wording of the amendment the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend have listened to what I said about advisers having to be licensed by the Office of Fair Trading. But changing the word "advice" to "guidance" does not solve the problem, although I suspect that my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate were hoping that it might; in fact, it would still be the same.
All through the Bill, we have been very careful to avoid overburdening institutions with the contents of access plans. Noble Lords will not be surprised that I am not tempted in that direction with this amendment. In Committee, we talked about how much the Government are doing in terms of the website, leaflets and so forth, as well as the work that is being done by the National Union of Students, which is critical. There is nothing like peer groups—I am not sure whether that is another pun in your Lordships' House—to put across the case.
My noble friend Lord Puttnam, in particular, knows that Amendment No. 40B would create a difficulty of interpretation—I am not really sure of what the wording would become. I know that my noble friend is interested in looking at what more can be done as regards national helplines, what the Government might do and so forth. I have already indicated that NASMA does important work.
I am not tempted by the access plans. I am continuing to have meetings with my noble friend Lord Puttnam—the right reverend Prelate is always welcome to join us—in order to determine what we can do between now and Third Reading to ensure that we

597
do not have to debate this matter again. On that basis, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to watch the Minister like an angel dancing on the pinhead. I am ready to enter into dialogue and future non-claymore battle over this. I graciously beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 40B not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 15, line 6, leave out from "objectives" to end of line 7 and insert "relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity and, in relation to Wales, the promotion of higher education"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 41A not moved.]
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 15, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations made under subsection (2) may not require a plan to include provisions relating to the criteria for the admission of students."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee, the Minister indicated that she was willing to accept my amendment, which would prevent OFFA requiring institutions to include in their plans matters relating to admissions. I am grateful for that. However, I must confess to the House that in Committee I failed to move the amendment in the appropriate place. With apologies, I therefore wish to move it now.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I indicated in Committee, I accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 15, line 13, at end insert—
""equality of opportunity" means equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 45:
Page 15, leave out lines 23 to 25.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that Amendment No. 45 is consequential to Amendment No. 34A, which the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, did not move. I have discussed this with the noble Baroness and she is fully aware of what is happening. I apologise if that has caused confusion.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Approval of plans]:
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 15, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee, I made it clear that I welcomed the Government's decision to bring forward amendments that accept the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and subject regulations under Clauses 31 and 35 to the affirmative resolution procedure. That was a very positive move. However, I also indicated that I thought that regulations under Clauses 32, 33 and 34 should be similarly subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government did not accept my argument, although the Minister did agree that they would consult with the sector on changes to the regulations. That is also welcome. However, since I feel strongly about this point, I want to return to it.
A great deal of what OFFA will do is to be set out in regulations. The Government will have significant power to make OFFA more interventionist or bureaucratic by means of regulations, which will make it much harder for institutions to work constructively with it. For example, the powers in Clause 32 cover the approval of plans. These regulations may specify matters to which the relevant authority is or is not to have regard in making any determination relating to approval.
Universities UK—as I have done on each occasion, I declare my interest as chief executive—never much liked this provision, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will recall that we strongly supported the Liberal Democrat amendment accepted by the Government in Committee in another place which sought to narrow the scope of the Secretary of State to dictate the terms by prescribing in regulations cases in which the relevant authority must or may not approve a plan. That provision was removed by the Liberal Democrat amendment and was an important victory.
But the fact that the Secretary of State retains the powers contained in Clause 32(5) means that it is vital for Parliament and the sector to have some opportunity to influence what the regulations dictate. Clauses 33 and 34 also contain significant regulation-making powers. For example, Clause 33 relates to the duration of plans, currently expected to be five years, which we think strikes the right balance between keeping them current without them becoming overly burdensome. But what if a future Secretary of State were to specify that plans have to be renewed every year? That would constitute a very significant increase in the bureaucratic burden on institutions.
I hope that my noble friend will accept that the regulations under these clauses ought to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that it was claimed in Committee that

599
because the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had not said that this should be dealt with by affirmative resolution, it meant that it thought it should not.
Speaking in general about the committee, of which I am a member, I should make it clear that the committee advises the House when it feels strongly about something, but it does not always consider matters very carefully. I have forgotten whether the committee considered this in detail. However, clearly it did not feel strongly or it would have said that this should be under the affirmative resolution procedure.
However, it is for the House to do what it wants—always. The committee merely advises the House. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not feel that she has to take the line of resisting the amendment because the committee expressed the opposite view. I think that it expressed no view. I contribute these words in the hope that they are helpful.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I added my name to the amendment because the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, is quite right to point out that much of what is to be done in this Bill will be by regulation. It is therefore appropriate that the House should keep an eye on what is happening. I think it is part of open government that we should not only know but should also take a positive view on such matters when they come before the House. Therefore I endorse the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to accept these amendments. They relate to some very important clauses in the Bill about which concern has been expressed. It would be in the interests of the success of the Bill as a whole if these regulations were dealt with under the affirmative procedure and could therefore be automatically debated before coming into effect.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the amendment has a great deal of sense to it and I hope that it will receive support from the Minister.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate on these issues. I appreciate the concern that there should be robust safeguards and I recognise the importance of having them. We have accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that regulations made under Clauses 31(2) and 35(2)(c) should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Noble Lords will know that we tabled two government amendments to that effect in Committee.
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that I always assume that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considers these matters very carefully. I hope that members of that committee will recognise that, with respect to the Bills for which I am responsible, I take great note of what it recommends. Therefore, when it tells us not to do something, it is not that we ignore it; it is simply that
600
we anticipate that it does not have the same strength of feeling about it. I think that that is the only basis on which I can proceed.
I know that my noble friend has great concerns about this issue. However, we have said that the first regulations—which in a sense, from my noble friend's point of view, and that of other Members of your Lordships' House, are the most critical—will be laid as one set of regulations and they will all be subject to affirmative resolution. I hope that that will allay noble Lords' concerns that something might slip through under the negative procedure. It is critical that the House should understand what will happen.
In my experience of your Lordships' House, there is no suggestion that regulations introduced under the negative procedure are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Noble Lords have prayed—and I am sure that they will continue to pray—against regulations and other measures about which they have concerns.
We have accepted what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said. In addition, we will introduce the first regulations under the affirmative procedure; we have left the negative procedure for subsequent regulations. I believe that that fits very well with the normal parliamentary procedures of your Lordships' House. I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with that.
Finally, I should say to my noble friend that we have already shown our willingness to be open by publishing draft regulations far in advance of the need to lay them. It is our policy to do so. I hope that in the light of those reassurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her thoughtful reply, which I shall obviously consider. I shall need to look at the constitutional consequences and think about the matter before deciding whether to return to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 47:
Leave out Clause 32 and insert the following new Clause—

