Sitting of 15 June 2004

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

    Anti-Semitism
    Mr. James Clappison: What representations he has received about anti-Semitism in Europe. [178626]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The Government are aware of a disturbing increase in anti-Semitic remarks and attacks across many European nations, including the UK. We vigorously condemn them and remain in close contact with representatives of the Jewish community, here and elsewhere in Europe, to discuss ways of combating anti-Semitism. We were active participants in the recent OSCE—Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe—conference on anti-Semitism in Berlin.
    Mr. Clappison: The Minister is absolutely right to say that there has been a worrying increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Europe. Is he aware that a great deal of that is connected with the situation in the middle east? Does he agree that, whatever views might be legitimately held about the situation in the middle east, it is wholly unacceptable for attacks to be carried out on innocent people and communities in connection with that conflict? Will he ensure that the United Kingdom plays its full part in the coming OSCE conference, due to start tomorrow in Paris, and in particular does as much as possible to stop the international peddling of hate on this subject through the internet?
    Mr. MacShane: I cannot but completely agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks The Government, Ministers and MPs are active in the campaign. The most recent anti-Semitic attack took place recently in France, but a large number of gravestones of French Muslims have also been desecrated at Strasbourg, according to yesterday's Le Monde, with remarks such as "Sieg Heil" and "White Power". Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, hatred of immigrants and xenophobia are all parts of a connected continuum that we must combat very firmly and clearly indeed.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the Minister recognise the gravity of anti-Semitism coming from some Islamic sources that links up with the anti-Semitism of the far right in advocating Jewish conspiracy theories, blood libels and holocaust denial? What steps are the Government taking to counter that?
    Mr. MacShane: I pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Lady has consistently raised this sickening aspect of modern political discourse. Again, she flags up a concern shared by everyone in the House. That is why I am pleased that the OSCE is focusing on anti-Semitism. I know that the French Government are taking strong steps in that regard, as are the German Government, and we, too, must keep a watchful eye on the situation because hate language in British politics—whether on immigrants, on questions to do with Israel and the right of the Jewish people to their state, or on the problems faced by many of my Muslim constituents—is, I am afraid, on the rise, rather than going down.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: It would be disturbing, would it not, if it turned out that taxpayers were helping to fund anti-Semitism and attacks on Jewish people? Yet when I recently visited OLAF, the anti-fraud agency in Brussels, Mr. Alberto Perduca, the official in charge of looking at funding for the Palestinians, admitted that it could not be ruled out that cash used by the EU to give funding to the Palestinian Authority might in some cases have made its way to groups to which it should not have made its way. What is the Foreign Office doing to keep that matter under review?
    Mr. MacShane: It is rather tenuous to get in a jibe at the EU over the serious problem of attacks on Jewish graves, desecrations of other Jewish memorials and anti-Semitic remarks. The Commissioner responsible, the right hon. Chris Patten, is keeping the matter tightly under control. I accept fully the concerns of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), but if he has one piece of direct evidence of any money circuiting back into anti-Semitic organisations in Europe, I would love to see it because I promise him and the House that I would take that up with every bit of vigour that I possess.

    Middle East
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What further steps he will take to encourage the establishment of democracy in the middle east. [178627]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I set out the United Kingdom's approach to encouraging modernisation in the Arab world in a speech that I made at the Foreign Policy Centre on 1 March. In that speech, which has been generally well received in the region, I made it clear that we will work in partnership with countries in the region in support of locally led political, economic and social reform.

    627
    In the coming period, we will be responding to the forward-looking statement from the Tunis summit, and concentrating on implementation of the G8 and EU strategies, as well as continuing effective use of our bilateral programmes.
    Mr. Prentice: The Prime Minister told me yesterday that democracy in the middle east has got to come from within, but if that is the case, surely we will be waiting for ever. What are the Government doing to force the pace of change in dysfunctional societies such as Saudi Arabia, where women cannot even legally drive a car? In a recent case, a female television presenter was beaten up by her husband for daring to answer the telephone. Saudi Arabia is supposedly an ally of ours. What are we doing to force the pace of change?
    Mr. Straw: I resist the idea that we should force the pace of change in the way that my hon. Friend sets out. We in Europe need to have a certain amount of humility in respect of this issue. Only 30 years ago, which is within the lifetime of many in this House, not only was half of Europe under the Soviets' control, but three countries in southern Europe—Portugal, Spain and Greece—all had fascist dictatorships. We would have resisted the idea that our pace of change within Europe should be forced from outside. We have to encourage change and support the many people in all countries in the region who are actively pursuing change.
    Saudi Arabia is beginning a process of reform, even though it might not be as fast as my hon. Friend would wish. Local council elections will be held shortly, and in many countries in the region there are now the beginnings—in some cases, more than the beginnings—of active democratic institutions.
    Sir Menzies Campbell: Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what his view is of conditions for democratic life in Gaza, where the infrastructure has been systematically damaged, houses have been indiscriminately destroyed and demolished, and the quality of life has been comprehensively diminished? At the moment, the international community is raising substantial sums for the restoration of Iraq. If the Sharon proposals for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza are implemented, who will pay for Gaza?
    Mr. Straw: It is self-evidently the case, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman points out, that operating democracy within the Gaza area is and has been very difficult since the incursions by the Israeli defence force, some of which—such as the terrible incursions in Rafah—have been roundly condemned by a United Nations Security Council resolution that the United Kingdom supported. That said, the Palestinian Authority themselves have to take further steps—they could take such steps, even now—to improve the operation of their democratic institutions. For example, they could place the security forces under the full and proper control of the Prime Minister and the Interior Minister, and ensure that they are paid through bank accounts rather than in cash.
    628
    In terms of the withdrawal from Gaza, there may be a need for further international aid. I am afraid that the value of some of the aid has been destroyed by Israeli incursions, but we simply have to accept that and try to move on.
    Rob Marris: I thank my right ho n. Friend for his comments on democracy in the Arab world. Of course, the middle east also encompasses Iran, where there is nominal democracy but there are significant human rights abuses. I doubt whether any of us in the House would recognise Iran as a true democracy. What steps are the United Kingdom Government taking to encourage true democracy in Iran?
    Mr. Straw: I should tell my hon. Friend as an aside that it is an unwise idea to suggest that Iranians are Arabs, because they are not. On his wider point, among many other aspects of an intensive dialogue with the Iranian Government, we have a human rights dialogue, and so does the European Union.
    Mr. John Taylor: Would the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether there are any democratic states in the middle east other than Israel?
    Mr. Straw: There are states in different stages of democratic development. [Laughter.] I do not believe that we should mod the progress that has been made. Oman and Qatar have recently introduced direct elections, and of the states within the Arab world, only Libya, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have no public plebiscite for national assembly and/or head of state elections. Of course, their political institutions are not in a state that we would describe as full democracy. The Important thing is that that is now recognised within the region itself, and there is a clear programme of reform that has been agreed by the Arab League, not least at its summit in Tunis.
    Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend will know that, when the Palestinian parliamentary delegation came to this place a few weeks ago, it stressed its wish to hold elections in the occupied territories, which are now several years overdue. It made the point that it is difficult to hold elections where candidates cannot get from one place to another and voters do not know whether they can reach a polling station because they are under curfew. All that is directly related to the occupation. What does my right hon. Friend feel that the international community can do to ensure that elections take place in the occupied territories as soon as possible?
    Mr. Straw: The key thing for the international community, as well as for the Palestinians, the Israelis and those in the region, is to support the active implementation of the road map. If we could get an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza under proper conditions, that could at least set the stage for the normalisation of life within Gaza.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has just referred to the withdrawal by the state of Israel from Gaza. Would he

    629
    accept that that must be just the first step and that further steps must include withdrawal from all the west bank settlements, together with sensible proposals for sharing the sovereignty of Jerusalem?
    Mr. Straw: Yes is the answer, and the stages are clearly set out in the road map. As the G8 summit acknowledged, the basic template for our position and that of the G8 in respect of Israel-Palestine remains Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

    Brazil
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: When he next expects to visit Brazil to discuss bilateral relations. [178628]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The Foreign Secretary has no current plans to visit Brazil, but recently met Brazilian Foreign Minister Amorim in London. I have visited Brazil twice and the Deputy Prime Minister hopes shortly to visit Brazil. Such contact underlines our commitment to our relationship with Brazil.
    Mr. Blizzard: Having just returned from an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Brazil— [Laughter.]— I tell my hon. Friend that it is clear that the Brazilian Government want a very strong relationship with Europe, both politically and commercially, to balance their relations with the USA? Does he agree that it is also in our interests and vital for the whole of south America that progressive democratic Government can deliver and succeed in Brazil? For both those reasons, may I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that if he does have a life beyond the middle east, Iraq and the European constitution, he should give some priority to visiting Brazil?
    Mr. Rammell: Despite the jocularity, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he does on our relationship with Brazil as the chairman of the all-party group. I genuinely believe that such Back-Bencher contributions are an essential counterpart to what we do within the Government. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend's views about the importance of the relationship between the EU and Brazil. Hopefully, if we can make progress on the EU-Mercosur agreement, that would be a significant step forward. It is clearly in our interests and in the interests of the Brazilians that President Lula's Government succeed. Finally, I am sure that the Foreign Secretary has heard my h on. Friend's request.
    Tony Baldry: There has been a lot of talk about reforming the Unite, 1 Nations. Does the Minister envisage a time when countries such as Brazil, or indeed India, will become members of the Security Council, or is it Her Majesty's Government's line that there can be any reform of the I IN provided that the existing Security Council member ship stays static?
    Mr. Rammell: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware of our current policy, which is to be in favour of expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council. Brazil is currently a non-permanent member of
    630
    the Security Council. Nevertheless, we believe that in an expanded permanent membership, Brazil is the pre-eminent country from Latin America, and we would be content with that position.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: May I tell my hon. Friend that I was also a member of the delegation to Brazil? While there, we had the opportunity of visiting the vice-consul in Sao Paulo who had responsibility for dealing with the very serious drugs trade, which passes through Brazil to the UK. While there is good co-operation between the Brazilian authorities and our people in Brazil in dealing with the drugs trade and they have had considerable success, there is little doubt that they are significantly overstretched. Will my hon. Friend talk to the Chancellor to see whether anything can be done to improve the staffing of Customs and Excise officers in Brazil to tackle the drugs trade? We could then have significantly greater success with comparatively little extra investment.
    Mr. Rammell: I certainly agree that drugs trafficking is a significant problem. At present, we fund 100 drugs liaison officers who work out of our posts around the world, but we can always look to do more. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments, and I assure him that we keep the matter under active review.

    Middle East
    : If he will make a statement on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. [178629]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The Israeli Cabinet decided on 6 June to approve in principle the removal of all settlements from Gaza, and of four from the west bank, as a first step towards implementation of the road map. The Palestinian Authority also need to deliver on their road map commitments, particularly on security. I fully support the statement made by G8 leaders on 10 June on the next steps for Quartet-led international engagement.
    Andrew Selous: What steps are being taken to help the Israeli Government secure a complete withdrawal from Gaza? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that delivering at least one definite part of the road map is absolutely key to ensuring peace throughout the middle east?
    Mr. Straw: Withdrawal from Gaza itself is obviously in the hands of the Israeli Government. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the problems that Prime Minister Sharon has encountered in his Cabinet in gaining full agreement for the withdrawal plan. However, the road map, which sets out the requirement for withdrawal, was agreed by the Israeli Government as well as by the Palestinian Authority, the neighbours and the Quartet. We look to all parties to the road map to implement their part of its obligations.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: My understanding is that the Sharon peace plan intends that the Israelis, after withdrawing from Gaza, should keep