APPROVAL OF PLANS (NO. 2)
(1) The Funding Councils shall provide to the relevant authority copies of that part of Institutions Strategic Plans relating to Fair Access arrangements, which will then comment to each institution on the content of its plan and may, if it thinks fit, approve the plan.
(2) The relevant authority shall require each institution to provide an account of the financial assistance it has provided to students.
(3) The relevant authority shall report to Parliament each year on progress on the plans and on the financial assistance which has been provided to students under the plans."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Duration of plans]:
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 16, line 4, leave out from "made" to end of line 6 and insert "by the Funding Councils"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 34 [Variation of plans]:
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Enforcement of plans: England]:
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 16, line 18, leave out "or (c)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 16, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) The governing body of an institution is not to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (1) as having failed to comply with the requirement specified in section 23(1)(c) by reason of its failure to comply with any of the general provisions of an English approved plan, if the governing body shows that it has taken all reasonable steps to comply with that provision."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in response to an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Butler—whom I am delighted to see in his place—I explained that I fully support the principle that institutions that take all reasonable steps to comply with the provisions in their access plan should not be penalised when factors beyond their control prevent them from doing what they said they would do. I could not accept the noble Lord's amendment for technical reasons but I promised to take the matter away and consider it, and the amendment is the result.
I have always believed that the director's decisions must be reasonable and the draft letter of guidance to the director makes it clear that an institution's failure to meet milestones should not in itself be grounds for any kind of sanctions. Furthermore the draft regulations require the director to enter into a dialogue with institutions before turning down an access plan or applying a sanction. The director can never reject an access plan outright in the first instance or impose a sanction without giving an institution the opportunity to make its case. He must say if he is minded to reject it and give reasons. The institution will then have an opportunity to make further representations to the director before any final decision is made. Nevertheless, I accept the case for enshrining the principle of reasonableness in primary legislation. It is right that the director must make fair and reasonable decisions and must justify them.
I hope that noble Lords will welcome this amendment, which provides an important reassurance for institutions about how the director will go about widening participation. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister very warmly for being as good as her word in
602
Committee. I recognise the elegance and the greater rigour of the drafting of this provision compared with the one that I offered in Committee. I stand a corrected and improved man.
I have only one question for the Minister in respect of the amendment. Would it be right, in the interests of consistency, for a similar provision to be included in respect of the provisions for Wales?
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 52A, which is grouped with this amendment. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, is not able to be here owing to a prior and unavoidable commitment. Therefore, I will speak to Amendment No. 52A. Having discussed the amendment with him, I hope that the noble Lord will agree with everything I have to say.
We had a good debate on this in Committee, so I can summarise the main points very briefly. The director is a regulator: he has very substantial powers with considerable potential impact on universities. In particular, he has the power to fine universities and prevent them introducing variable fees. It is entirely at his discretion to judge the access plans and there are no opportunities for appeal.
This runs against the spirit of the way in which regulators are now being introduced or, alternatively, the way in which existing regulators are now being amended in legislation. In most cases, there is the opportunity for appeal. It also runs against the principles of the Better Regulation Task Force and, in particular, transparency, accountability and fairness.
The Select Committee on the Constitution, of which my noble friend Lord Norton is the chairman, recently produced a report on the regulatory state, with particular reference to who regulates the regulators. We spent a great deal of time and developed a mass of evidence on all these issues. One of the strongest refrains, as I said in Committee, was the lack of independent appeal against a regulator's decision—not an internal system within the regulator's own ambit of reconsidering a decision but an independent appeal. We recommended that in every case where there is a regulator there should be an independent appeals system.
This also runs against what is happening elsewhere in government at present. We are currently considering the Pensions Bill, which, in relation to the pensions regulator, has not only an internal determination panel but an independent pensions regulator tribunal. Moreover, Clause 6 of the draft Charities Bill makes provision for a charities appeal tribunal. So in most areas of government now, quite rightly, an independent appeal tribunal system is being introduced.
Some have said that judicial review provides that appeal. Frankly, it is not an alternative or a reasonable substitute. There are three problems: on the whole, judicial review deals with the process and not the merits of a regulator's decision; it costs a great deal because lawyers are always involved; and it takes a great deal of time. So it is not really a proper alternative.

603
It is interesting to reflect that in the case of pensions there would be the alternative of going to judicial review, but the pensions tribunal has also been provided, as a quicker way of dealing with issues. So in most cases now, judicial review is not regarded as a satisfactory way of dealing with appeals.
In our debate in Committee on 25 May, the Minister raised a number of points. She said that the Government have looked at having a separate appeal tribunal and decided that it would be,
"potentially costly, lengthy, complex and of doubtful value".—[Official Report, 25/5/04; col. 1271.]
I hope that I have dealt with "doubtful value" in terms of the general principle.
I would like to make two further points. First, I know that it has been argued—in front of our Select Committee, for example—that independent appeal tribunals can sometimes be seen as weapons of delay or ways of putting forward frivolous appeals. Frivolous appeals are unlikely with universities, but there are other related points. I hope that the need for appeals will not arise on many occasions. I believe that universities would act responsibly. Universities are not the type of organisation to make frivolous appeals. However, most important of all is the 12-week process in the amendment before us, which deals with the arguments about cost, length and complexity. If the process has to be completed in 12 weeks, appeals have to be solved quickly. That short time scale is a helpful way of dealing with those arguments.
My second point of detail is in relation to the composition of the tribunal, and I do not think that the amendment necessarily offers the right answer. The amendment is different from the one in Committee, but I suspect that there is still room for discussion about the composition. One of the best ways would be to follow what the Government have set out in the Pensions Bill for the composition of the pensions tribunal, where it is suggested that the Lord Chancellor—perhaps it will now be the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—appoints the chairman and the members of the panel. The members of the panel are not a permanent group, so no cost is involved. However, if there is an appeal, the Lord Chancellor can select the members of the panel to hear the appeal with the chairman. That seems to be a sensible method.
The Pensions Bill has rather a lot of detailed clauses about the pensions tribunal itself. I am not sure that we need such detail in this case, but if we follow the precedent in terms of the composition, most of the problems will be dealt with. I acknowledge that this amendment is not perfect and probably needs further adjustment, but I think that that can be done.
In Committee, the Minister kindly offered the opportunity of further discussions, which the noble Lords, Lord Sutherland and Lord Norton, and I have had with the Minister. We are extremely grateful for those. I hope that she now understands the type of argument that we are putting forward and our willingness to be flexible in order to reach the right
604
solution. I look forward to hearing what she has to say. I am grateful for the meetings, but what is important is the principle that is now being applied to many other regulators. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I know that there is pressure to be brief. I have to catch a train back to Hull this evening, so I do not intend to detain the House for too long. I made clear some of my reservations about OFFA in Committee. Following that debate, I came to the view that, if we are to have a Director of Fair Access, two amendments to the Bill are essential. I am pleased to say that those two amendments are the ones before us.
I am very pleased that the Minister moved Amendment No. 52, following the amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. In Committee, the Minister pointed out quite rightly that a visit to a university campus may make a pupil aware for the first time of the potential of going to university. It may prompt an application for university entry. The problem for the university arranging such campus visits, is that the application may be to another university. It may be doing the hard work to attract students, but that does not necessarily deliver the students. It may do, but one must recognise that it may not.
As my noble friend Lord Renfrew said earlier today—and this point was also made in Committee—it may be difficult to overcome a culture of not going to university. However hard universities and schools work together, there is no guarantee of success, although I fully recognise the value of the efforts made. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred earlier to the work of my own university, the University of Hull, and I can confirm the tremendous work being done by that university. In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, earlier, such work is carried out most effectively at departmental level, and I speak from experience.
For those reasons, the amendment moved by the Minister is extraordinarily important. It ensures a degree of equity and will go a long way to assuage many of the doubts held by universities. It will not in any way reduce the efforts made by universities to widen access but it will reduce the worries that otherwise would exist. I therefore welcome the Government's response to the discussion at Committee stage in tabling this amendment.
The other amendment that I think is essential is Amendment No. 52A, to which my noble friend Lord MacGregor has already spoken. The Office for Fair Access is being established to deal with what the Government see as a particular problem. The director, however, will join an ever-growing body of regulators, as my noble friend said. The new office needs to be seen in that context. Regulators are created in order to take decisions independent of government. Independence of government, however, does not mean that regulators are not accountable for their decisions.
My noble friend Lord MacGregor referred to the recent report of the Constitution Committee on regulators, to which the Minister referred earlier in our

605
deliberations. In that report, we drew attention to the extent to which regulators should be, and to some extent are, accountable to different bodies. These include the bodies that are subject to regulation. It is important that the decisions of regulators are open to the possibility of independent review. There should be some means of challenging decisions through an appeals procedure.
The value of an appeals procedure is generally accepted. That is clear from the evidence presented to the committee. Sir Christopher Bellamy, chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, drew attention to the value of an appeals procedure in improving the quality of decision making and in improving confidence in the process as a whole. The case for having an appeals procedure is compelling; the problem is with the appeals mechanisms that exist.
The decisions of regulators are subject to judicial review. The problem with that, as my noble friend said, is that the scope for review is narrow. Unless regulators have acted ultra vires or irrationally, or against the principles of administrative law, their decisions are not open to challenge. Judicial review is expensive and time consuming, and delay can cause major problems. Many regulated bodies are therefore reluctant to go down that path.
There is no right of appeal on the merits of the case unless Parliament has specifically provided for it. Parliament, however, has variously provided for it. It has not done so in a vacuum. Legislation has been influenced by Article 6 of the European Convention and by developments in the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg, which hears appeals from the European Commission and which has adopted procedures closer to appeals on the merits or a rehearing than just judicial review.
The Competition Act 1998 provides for the OFT and the sector-specific regulators in their own areas to be subject to appeal broadly on the merits of the case. The Communications Act 2003 incorporates a directive allowing for appeals to an independent tribunal and appeals on the merits of the case. The Act, as the report of the Constitution Committee notes, sets a generic precedent. My noble friend has outlined the other legislation under consideration, which extends the scope for an independent appeals mechanism. The Constitution Committee considers that there should be greater coherence and that we should move towards appeals based on the merits of the case. It is important that such appeals do not emulate judicial review in terms of time and cost. We favour fast-track procedures; we also recognise that there needs to be some mechanism to prevent vexatious appeals.
I therefore support the amendment moved by my noble friend. It provides for appeals on the merits of the case and builds in an important and reasonable time constraint. It may be necessary for some tweaking to sift out appeals which are vexatious and designed simply to frustrate the process. However, as my noble friend said, in any case we are not likely to be talking about a large number of appeals.
606
The case for appeals on the merits of the case is powerful on grounds of equity. It is also something that is likely to become more pervasive, not least because of Article 6 of the European Convention. The Constitution Committee recommends that we should provide for such an appeals mechanism. I hope, therefore, that in the light of the committee's report the amendment will receive a positive response from the Minister.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, looking back to our debate on Clause 31 regarding the contents of the plan for Wales and as the Bill now stands, I should have thought that a means of appeal was absolutely essential. I support Amendment No. 52A on those grounds alone.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I found the interventions of the noble Lords, Lord MacGregor and Lord Norton, extremely impressive and I shall look forward to reading the detail. I very much supported these two amendments in Committee and I would like to do so again. The amendment tabled by the Minister clarifying that an institution will not be punished if an access agreement agreed with OFFA has no impact on the student body will certainly reassure universities. As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has reminded us in our debates, there are many factors that make up the student body; for example, prior attainment, performance at school or the performance of schools themselves. Some of these are beyond the power of universities to influence, so this amendment is very welcome.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, also has my support. Although I hope that institutions and OFFA will be able to resolve their differences through negotiation, it is always possible that this route will fail. An independent appeal mechanism 'would therefore be a valuable addition to the system. We must ensure that such a mechanism would be cheaper and quicker for institutions than the current proposal of judicial review. If this can be assured, I hope that we will see this amendment on the face of the Bill.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I thank the Minister for Amendment No. 52. At an earlier stage, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, made a very persuasive case for it. I shall not reiterate the arguments: there is no point in arguing for something that we now have. I thank the Minister for that.
On Amendment No. 52A, my noble friend Lord MacGregor has given several examples. In the discussions that I have had with the Minister, she has asked me to point to a possible mechanism. Many have been mentioned. I do not know what she is going to say tonight in response but, in the friendliest possible way, I say to her that the Bill is not going to reach the statute book without this matter coming up again and again. There is clearly strong feeling on the matter. But it is not beyond the wit of the Civil Service, as we were reminded,