    631
    control of the Gaza-Egypt border. Is my right hon. Friend making representations to the Israelis that withdrawal from Gaza should be as full as possible?
    Mr. Straw: Active discussions are taking place with the Egyptian Government about the control of that border area, which is known as Philadelphi road. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions, but there is full understanding in the international community that that border has to be secure. That, too, is as much in Egypt's interests as it is in the interests of the other parties in the area.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Given that the disengagement plan has the support of the Quartet— as well as the "in principle" support of both Jordan and Egypt and support from this country—what measures is the Foreign Secretary taking to persuade the Palestinian Authority to accept and support it?
    Mr. Straw: The Palestinian Authority do accept the disengagement plan. They can hardly do otherwise as they have called for withdrawal from the occupied territories for a very long time, but, of course, they have legitimate concerns about the conditions in which the withdrawal takes place. We are in active contact with Palestinian leaders to ensure that any security vacuum left by the withdrawal of the IDF can be filled by Palestinian security forces with the active support of the international community, including the UK.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday that he told the G8 summit that a specific set of actions to restore momentum on the road map should be implemented. Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and the Prime Minister, impress on Israel through the Quartet the need to refrain from unilateral decision making, especially about Palestinian territory in Gaza or building a wall on Palestinian territory in the west bank?
    Mr. Straw: We continue to impress that point on the Israelis, and we do so repeatedly. The Israelis reply that they have responded to the security situation. The sooner we can get an improvement in the security situation on both sides of the green line, and of the wall, the easier it will be to relax conditions in the occupied territories.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the two-state solution cannot be imposed, and that it must be reached by mutual consensus emerging from negotiations? Does it not follow, therefore, that any return to the road map must begin with the ending of terrorist violence and the start of the withdrawal of Israel from Palestinian territory, but also with the resumption of the dialogue between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority that was derailed by violence last July? What practical steps can the Quartet take to help to create a favourable environment for restarting those
    632
    negotiations, in terns of helping to underpin security in the region and of producing an economic package that can genuinely address the economic deprivations among Palestinians that make them such ready recruits for terrorism?
    Mr. Straw: I simply say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that while in practice it is not possible for the international community to impose the necessary changes on the ground, it must also be acknowledged by both sides that the policy that they are following is not voluntary but has been decided by the international community in resolutions 242, 338 and 1393. Those are UN Security Council obligations on all parties in the region.
    I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the importance of the resumption of dialogue, and that is why a director-level delegation from the leaders of the Quartet will visit the region shortly. We agree on the need for an economic package, and although much of the aid that has been put into the occupied territories in the past has sadly not borne fruit because some of it has been destroyed by actions by the IDF and in other ways, I am clear that the international community will be ready to continue funding any recovery within the occupied territories.
    Mr. Ancram: Would the Foreign Secretary also agree that a resolution of the conflict in the middle east would be more easily achieved with the involvement of the Islamic nations in the region? Would it help if—as well as assuring the security and integrity of the state of Israel—the Arab nations were also persuaded to work alongside the Quartet as enablers, facilitators and confidence builders on the Palestinian side? Have there been discussions between the Quartet and the Arab nations about becoming more formally involved in that way?
    Mr. Straw: Yes, there are continual discussions with the Arab League and with individual nations. Some of the near nations—Jordan and Egypt especially—have played an important and constructive role in very difficult circumstances. We also look to all the Arab nations in the region to understand one of their obligations under tho road map and Security Council resolutions, which is to recognise the state of Israel, its right to exist and its right to exist in safety within borders set down by the Security Council.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday that the Quartet will meet shortly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Prime Minister of Israel can persuade the settlers to leave Gaza, the properties should be handed over to the Palestinian Authority in part-compensation for all the destruction that the Israeli defence force has caused there?
    Mr. Straw: I understand the force of my hon. Friend's point. There are already some complicated issues of compensation that will have to be resolved, both in respect of the occupied territories and damage in Israel.

    India
    Mr. Peter Luff: What assessment he has made of the implications for Indo-British relations of the election of a new Government in India. [178630]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Relations between the United Kingdom and India are already very strong and I believe that they will strengthen further, following the election of the United Progressive Alliance Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was among the first foreign leaders to congratulate Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh on their election victory. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will travel to India soon. Tomorrow, I shall welcome the new Indian Foreign Minister, Natwar Singh, to London, and there are plans for a further three Indian Ministers to visit the UK within the next 10 days.
    Mr. Luff: I draw the attention of the House to my registrable interest in this subject. I welcome the Foreign Secretary's answer, especially as he referred to Mr. Natwar Singh, the new External Affairs Minister, who is a former member of my old college, Corpus Christi college, Cambridge. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the newly formed Government in India are very encouraging? They are broadly based in faith terms, with Muslim, Sikh, Christian and Hindu members, as reflected in early-day motion 1300. They are also broadly based in economic and political terms. Will he ensure that every contact we have with the Indian Government reminds them of the importance of maintaining their commitment to open markets and liberalisation?
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Manmohan Singh was one of the pioneers of the liberalising economic programme that began in the 1990s and which has laid the foundation for India's remarkable economic progress since then. They are a broadly based Government, with a Sikh Prime Minister, a Muslim President, a Hindu External Affairs Minister and a Christian leader of the largest party. That emphasises the triumph of Indian democracy and its secular society.
    John Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn the money men who hounded Sonia Gandhi from office through the manipulation of the markets a few weeks ago? Will he also welcome the attempt to return India to the broadly based and secular future—and a united future, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) mentioned—that Congress has always sought and that was undermined and sabotaged by the neo-fascists of the BJP?
    Mr. Straw: May I make it clear that we had very good relations—close personal and close institutional Government relations—with the previous Government of India and high-level respect for their leaders? My hon. Friend will forgive me, but I am afraid that I shall not get involved in the internal affairs of the Indian Government or Indian political parties. The important
    634
    thing is that there was a free and democratic election; the people of India made their decision and we should respect it.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Given the likely enormous economic potential and political importance of India over the coming decades, and given the United Kingdom's special links with India in all sorts of ways, will the Foreign Secretary make it a priority of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that the highest attention is given to promoting Indo-British relations?
    Mr. Straw: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's point; the relationship has the highest level of commitment and attention. I have been to India five or six times during the past four years. I was last there at the beginning of February and intend to visit again as quickly as I can, and so will the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Andrew Love: I add my congratulations to India on its vibrant democracy and its continuing commitment to a secular society. What efforts is my right hon. Friend making to maintain the dialogue that the previous Government set up with Pakistan to ensure a peaceful future for that region of the world?
    Mr. Straw: In January, I met Sonia Gandhi and Natwar Singh when they were in opposition, and they made clear to me their commitment to, and support for, the then Government's efforts—the Vajpayee- Musharraf efforts—to secure a composite dialogue, including on the issue of Kashmir. From my telephone contact with Natwar Singh earlier, I am in no doubt at all—nor shall I be, I am sure, after my meetings with him tomorrow—that the Congress-led Government will have the same commitment to pursue that dialogue, which has already produced great benefits for both sides and offers the prospect of a peaceful resolution to the 60year-old dispute over the area of Kashmir.