607
to be the servants of Ministers and to be flexible and ingenious in finding a solution to difficult problems. With such a good Minister, I am sure that between them they can resolve this and we can stop endlessly discussing these issues and can reach a resolution.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that there is a power in the Bill at Clause 28(3) that would enable the Assembly to replicate this clause for Wales in regulations and to designate the relevant authority. I shall have discussions with my colleagues in Wales and formally respond to the noble Lord on the point that he raised about Wales before Third Reading.
I congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland—who I am sure we all wish a speedy recovery from his operation—and the noble Lords, Lord MacGregor and Lord Norton, for the work that they have put in to bring forward this amendment and for taking the time and trouble to have a discussion with me last week, which I found extremely valuable. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said that he is now able to vote for OFFA and I am very pleased. We will see when the matter returns.
As noble Lords will know, when we discussed an earlier amendment I expressed concern about the membership of appeal panels and the limiting of access to the courts. The amendment now before us has been changed to avoid those problems and I appreciate the creative thinking that has gone into that. As the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, said, in Committee he referred to the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and in particular to Chapter 11 on improving appeal mechanisms. I have now studied that and noted its concerns as both noble Lords have indicated that regulatory decisions should be subject to proper review and that judicial review has sometimes proved expensive and time-consuming.
We propose that the discretion whether to approve an access plan should lie with the director but I accept that it should be possible for some independent person or panel to invite the director to think again. I would find it more difficult if an appeal panel and not the director decided the terms on which an access plan would be approved. That would simply substitute the discretion of the director for the appeal panel. From my discussions with the noble Lords, I think that it is possible for us to propose a solution that meets all our concerns.
The House will not be surprised that I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. There are a number of matters about which I am concerned. However, I undertake to discuss this matter further with the noble Lords concerned and to return at Third Reading with a proposed way forward. On that understanding, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52A:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—

RIGHT OF APPEAL
(1) There will be a right of appeal against the decision of the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education.
(2) The Appeal and any supporting evidence must be submitted within twelve weeks of notification of the governing body.
(3) The appeal will be heard by a panel of three, appointed by the Secretary of State under Nolan rules.
(4) The decision of the panel, which may be by majority, should be delivered within twelve weeks of the receipt of the appeal."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister's response. We look forward to seeing what she brings forward at Third Reading. On that basis I am happy not to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 52A not moved.]
Clause 36 [Enforcement of plans: Wales]:
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 16, line 37, leave out "or (c)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Interpretation of Part 3]:
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Other amendments of section 22 of Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998]:
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross moved Amendment No. 55A:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—

ACCESS TO STUDENT LOANS
The age of a student may not be included in regulations as an eligibility criterion for access to student loans."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps it is inevitable but regrettable that issues concerning the later stage of life are considered at a later hour. However, I shall be brief as many of the points were discussed in Committee in some detail. I should like to thank noble Lords for their support.
Having now had the chance to consider more fully what the Minister said in Committee last month, there are still a couple of matters to which I should like to return. That is why I have retabled the proposed new clause.
First, I remain of the view that the Government are rather strangely fixated on the age of 65 as a cut-off point for student loans. Such a cut-off point will be increasingly anachronistic in our changing society. That point was echoed very well in the report on the economics of an ageing population produced by the Economic Affairs Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
In my view the 25-year write-off provision is sufficient. A student would have to be over 40 before the age 65 cut-off superseded the 25-year write-off period. Can the Minister tell the House what percentage of students complete their courses after the age of 40? Even with our changing demography, it will be many years before it is the norm to retrain or begin education in one's fifties, or even older.
I hope that the Government can at least commit to reconsider the age 65 cut-off point as it lies at the root of the ageism regarding student loans. Such a review would also have to consider the impact of the death of a student before the 25-year repayment period is complete, and should take account of the implications of our rising longevity, as the Cabinet Office report, Winning the Generation Game, highlighted in 2000. That was four years ago. It is now time for action to be taken.
Secondly, with respect, the Minister seems to be burying her head in the sand regarding the impact of the EU directive on equal treatment in employment and training after October 2006. The courts may indeed have found in the Government's favour so far, but it seems a great shame for government to be forced to do something by the courts after 2006 when they could, and should, begin to tackle this now.
In Committee the Minister mentioned costs but without being specific. I understand that it is a question of priorities—it always is for any government. However, can she at least give me an indication of the potential and realistic costs of my proposed new clause?
In conclusion, I hope that my proposed new clause will be a way of getting joined-up government. The DWP is trying to remove barriers to continued employment for older people. The DfES should do likewise in education and training, which would help to make that a reality. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Greengross, as, indeed, I did in Committee. Like the unfair treatment of part-time students and their institutions, this is another issue on which I feel strongly.
As a former mature student when I graduated from LSE in 1985, aged 53, I am acutely aware that I was not far from the cut-off point at which, had I needed it, I would have been ineligible for a loan. Some 20 years later I feel even more strongly that no such cut-off point should exist. We should also not forget that in those days higher education fees were considerably lower than they are today and will be in future.
I shall not repeat the details of points made previously in Committee, but there are three points that I wish to reinforce as to why having a cut-off point is wrong. First, the lifelong, ladder learning approach is increasingly part of our embedded culture and is warmly supported by the Government. If, as a citizen, a student is entitled to take an undergraduate university degree, the age at which that person takes such a degree is immaterial if he has been accepted by his chosen university. Any government grant, loan, or other kind of financial support that goes with the course should be available regardless of when the student wishes to take up that option.
Secondly, we have already heard that age discrimination will be outlawed by 2006, so how do the Government justify what they are doing in the light of that law? I believe that I alerted the Minister a few weeks ago to the existence of the report by the Select
610
Committee on Economic Affairs, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which was published some seven months ago and has still not been debated on the Floor of this House. It is not just a question of equal opportunities. Our life expectancy increases daily, there are clear signs that a retirement age for the purposes of any pension will have to be moved increasingly upwards and, therefore, the need—not just the wish—to continue in employment will increase. A degree, even at such a later age, might be just the thing to help one gain the new skills that will enable one to start a second or third career or set up a new business.
Thirdly, taking a degree course in one's latter years for the first time, even if it is purely for self-gratification and enjoyment, is an acknowledged way of keeping the brain active and engaged. That point was made earlier from the Benches opposite. The individual would, therefore, be less likely to be an early NHS user or an early entrant to a long-stay hospital or an old people's home.
The Select Committee's report, to which I referred, concluded that the restriction of student loans to people below the age of 54 was blatant discrimination. I should be grateful to hear the Minister's reaction to that.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, is correct to say that keeping the mind active helps to keep the body healthy and there is every reason to encourage people to continue their education as long as they wish to. We mouth the concept of lifelong learning and we often talk about how, with an ageing population, all of us shall have to carry on working longer. Yet it is incredible that we are writing into legislation discrimination that by 2006 will be outlawed by European legislation.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House is a good example of—something.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the noble Baroness is the youngest person here.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am getting older by the minute. In Committee, I paid tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in promoting a culture of lifelong learning, and I emphasised my commitment and that of the Government to that objective. I am happy to repeat that here. I also said that we accepted that there was further dialogue to be had on the subject of age limits, and we shall continue to listen to representations. Whatever the time of day or night when it is debated in your Lordships' House, it is an important issue, and I am mindful of the passion with which noble Lords have spoken.

611
It is worth saying that the age limits apply only to loans. All students, including those aged 55 and over, are eligible for the full range of non-repayable higher education grants. Of course, elements of the student support package specifically help older students. Notably, under our proposals, eligible students of any age will be eligible for the maintenance grant of £2,700. Therefore, as I said, the only element of financial support that older students cannot receive is loans.
We have discussed—I shall not reiterate them—the issues which come down to a question of financial resources. If the age limit were to be abolished, the cost to public funds would be significant. As I indicated, it is an issue of resources.
I shall not say much more, other than that I recognise that we make difficult choices in our efforts to provide funding to a wide range of people who are in need. We believe that the current limit is set so as to ensure that the great majority of loans are repaid. That, of course, is necessary for the sake of public finances. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that the costs involved depend on the implications of a change, and those are difficult to quantify.
Having said all that—I have cut my response considerably—I know that my right honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for higher education understands the depth of feeling on this issue and that he is determined to keep an open mind on the possibility of change. He has agreed to the establishment of a joint working group to consider proposals in this area. I cannot guarantee the outcome, but I expect that the process will facilitate at least a shared understanding of the issues and that it will be helpful in underpinning further consideration of these issues. It will look precisely at the issues of cost, and so on, which the noble Baroness indicated needed to be considered in greater detail.
Through your Lordships' House, I shall ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, joins that working group. We also have it in mind to invite representatives from Age Concern, NIACE and other bodies which have a particular concern for older students. I shall be very happy to take any views from your Lordships on future, and further, membership of such a group, and especially from the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Howe.
I shall be happy to discuss with the noble Baroness how the working group will operate with the representation that I have indicated. I am also happy to consider who else might participate in it. On the basis that the working group will be set up, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether she can answer the question that I specifically asked about the recommendations contained in the Select Committee report, which has been published but not yet debated.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I indicated, the reason that I am suggesting a working
612
group is that not only can it consider this question but it can also take on board the recommendations put forward. Noble Lords will know that the Government's position has been taken through the Court of Appeal. It has been accepted that, as a financial, and scarce, resource, education loans can be treated in the way that I have indicated. I am mindful of the report of my noble friend Lord Peston. However, I think that, in order to progress on these issues, what I have suggested to the noble Baroness and to my right honourable friend will take us further and will enable us to have the kind of detailed discussions that we clearly need to undertake.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's commitment that her department will undertake further work on this issue in the coming months. I know that NIACE, Age Concern and others, including myself, will be delighted by that commitment and will want to be involved. I thank the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend in the other place for the attention that they have given to this issue. I understand that we need to know the facts before changes are made to the law, and I accept that this is a very welcome step forward, for which I thank the Minister most sincerely. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Triesman Lord Triesman moved Amendment No. 55B:
Before Clause 43, insert the following new clause—

EXCLUSION OF VISITOR'S JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO STAFF DISPUTES
(1) The visitor of a qualifying institution has no jurisdiction in respect of—

(a) any dispute relating to a member of staff which concerns his appointment or employment or the termination of his appointment or employment,

(b) any other dispute between a member of staff and the qualifying institution in respect of which proceedings could be brought before any court or tribunal, or

(c) any dispute as to the application of the statutes or other internal laws of the institution in relation to a matter falling within paragraph (a) or (b).