    Drugs Trade
    Mr. Bill Tynan: What progress has been made in the fight against the international drugs trade. [178632]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)We are making progress overseas in our fight against drugs. We seized record amounts of cocaine last year: 91 tonnes. More and more cocaine traffickers are being arrested, and we are investing record amounts in the fight against heroin, especially in Afghanistan.
    Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that response and for his commitment to eliminating the international drugs trade. Although I have never been on an IPU trip, does he accept the situation described in an excellent article on Afghanistan published in the Sunday Herald this week? It pointed out that opium production had doubled between 2002 and 2003 and included an interview with an individual who earned £65 for 5 kg of opium. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the international community provide alternative

    635
    sources of income for people in Afghanistan if they are to make real progress and stop the growth of poppy fields in Afghanistan in future?
    Mr. Rammell: My hon. Friend is right: we face a serious challenge in tackling opium cultivation in Afghanistan. I should point out that cultivation has not doubled; the latest United Nations survey shows a marginal increase in cultivation compared with last year. However, it seems from anecdotal reports that this year there will be an increase in cultivation in the current planting season. That pattern is not inconsistent with countries where there has been success in tackling the problem—initially there is an increase. However, the key is a comprehensive strategy, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, which includes provision for alternative livelihoods.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Since our Government took over the fight against the drug trade in Afghanistan in April 2002, how many hectares of poppies have been destroyed, how many trafficking networks have been dismantled and how much land has been turned over to alternative production? As we have heard, the UN report last year showed that the situation was getting worse. When another UN report is compiled this autumn, does the Minister expect it to show that things are improving under British leadership or still getting worse?
    Mr. Rammell: Let me give the hon. Gentleman some specifics on the progress that is being made. A team of Afghan counter-narcotics police officers is now in place, which has seized 125 kilos of heroin. Similarly, the Afghan special narcotics force—an Afghan initiative under the control of the Ministry of the Interior—has seized more than 32 tonnes of opiates and destroyed 32 laboratories. Nevertheless, I do not deny that we face a significant challenge—it is not solely our responsibility—on behalf of the Afghan people and the international community, because anecdotal evidence suggests that cultivation and production may increase again this year. Nevertheless. all the measures that are now in place suggest that in the current 15 months, particularly in the next planting season, we should begin to see, if our strategy is working—I believe that it is—the tide beginning to turn.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Is my hon. Friend aware that, last year, Europol reported to the Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security, which is part of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, that its worst nightmares had been realised: laboratories in southern Europe are now producing synthetic cocaine and synthetic heroin that is of a decent level? Its fear is that, once we start to tackle the situation in Afghanistan, that synthetic heroin and cocaine will come on to the market, as the price begins to change. What are we doing, together with other international partners, to tackle that and those laboratories?
    Mr. Rammell: I am aware of those concerns, and they underline the problem that, whatever we might say in the House, when we seek to tackle the international drugs trade, we are dealing with one of the most sophisticated, expensively funded organised crime
    636
    rackets in the world. Everywhere we make an impact on the system—we hope that we will succeed in Afghanistan—we must be aware of the knock-on consequences for those places where the industry will try to go next. That is very much at the forefront of our thinking.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Minister also pay tribute to the Royal Navy for its contribution to tackling the international drugs trade? Recently, HMS Northumberland seized cocaine worth £135 million and HMS Iron Duke seized cocaine worth £250 million. If they had not done so, those drugs would have ended up on the streets of a country somewhere, bringing huge misery. Will he pay tribute to the Royal Navy for using the intelligence available and seizing the drugs? It is vital that they are given the necessary support to ensure that they have a presence on the high seas to tackle the drugs problem where it exists.
    Mr. Rammell: I pay tribute to the Royal Navy and the work that it undertakes to support our efforts, but the other point that the hon. Gentleman's question underlines is that, in dealing with the problem elsewhere in the world, we are working not just for the benefit for the people of those countries, but in our own vested interests. The cocaine that originates in Colombia comes to this country, and 95 per cent. of the heroin from Afghanistan fuels the drugs trade in this country. We have a massive vested interest in tackling the problem, which is why we are devoting so much work and investment to it.