(2) In subsection (1) "qualifying institution" has the meaning given by section 11.
(3) In determining whether a dispute falls within subsection (1)(b) it is to be assumed that the visitor does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
(4) Section 206 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (c. 40) (which is superseded by subsection (1)) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55B I shall speak also to consequential Amendments Nos. 57A and 60. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, were both concerned about the continuing jurisdiction of a visitor in relation to staff complaints. We have always accepted that the current position is not ideal and noble Lords' arguments have confirmed our view. The amendment, therefore, addresses the concerns raised about the continuing role of the visitor in staff complaints.
Section 206 of the Education Reform Act 1988 removed the visitor's jurisdiction in disputes relating to academic staff which concerned appointment or employment. There has been debate as to the extent of this exclusion and whether it covers disputes indirectly related to employment matters, such as whether an institution's internal rules have been followed in relation to a staff complaint.
The amendment seeks to address noble Lords' concerns by placing beyond doubt the extent of the removal of the exclusive jurisdiction of the visitor. It provides for the widest possible exclusion in relation to appointment and employment related matters. The exclusion also covers the internal powers and discretions that derive from the internal laws where they relate to staff complaints.
Whereas the 1988 Act relates to academic staff, we believe that all staff should be covered by the new amendment. The amendment also addresses the principled objection to the jurisdiction of the visitor: that where a visitor acts when access to the courts is limited. We believe that it is wrong to deny access to the courts and so the amendment excludes the visitor's jurisdiction from all staff disputes where there is a possible redress through any court or tribunal whether by an action for damages or judicial review in appropriate circumstance, for example, where a member of staff has a complaint about a matter that relates to their employment contract or where they have had an accident at work.
In that context, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, were concerned in Committee that the existing situation raises human rights issues. Our amendment removes any such concerns as there will not be any possibility of access to the courts being denied to a member of staff because of the visitor's exclusive jurisdiction.
The amendment also puts the rights of staff in chartered and new universities on a more equal footing and addresses the inconsistencies between the exclusion of the visitor's jurisdiction over student and staff complaints. Of course, where a person who is a visitor is assigned a role in relation to student or staff complaints, he or she may continue to perform that role in a personal capacity, for example, by acting as an independent person considering an appeal as part of the institution's internal dismissal or disciplinary or grievance procedures. This would be on a non-visitorial basis and would not, therefore, restrict access to the courts.
Once again, I thank noble Lords for raising these issues. The amendment, together with the Universities UK offer of discussions with the staff unions, to which we made reference in the first day on Report, moves us forward in addressing the anomalies in the present arrangements. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the amendment which, as he says, follows the discussions we had on the extension of staff to the independent office of the
614
adjudicator, and proposes different mechanisms. We welcome very much the fact that the Government have recognised that the visitor system falls foul of human rights legislation and that these proposals seek ways of ensuring compliance with that legislation.
We also welcome very much the offer of assistance made by the DfES to facilitate discussions between UUK and the AUT to set up a new appeals mechanism of one sort or another. There is slight concern on the part of the union about the position in the interregnum. Once the Bill is passed there is no procedure in place until the AUT and UUK have some sort of new scheme set up. Therefore, it is important that the UUK and AUT set about agreeing a new robust scheme as quickly as possible.
It is vital that a mechanism is also in place which ensures on behalf of Parliament and the public that the universities follow their own internal statutes—the rules by which they operate—and allows that to be remedied where an institution has failed to do so.
There are two specific issues of clarification which I ask the Minister to respond to. First, what will be the commencement date for this section of the Bill? Secondly, what are the transitional arrangements for petitions already received and being dealt with by the visitor at that commencement date?
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the office of visitor dates from a time long before the kind of complex professional and personal disputes that are part of today's scene. The only body to which I am visitor is a group of nuns and clearly the regulations do not apply. But several of my episcopal colleagues are visitors to academic institutions. They will, I am sure, greet these proposals with some measure of relief and I hope they are accepted.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I join in the thanks given to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment, which largely meets concerns. Also, perhaps I may thank the Minister and his officials who took quite a long time to explain to rue how it would operate. I think that I now understand it and am very pleased that the Minister has brought forward the amendment.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the questions asked. The first was what would happen in the interregnum to staff cases that are currently before the visitor—to paraphrase the question the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked. We envisage that when these provisions are commenced many staff provisions already with a visitor will remain within the visitor's jurisdiction to be resolved.
However, like the noble Baroness, I also hope that a robust scheme will be agreed as soon as possible for the new arrangements. That will be very important.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I ask the Minister one further point. In so far as the new scheme is agreed, is it proposed to incorporate that in legislation at some point, just as the student appeal

615
scheme has been incorporated in legislation? We recognise that this particular opportunity has been lost, but is it envisaged that perhaps it should be incorporated at some point in a legislative framework?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, we want to see the outcome of the discussions between the institutions and the staff unions before committing to any future legislation. To make a commitment in advance of seeing those discussions and understanding the character of the agreement which might be struck would probably not be the best way of proceeding.
The other question which I was asked was about when the Government will commence these provisions. We think it is best to ensure consistency. For that reason it would make sense to commence these provisions at a similar time to the jurisdiction of the visitor over the student complaints system being removed under Clause 19. Obviously, I cannot give a precise date. We will of course discuss the matter with Universities UK, the Association of University Teachers and with interested parties. As soon as I am in possession of any further information I will be most happy to write to the noble Baroness and make sure that the answer is also in the Library of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Orders and regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 57A:
Page 33, line 31, at end insert—

"Education Reform Act 1988 (c. 40)

Section 206.

In section 207(1), paragraph (c) and the word "or" immediately preceding it."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 58A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 22, line 41, at end insert—
"section (Extension of period within which discrimination proceedings must be brought);"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland Amendment No. 60:
Line 5, at end insert "to limit the jurisdiction of visitors of institutions providing higher education;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House adjourned at ten o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Visits outside British Isles
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Visits outside British Isles
  West Belfast Festival
  West Belfast Festival
  European Constitution
  European Constitution
  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Meat: Illegal Imports
  Meat: Illegal Imports
  Action on Smoking and Health
  Action on Smoking and Health
  Skin Conditions: Actinic Keratosis
  Skin Conditions: Actinic Keratosis
  Misleading Food Labelling: Child Health
  Misleading Food Labelling: Child Health
  Businesses: Regulation
  Businesses: Regulation
  Stem Cell Bank
  Stem Cell Bank
  Iraq: Ministry of Culture
  Iraq: Ministry of Culture
  Railways: Refranchising
  Railways: Refranchising
  East Coast Main Line
  East Coast Main Line

  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business July—November 2004
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union is as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Event

  June

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs&External Relations (GAERC)/IGC

  17–18

  Brussels

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL/IGC

  21–22

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture&Fisheries Council

  21–22

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  25–26

  Dromoland Castle, Co. Clare

  EU-US Summit

  28–29

  Luxembourg

  Council Meeting of EU Environment Ministers

  July

  1

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  2–3

  Maastricht

  Competitiveness (Informal)

  7

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  7–8

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  8

  tbc

  EU-Ukraine Summit

  8–10

  Maastricht

  Social Policy (Informal)

  9–10

  Amsterdam

  Transport (Informal)

  12–13

  Brussels

  General Affairs&External Relations (GAERC)

  12–14

  Rotterdam

  Informal Ministerial Education Youth and Culture

  14

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  15

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  16–18

  Maastricht

  Environment (Informal)

  19

  Brussels

  JHA Council

  19

  Brussels

  Agricultural and Fisheries Council

  22

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  23

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  August

  No meetings planned

  September

  1

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  2

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  3–4

  Maastricht

  Gymnich

  5–7

  Noordwijk

  Agriculture and Fisheries (Informal)

  8

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  8

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  9–10

  Noordwijk

  Health (Informal)

  11

  Scheveningen

  ECOFIN

  13–14

  Brussels

  GAERC

  15

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  16

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  17

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  17–18

  Noordwijk

  Informal Ministerial Defence

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  22

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  22

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  24

  Brussels

  Competitiveness Council

  27

  Brussels

  (Possible) Council Transport, Telcom and Energy

  WS 18

  Date

  Location

  Event

  29

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  29

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  30

  Den Haag

  JHA (Informal)

  October

  1

  Den Haag

  JHA (Informal)

  1

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  4

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health, Consumer Affairs Council

  6

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  6

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  7

  Hanoi

  EU-South Korea Summit

  7–8

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom and Energy Council

  7

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  8–9

  Hanoi

  ASEM Summit

  11–12

  Brussels

  GAERC

  13

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  14

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  14

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  15

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  18–19

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  19

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  20

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  19

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  22

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  25–26

  Brussels

  JHA Council

  27

  Maastricht

  Informal Ministerial—Development

  27

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  27–28

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  29

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  November

  2–3

  Brussels

  GAERC

  5

  tbc

  European Council

  9–11

  Groningen

  Informal Ministerial—Integration

  9

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  10

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  10

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  12

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health, Consumer Affairs Council

  12

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  15–16

  Brussels

  Education, Youth, Culture Council

  17

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  17

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  18

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  19–20

  Rotterdam

  Informal Ministerial—Transport, Telecom, Energy

  19

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  22–23

  Brussels

  GAERC

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  23

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  24

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  24

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  25–26

  Brussels

  Competitiveness Council

  29

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom and Energy Council

  29–30

  Rotterdam

  Informal Ministerial—Urban Development

  Social Exclusion Unit Report: Mental Health and Social Exclusion
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  WS 19
  In spring 2003, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister asked the Social Exclusion Unit to consider what more could be done to reduce social exclusion among adults of working age with mental health problems. The unit has looked in particular at promoting employment and job retention and improving social participation and access to services for this group.

  Adults with mental health problems are one of the most excluded groups in society. Fewer than a quarter of adults with long-term mental health problems are in employment, despite many having aspirations to work. Too often people do not have other activities to fill their days and spend their time alone. Stigma and discrimination against people with mental health problems remain widespread, and can have a greater impact on the quality of people's lives than the mental health problems themselves.

  Depression, anxiety and phobias can affect up to one in six of the population at any one time, with the highest rates in deprived neighbourhoods. Severe mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, are relatively rare, affecting around one in 200 adults each year. The costs of mental health problems can be high, both to individuals and society as a whole. In addition to medical costs, lost opportunities to work can lead to a negative spiral of debt, reliance on benefits and housing instability. Early intervention to keep people in work and maintain social contacts can significantly reduce these costs.

  The Social Exclusion Unit report, Mental Health and Social Exclusion, is published today. For the first time, action will be taken across government to address the full range of issues affecting people with mental health problems. Rather than focusing solely on medical needs, it addresses stigma and discrimination, employment, education, housing, family needs and community participation. At national level, more than 20 government departments, agencies and other national organisations will be involved in driving forward the report's action plan in six key areas:

  stigma and discrimination—a sustained programme to challenge negative attitudes and promote awareness of people's rights;

  the role of health and social care in tackling social exclusion—implementing evidence-based practice in vocational services and enabling reintegration into the community;

  employment—giving people with mental health problems a real chance of sustained paid work reflecting their skills and experience;

  taking part in the local community—enabling people to lead fulfilling lives the way they choose;

  getting the basics right—access to decent homes, financial advice and transport; and

  making it happen—clear arrangements for leading this programme and maintaining momentum.

  The SEU report builds on action already taken by the Government to improve services for people with mental health problems, including the modernisation
  WS 20
  of NHS mental health services, improved civil rights for disabled people and more support to help disabled people back to work. It draws on examples of local good practice, often led by an expert and innovative voluntary sector.

  Creating sustainable, inclusive communities is about everyone having a stake. Being in work and having social contacts is strongly associated with improved health and well-being. People with mental health problems have much to offer. If they are able to fulfil their potential, the impact of mental health problems on individuals, their families and society can be significantly reduced.

  A copy of the Social Exclusion Unit report, Mental Health and Social Exclusion, and a summary document are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Gambling
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Government have today published their response to the first report of the Joint Committee on the draft Gambling Bill. Copies have been laid before Parliament and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Regional State Aid Reform
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The European Commission has published proposals for amending the guidelines that govern regional state aid (which define assisted areas and aid intensities allowed within them) for the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013 and is seeking member states' views on its proposals. My department will shortly be issuing a consultation document seeking the views of all interested parties on the Commission's proposals.

  The Government remain committed to improving prosperity in all regions of the UK and to reducing the gaps in growth rates between the regions and have introduced a range of measures to address regional disadvantage, such as measures to promote training to ensure that people in the region have the skill; to fulfil the region's long-term economic strategy and to deal with the consequences of industrial change and measures to promote urban and rural regeneration.

  The Government believe that funding at EU level—the structural funds—should go to the poorest member states, where it will add most value. As these economies grow, so will prospects for UK exporters. The expansion of the EU will create a market of 450 million customers

  WS 21
  opening up opportunities for commercial activity for businesses in every region. However, the Government consider that richer member states should have more scope to use their own funds to tackle the causes of underperformance.

  The Commission explains that its objectives in reviewing the regional aid guidelines are to tackle market failures, promote entrepreneurship and ensure less and better targeted state aid. The Commission's aim is to allow a better concentration of regional aid to investment in the least favoured member states and regions, while increasing the flexibility for other member states and regions to pursue local development policies that address specific regional problems or opportunities. The Commission proposals would reduce the areas in which regional aid can be provided in nearly all of the longer-standing member states, including the UK. The levels of aid that could be given would also be reduced. Its proposals would at the same time increase levels of aid for capital investment allowed to small and medium sized firms outside the assisted areas. Plans to provide a completely new instrument permitting quicker approval of certain types of aid considered to be less distorting would also introduce greater flexibility to provide lower levels of aid outside the assisted areas. Further reviews of other state aid guidelines, such as those permitting aid for research and development, are planned.

  The Government support an effective state aid regime, since state aid can distort competition between firms, which can, in turn, limit business performance, prosperity, and quality for consumers. An effective state aid regime helps to create a level playing field for business across the EU. At the same time, the state aid regime needs to be flexible and governments must be able to tackle the causes of underperformance where they arise.

  As already noted, investment aid is only one way in which the Government work with business in the regions; most business support schemes do not depend on the regional aid guidelines.