    Tariq Aziz
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What arrangements have been made for a trial for Tariq Aziz. [178633]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Mr. Tariq Aziz is being held by the United States It is the policy of multinational force partners not n disclose the precise location of detainees for security reasons. It is for the US and Iraqi authorities to determine when Mr. Aziz should be handed over to the Iraqi authorities and for the Iraqi authorities to determine the legal procedures that should apply. In December 2003, the then Iraqi governing council established a special tribunal to try senior members of the former regime.
    Mr. Dalyell: We an part of the coalition, are we not? Will the response to the International Red Cross be the proverbial "Get lost", when it says that, under international law, those people, included Tariq Aziz, should be charged before 30 June or freed? After Elizabeth Wilmshurst, should not the Foreign Office and the United States be a little less cavalier with international law?
    Mr. Straw: We in tie British Government subscribe fully to and follow fully our obligations under international law. That has been the case throughout the Iraqi conflict as well as in the past.

    637
    As for the position of Mr. Aziz and other detainees, I should say to my hon. Friend that just before I left the Foreign Office to come here, I saw an item on the BBC website. Although I have had no separate confirmation of this, it says:
    "Iraqi Prime Minister lyad Allawi says the US-led coalition will soon hand over high-profile detainees—including Saddam Hussein—to Iraqi custody."
    If that is to happen, it will be widely welcomed in the House. It is a matter on which I know the Iraqis and the United States are working.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Given that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have a principled opposition to the death penalty and given that Britain, as part of the coalition provisional authority, will shortly hand over Saddam Hussein for trial, can the right hon. Gentleman say what representations, if any, he has male to ensure that the future Iraqi authorities do not put Saddam Hussein to death? Or does he wash his hands of the matter?
    Mr. Straw: We have made strong representations to the Iraqis about our position in respect of the death penalty. We were successful during the period of the Iraq governing council in persuading it to suspend the death penalty. It is known that Iraqi Ministers have said that they will support the re-establishment of the death penalty from 30 June, and it is also a fact that a number of countries around the world, including China and the United States, are retentionist and operate the death penalty. However, in respect of all those countries, not least and including Iraq, we shall make very strong representations about the need tot to use the death penalty. Those representations will be made on both moral grounds, which are well supported in the House, and on very practical grounds. As we in this country found with the death penalty 50 years ago, one can end up not only convicting the wrong person, but executing the wrong person.
    Ann Clwyd: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient funding is in place to assist the work of the Iraq special tribunal?
    Mr. Straw: I cannot say from the Dispatch Box that I am satisfied about that, and I am very happy to investigate the matter further, to write to my hon. Friend and to place the record in the Library of the House.

    Iraq
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What links exist between his Department and the United Nations Electoral Assistance Division in preparing for national, regional and local elections in Iraq. [178634]
    Bob Spink: What recent discussions he has had with the UN on the handover of sovereignty in Iraq. [178638]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The unanimous adoption last week of Security Council resolution 1546 endorsed the
    638
    transfer of authority to a new Iraqi Government and endorsed future security arrangements. The resolution reflected several months of intensive discussions with our international partners and with the United Nations. We were in regular consultation with the political mission led by UN Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, and the UN electoral team led by Carina Perelli. Those close contacts will continue as the UN takes the leading role in assisting the Iraqi Government and people in their preparations for democratic elections by 31 January 2005.
    Mr. Barnes: I feel that my question has rather got lost by being linked with the question from the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). My question is specifically about electoral systems.
    If Iraq is to move beyond a rather theoretical legal sovereignty on 30 June towards full political sovereignty on 31 January next year, is not the role of the United Nations of key importance, especially in relation to the establishment of an electoral system? Will the role of the United Kingdom and the USA in this matter be secondary to that of the United Nations?
    Mr. Straw: On the last point, the answer is yes. On my hon. Friend's first point, an electoral commission has been established. Interestingly, there were more than 1,800 applications for appointment and a shortlist of candidates was interviewed by a panel of experts led by Judge Kriegler of South Africa. The final commission consists of seven commissioners, including two women and one United Nations member. It bodes well for the future.
    On the electoral system itself—my hon. Friend takes an interest in such matters, as do I—Mrs. Perelli has recommended that the introduction of a national list system for interim elections to the national congress should take place between now and January. Obviously, the subsequent election system operated will be a matter for the constituent assembly that draws up the new constitution.
    Bob Spink: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what support will be provided by Britain in the run up to the 2005 elections? Will that involve additional British troops going to Iraq?
    Mr. Straw: We will certainly provide a good deal of support through our existing troop contingents. The European Union and other institutions with expertise in monitoring and supporting electoral processes will provide support if they, in turn, can get effective security—that is a separate limb of Security Council resolution 1546. The hon. Gentleman will know that troop numbers are kept under continuous review and that any changes will be announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Chris McCafferty: The Foreign Secretary will recall my question of 8 September about the number of Iraqi deaths. He was kind enough to write to me in November to confirm that when the information was collated, he would write again and place the information in the Library. Will he tell the House when that will happen?
    Mr. Straw: I do indeed recall the question that my hon. Friend asked on 8 September, which was whether

    639
    there were effective estimates by the coalition forces of casualties in the conflict during the intense military action and subsequently. I wrote to her with an interim reply in November and examined the matter in great detail. I also looked at the non-governmental organisation website www.iraqbodycount.org, which has its own estimates. I owe my hon. Friend an answer and I am sorry that she has not received one, but that is not due to a lack of application.
    On the "Today" programme a couple of weeks ago, I said that I had answered a question about the matter. I was speaking from my recollections, as I made clear at the time, but I should like to point out that I had answered a supplementary question during a statement rather than a parliamentary question—with a capital Q. I apologise for that minor transgression.
    Hugh Robertson: One of the key tasks that faces the electoral assistance division and other United Nations bodies is to restore the UN's reputation in the eyes of many ordinary Iraqis following its tarnishing due to the oil-for-food programme. Given that recent intelligence suggests that Saddam Hussein and his immediate family and entourage benefited to the tune of $10 billion, and that intelligence coming out of Iraq suggests that that money is being used to fund the insurgency that faces our troops and threatens the elections, what moves have the Foreign Office taken to back the Iraq governing council's call for a full and independent inquiry?
    Mr. Straw: An investigation is already taking place under the aegis of the United Nations, and it is linked to investigations by law enforcement authorities in several countries. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot go into further detail because that might prejudice the outcome of some of those criminal investigations, but we are certainly powerfully seized of the issue.
    Harry Cohen: Is it not the case that under pressure from US Ambassador Paul Bremer, Moqtada al-Sadr and his followers have been banned from fighting elections for three years? Is that not a deeply foolish decision? Would it not be better for them to be engaged in the elections rather than outside fighting?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend might well be ahead of me because I was not aware that that individual had been banned. Ambassador Bremer is entitled to his opinions, but such decisions should be made by the Iraqi Government, with advice from the United Nations.