  The horizontal rules on aid for SMEs, research and development, environmental aid, training and employment aid, risk and venture capital will continue to allow aid to be granted anywhere post-2006. The Commission has indicated that it is open to further proposals from member states in terms of greater flexibility under these "horizontal guidelines" and the consultation document seeks views on this issue.

  Regional aid nevertheless remains an important tool. The Government therefore want to ensure that under the new regional aid guidelines, regional aid can still be granted in the areas where it is most needed to help to address regional disparities and local deprivation. The present proposals from the Commission do not deliver this effectively as they do not adequately allow for disparities within regions, given that poor areas exist side by side with rich areas. The consultation document therefore seeks views on potential alternative methods for determining the assisted areas; aid intensity levels allowed within them; and how best to provide for a suitable level of flexibility to give aid outside the assisted areas where it is needed.
  WS 22
  The Commission has asked for member states' comments by 1 July. However, the Government expect to continue discussions with the Commission on this issue into the Autumn. The Government's consultation document therefore requests responses by Monday 6 September 2004 but notes that if it is possible for respondents to provide early responses (or initial comments) by Monday 28 June 2004 these will help inform the Government's formal response to the Commission proposals in July.

  Copies of the full consultation document will be placed in the Libraries of the House and will also be available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/ewt/stateaid.pdf and at www.dti. gov.uk/consultations/ stateaid.pdf

  European Company Law: Draft Directive on Cross-Border Mergers
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House copies of a consultation document entitled European Company Law—Draft Directive on Cross-Border Mergers.

  The Cross-Border Mergers Directive introduced by the European Commission will enable cross-border mergers between companies with share capital from different member states. The Government strongly support the objective of agreeing a Cross-Border Mergers Directive and are committed to extending the opportunities for corporate restructuring across the EU as crucial to the single market.

  This consultation explores a range of issues, such as which types of companies cross-border mergers should be available to, and its purpose is to seek business views with the aim of ensuring that the final directive offers a practical solution to the issues of cross-border restructuring for businesses within the EU—providing legal certainty while avoiding unnecessary burdens and constraints on business. The consultation period ends on 20 September 2004.

  Iraq: Service Police Investigations
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)
  This Statement concerns the current position in relation to prosecution of soldiers and offences involving Iraqi civilians.

  Soldiers and reservists serving in Iraq, and indeed all members of the Armed Forces, are subject to military law which lays down that they are liable to be tried by a court martial for an offence contrary to English criminal law. If soldiers do something outside the UK that would be a crime here, they commit a crime under military law. The English criminal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over certain offences, including war crimes, torture and unlawful killing abroad.
  WS 23
  Investigations of offences alleged to have been carried out by Service personnel are undertaken by the Royal Military Police or other Service police authority. In the case of the Army, following an investigation the matter will be referred to the soldier's commanding officer, who will also receive advice from the Army Legal Services Branch which will include a draft charge. The commanding officer may decide to dismiss the charge; refer the charge to higher authority; deal summarily with the charge (if it is within the CO's jurisdiction); or stay proceedings with a view to them being otherwise dealt with, for example, by referring them to the civil authorities. The higher authority may in turn then refer the case to the Army Prosecuting Authority. Then the Army Prosecuting Authority becomes involved.

  The Army Prosecuting Authority was established under the Armed Forces Act 1996 and came into existence on 1 April 1997. It acts independently of the military chain of command. It is subject to the general superintendence of the Attorney-General. I have held regular meetings with the APA as part of that superintendence. Recently I and the Solicitor-General met the APA in London, and I and LSLO officials met the APA in Germany.

  If the APA decides there is sufficient evidence for the case to proceed (and it is in the public interest to proceed), it will then decide whether there should be a district court martial (a judge advocate and three military members with a sentencing limit of two years' imprisonment) or a general court martial (a judge advocate and five members but with no sentencing limits save that imposed by statute). The court martial system was established under the Army Act 1955 and is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence. The APA conducts prosecutions in courts martial and the normal rules of procedure and evidence apply.

  The verdict is returned by the military members of the court martial and the sentence is decided by the military members and the judge advocate together.

  Appeal against sentence or conviction is to the Court Martial Appeal Court comprised of judges of the Court of Appeal sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice.

  Courts martial sit in public and are subject to the same rules on reporting as civilian criminal courts. Thus the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies whether the court martial is sitting outside the UK or not. The common law contempt of court also applies to courts martial.
  WS 24
  In his recent Statement, (Official Report, Commons, 8 June, cols WS 4–5), my right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Ingram) referred to 75 cases being investigated into civilian deaths, injuries or alleged ill treatment of Iraqi civilians. Of those, four cases have been referred to the APA which involve Iraqi victims.

  I have more details about one case, involving four defendants, referred to the APA, which is detailed below. The remaining three cases with the APA are actively being considered at the moment.

  The APA is aware of at least four other cases which are likely to be referred to it in the very near future. This will make a total of eight cases out of the 75 which have been referred to it.

  As I have previously announced, there is in addition a further case which was brought to my attention by the APA but which had not been formally referred to the APA. It concerns an alleged unlawful killing of an Iraqi in the course of an arrest. This case was brought to my attention after charges were dismissed by the soldier's commanding officer. This means the case cannot be tried by court martial, but I have referred it to the CPS, which has asked the Metropolitan Police for assistance in collecting further evidence. Any decision in relation to this prosecution will be taken by the CPS in accordance with the code for Crown Prosecutors.

  The APA directed trial on 11 June 2004 against four soldiers from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers on charges relating to alleged abuses of Iraqi civilians. The charges against the four include assault, indecent assault which apparently involves making the victims engage in sexual activity between themselves, and a military charge of prejudicing good order and military discipline. This case has previously been referred to in the press. The case concerns conduct alleged to have occurred while the civilians were being temporarily detained, but not in a prison or detention facility. It involves photographic evidence developed in this country and referred to the UK police. A date for the trial has yet to be set by the Military Court Service. Any trial will be held in public.

  As and when any further charges are laid against soldiers arising from incidents in Iraq I will inform the House of these charges by way of Written Statement and give all the information it is appropriate to give in advance of any hearing.

  To assist the House further I have made arrangements for three papers to be placed in the House Library. These deal with (a) procedures in relation to courts martial, (b) the contempt rules and how they apply to courts martial and (c) my ministerial superintendence of the Army Prosecuting Authority.