    Burma
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: What representations he has made to the regime in Burma about human rights and the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi. [178635]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): We regularly raise the Government's concerns about human rights with the regime in Burma, and we have repeatedly called for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi,
    640
    most recently when my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment met the Burmese ambassador on 1 June.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend will be aware that concern about the situation in Burma is shared across the House and the country. In Edinburgh, for example, the city council has recently voted unanimously to offer the freedom of the city to Aung San Suu Kyi. In view of that widespread concern, is it not time for tough, effective sanctions to be imposed on the regime in Burma to make it improve its dreadful human rights record?
    Mr. Mullin: I am sure that Aung San Suu Kyi will appreciate the honour conferred on her by Edinburgh city council. There are already sanctions against the Burmese regime. We adhere to the common EU position, which was renewed on 26 April, that targets EU sanctions on members of the regime, not the people of Burma, who have already suffered enough under that awful regime. Those sanctions include a visa ban on leading members of the regime, an assets freeze and an arms embargo.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Echoing the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), it is clear to all of us who take an interest in the tragic situation in Burma that the EU-UK sanctions is against the regime are weaker than the measures that the USA has adopted to pressure the regime, and appear to be enforced with less vigour. What specific plans do the Government have to bring the EU-UK sanctions and their enforcement into line with those of the Americans?
    Mr. Mullin: The EU sanctions are reviewed annually, and were stiffened last April. We shall obviously review them in future in light of discussions with our EU colleagues. They are however, EU sanctions, and we have to take our allies with us.
    Vera Baird: My hon. Friend will know that the junta in Burma has been running a national convention from which the National League for Democracy—NLD—has been excluded. That convention has dratted a constitution that ensures military dominance, which is surely a further retrograde step. Most of Burma's trading is now conducted in euros, since the US has imposed financial sanctions. Is it not time to approach our European partners seriously about financial sanctions against that terrible regime?
    Mr. Mullin: We take the situation very seriously. As for the constitutional convention, we respect the decision of the National League for Democracy not to take part, because it is clearly a bogus exercise. It would make no sense at all for it to take part while its leaders are detained, its offices closed down and there is not a shred of democracy in Burma.

    Turkey
    Sandra Gidley: If he will make a statement on human rights in Turkey. [178636]
    Mr. Wayne David: What assessment he has made of Turkey's preparedness to begin negotiations on joining the EU. [178637]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I welcome the adoption by Turkey of wide-ranging reforms to improve its human rights performance. I particularly welcome the release of Leyla Zana and three former Kurdish MPs pending their appeal and the first TV broadcasts in Kurdish last week However, I deplore the imprisonment of the journalist Hakan Albayrak of Milli Gazete and hope that he will soon be released.
    Sandra Gidley: I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he aware of the campaign by Amnesty International to stop violence against women and the fact that the situation in Turkey is so bad that Amnesty has issued a country-specific report highlighting the fact that honour killings are widespread, lenient sentences for rape are common and that Turkish authorities rarely investigate complaints by women about rape or murder? Will he do all that he can to persuade the Turkish Government that it is in their best interest to make sure not only that international and regional treaties are ratified but that perpetrators are brought to justice so that violence against women is ended in that country?
    Mr. MacShane: I wrote to Amnesty congratulating it on that report, which I hope receives, wide circulation in Turkey. The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to it, and it will play a prominent role in discussions in July between Turkey and the UK as part of our human rights dialogue.
    Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend rightly points to the substantial improvement in Turkey's human rights record since the election of the present Government, but he also points out, rightly, that Turkey has some considerable way to go to conform to its existing commitments as a signatory to the convention on human rights of the Council of Europe. Will my hon. Friend make it clear that while human rights are certainly a measure by which Turkey's accession to the European Union will be judged, from Britain's point of view we want Turkey to be a member and one that conforms to proper EU standards, and that those from other partner countries in the EU who seem to wish to impose an arbitrary block on Turkey are heading in the wrong direction?
    Mr. MacShane: Quite so. Every human rights representative, lawyer or organisation with whom I have been in contact in Turkey has urged that Europe gives a positive response at the end of the year to Turkey's application to be considered as an EU member. They believe that that will be the second great modernisation of Turkey, after the Ataturk modernisation. They want to see European Union values, ideas and officials, and EU money being spent in Turkey to continue that process of modernisation.
    Mr. David: Does my hon. Friend agree that if a start date for negotiations is given in December, it will send a positive message that negotiations are to begin with a predominantly Muslim country, which will help us to define our concept of what Europe is?
    Mr. MacShane: I agree with my hon. Friend. May I, through you, Mr. Speaker, thank him for raising forcefully in Turkey last month the case of Leyla Zana
    642
    and other human rights issues in the discussions with the Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul. My hon. Friend was treading in the footsteps of the Prime Minister, who has also made representations on human rights issues directly to the Turkish Government, and he is right, of course, that in our dialogue with the Islamic world, there is an enormous opportunity to see an Islamic democratic state with great problems—I accept that—that is seeking to move in the direction of Europe. The Mediterranean coastline of Turkey lies to the west of that EU member state, Cyprus. Istanbul is a cradle city of European civilisation. I hope all member states will support Turkey's ambitions, if it meets all the relevant criteria.
    Angus Robertson: But is the Minister not concerned by the developing opposition of a number of leading European political parties to the eventual Turkish membership of the European Union? Does he agree that that trend has sadly more to do with populist domestic considerations than with concerns about Turkey's democratic or human rights record?
    Mr. MacShane: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is a great expert on Austria, where some of those symptoms manifest themselves. I urge all the Opposition parties, but principally the main Opposition party, to become actively involved in a pro-European way in the European People's party, to enter into a dialogue with the Conservative and Christian Democratic parties of Europe, to drop their ridiculous continuing obsessive hostility to Europe and to become pro-British and pro-Turkish by becoming pro-European.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: I am tempted to ask whether that was the message that the Minister got on his pager earlier. Will he use what influence he has with his European colleagues to expedite the announcement of a starting date for the negotiations on accession for Turkey? Turkey is making welcome efforts to conform to the Copenhagen criteria. It has been immensely constructive recently in seeking to resolve the problems of Cyprus, and of course it has been a staunch ally for many years in NATO. Would Turkey not also bring great value to the European Union as a natural bridge between Europe and the Islamic world, as also having historic links with the middle east and having very strong relations with the state of Israel? Does the Minister agree that an early start to negotiations, however long they may take to complete, will give Turkey the encouragement it needs to make progress at this time?
    Mr. MacShane: It seems that since Sunday we are making distinct progress. Here is one aspect of European policy on which I can agree with every word the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. I pay sincere tribute to the statements of the shadow Europe Minister on Turkey. There is no division between the Front Benchers on this issue. I would simply say that the Conservatives could be strong advocates for Turkish membership if they were to be active players in Europe instead of being seen, as they are at the moment, to be permanently hostile to Britain's full engagement in the European Union, particularly under the forthcoming constitutional treaty.

    Cyprus
    Helen Jones: What recent discussions he has had with the (a) Greek and (b) Turkish Governments on the future of Cyprus. [178639]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): At yesterday's General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels, at the UK-Turkey summit on 17 May, which was attended by the Prime Minister, and via our ambassadors in Athens and Ankara, the Government have been in regular contact with the Greek and Turkish Governments following the referendums in April on the UN Secretary-General's plan for the settlement of the Cyprus problem.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that now that the Turkish Cypriots
    644
    have overwhelmingly voted yes in the referendum, we should be considering not only how we can start to normalise relations with the northern part of Cyprus, but how we can talk to the Greek Cypriot population, perhaps with our colleagues in the European Union, to try to make real progress towards a united island of Cyprus?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement on 28 April, Britain is engaged in dialogue with both communities on the island. The people in the north of Cyprus—the Turkish Cypriots—sent a clear yes to Europe; unfortunately, that was not the result from the Greek Cypriots. We believe that the UN Secretary-General's plan remains the best way forward for allowing a united Cyprus to enter the European Union.

Trade Unions (Political Funds) Reform
12.31 pm
John Mann: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the requirement to re-ballot on the maintenance of trade union political funds to a total of three consecutive ballots.
I thank hon. Members who have signed various early-day motions that I have tabled on this subject over the past year. I note the absence of Liberal Democrat and nationalist Members both from the Chamber and from the signatures on many of my EDMs. My hon. Friends will not be surprised by the omission of the signatures of Conservative Members.
It is somewhat ironic that the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists choose not to back this proposal. The trade unions that have been most affected in practical terms by the requirement to ballot on a trade union political fund are the civil service and teaching unions, which have repeatedly felt somewhat constrained in their ability to be involved in the political process and have faced dilemmas and quandaries about whether to have a political fund. It would be irrational and unfair to assume that if those unions currently had a large political fund, they would choose not to direct it in favour of a political party, but to attack on behalf of their members—positively, negatively or in whatever way they choose—the Government of the day. From 1984 to 1997, they would have had more ability to attack the then Conservative Government, but if they had had less restriction on their freedom to be involved politically over the past seven years, they would undoubtedly have chosen to express their concerns about the current Government.
Trade unions have been involved in political activity since their creation and, for the past century, have faced regulation on how to operate politically through a requirement for a separate political fund, unlike companies and wealthy individuals. The genesis of that relates to an example that involves the Leeds Labour party, which was established in 1901. A member of my family, who was a shop steward in an engineering works, was one of the founding members. His employer told him that it was perfectly acceptable for him to be involved industrially as a union shop steward, but that if he chose to join the new Labour party he would neither be promoted nor have security of employment. By the time political funds were introduced, he had spent three years unable to work in any engineering company in Leeds solely because of the decision to be involved politically. Those who wished power in this country to be weighted heavily and indiscriminately in favour of a specific set of people knew exactly what they were doing.
The development of political funds enabled Members of Parliament, who were initially unpaid, to be put forward, elected and live while they were Members. The 1933 Hastings agreement legitimised the process by creating a system of sponsorship. As Members of Parliament began to be paid a living wage, union support became entirely electoral.
In 1984, the unions were picked out for special attention. That was nothing to do with individual rights because contracting out from the political fund was always possible and in some unions, especially white
646
collar unions, it was common. The Tories hoped to cut off Labour's source of income, leaving them with their wealthy backers. They underestimated trade unionists. Ballot after ballot in 1984–85 and in 1994–95 reaffirmed the right to a political fund by huge majorities in every Labour-affiliated union.
Since then, the Nolan and the Neill committees were set up and the sleaze of Tory money began to be regulated. Cash for questions and nights in the Ritz hotel led to demands for action on transparency. We now have a parliamentary and a legal framework for political donations. That is right and proper but it creates an anomaly.
Union money has always been transparent. It is published and accountable. Now it is doubly transparent and accountable due to political party and MP requirements to declare any donations. Why, on top of that, should there be a red-tape burden of bureaucracy and regulation, forcing the waste of unnecessary regulation and expense on the unions? In recent months, Amicus, the print union, the Transport and General Workers Union and others have won ballots by huge majorities. Even the fence sitters must accept that the transparency laws work. Why one law for the rich individual, for company donations and for the Wheelers and the Ecclestones, but two for the unions?
My Bill provides that enough is enough three times and you are out. I cannot imagine a more modest proposal. Once three ballots have succeeded, let us cut back the unnecessary red tape and burden of regulation. Let us have one rule for all. I commend the Bill to the House.
12.38 pm
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I oppose the Bill. A trade union that wishes to spend money on party political activities must set up a separate political fund for financing any such expenditure. Trade unions must comply with specific statutory requirements in setting up and running such funds and union members have rights in relation to the requirements. For example, no member is obliged to contribute to a union's political fund. The Trade Union Act 1984, which is now the Trade Union Reform and Employment Relations Consolidation Act 1992, made it a legal requirement for unions to reballot their members every 10 years to keep a political fund in operation.
An explanation of how a trade union political fund should be set up is provided by Microsoft, on its very helpful online site for small business customers. It says:
"To set up a political fund, a union must first ballot its members to adopt 'political objects' as a union objective.
The rules for conducting that ballot must be adopted as rules of the union and approved by the Certification Officer for Trade Unions and Employers' Associations before the ballot takes place. Approval will only be given if the political fund ballot rules meet certain requirements. In particular, entitlement to vote must be given to every member of the union, the ballot must be held by post, and the ballot must be conducted and supervised by an independent scrutineer.
Once a political fund is established, a trade union must adopt political fund rules', and these must be approved by the Certification Officer. These rules must safeguard the rights of members by permitting individual members to contract out of contributing to the political fund"

647
and providing
"that contributing to the political fund shall not be made a condition for admission to the union."
So what are the unions saying about the proposal of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)? [HON. MEMBERS: "They like it."] Oh, they do like it; indeed they do. According to the trade union co-ordinating committee, there has so far been no evidence of union members wanting to lose their political funds. In the 1980s, 83 per cent. of them voted yes; in the 1990s, the yes vote was 82 per cent. Currently, 35 unions representing 4.5 million members have political funds. Many of them have recently had, or are soon due to have, ballots.
In April 2003, the communications union Connect voted by 81 per cent. to 19 per cent. to keep its fund, in a turnout of 38 per cent. Also in 2003, Amicus voted to retain its fund, with a yes vote of 71 per cent. At the TUC conference in September 2003, 20 unions joined up to launch the trade union co-ordinating committee, combining their resources in fighting political fund ballots. The TUC argument is that the unions are happy with the political funds and that we should leave them to get on with it, on the assumption that, despite there regularly being turnouts of less than 50 per cent. in these ballots, most union members who have voted have supported continued political activity when asked.
I would suggest, however, that that argument is deeply flawed for three reasons. First, it has been shown that many union members want to vote on whether their union gets involved in political campaigning. Only this year, an attempt by some members of the National Union of Journalists to set up a political fund was voted down in a secret ballot, with 53 per cent. of the vote going against the proposal. It has been suggested that that would have been enough to head off a schism, because several high-profile members had threatened to resign if the fund were instituted.
Union members, including the former NUJ president, now the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), and media figures such as Jon Snow and Jeremy Paxman had all expressed concern that the fund would prejudice the union's proud political independence. The NUJ had argued that all money in the fund would be used to finance campaigning on behalf of NUJ members, and not to support political parties. That proposal was defeated.
The second reason is that, under legislation introduced by this Labour Government, companies now need to approve political donations. Not only that, but they need to ballot their members on the matter annually rather than once a decade. So I would suggest that, rather than making things easier for the unions by cancelling their once-in-a-decade vote, we need to equalise the position with companies by making unions vote on their political donations annually, as companies currently have to.
The third reason is the changing nature of political funding in this country. As we saw in the Employment Relations Bill, which is now making its way through the other place, the Government are proposing to set up a so-called modernisation fund involving an uncapped amount of money. The Government say that it could be
648
up to £10 million, but it could be three or four times that amount because the Bill currently makes no provision in that regard, although I hope that it will do. That money will be given to unions for so-called modernisation proposals—things that I would have thought their membership subscriptions should be paying for anyway. Even if those funds are not going to be used for political activity, they will certainly leave the unions with more money that could be used in that way. Again, therefore, given the way in which the Government propose to change the law, it is even more important that union members have the right to say how unions should be able to spend their money in terms of politics.
We should also note the changing nature of the Labour party's funding. It has a collapsing membership, its base of new Labour entrepreneurs is rapidly disappearing, and it is becoming increasingly dependent on trade union funding, which, I believe, was some £6.5 million last year. The Labour party is not becoming less dependent on union Funding, but a lot more dependent on it. In fact, it is becoming almost totally dependent on trade union funding I do not see that as a reason for getting rid of union members' ability to vote on political funding but as a reason for giving them more rights as to how their union funds are spent.
As Labour becomes more reliant on such funding, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw asks for less answerability and more opaqueness, when there should be more accountability, more openness and annual debates, as companies must now have. The Employment Relations Bill ratchets up union rights significantly. This would be another attempt to ratchet up those rights even further, but this time to the detriment of union members, who should be given more rights to decide on their funds, not less, as proposed by t his Bill, which I oppose.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 98.

Division No. 196]

[12:46 pm

AYES

Atherton, Ms Candy

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Austin, John

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Banks, Tony

Chryston)

Barnes, Harry

Clelland, David

Barrett, John

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Battle, John

Cohen, Harry

Begg, Miss Anne

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Bell, Sir Stuart

Corston, Jean

Best, Harold

Cotter, Brian

Blizzard, Bob

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Borrow, David

Cranston, Ross

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Breed, Colin

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Dalyell, Tam

Bruce, Malcolm

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Buck, Ms Karen

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Burden, Richard

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Burgon, Colin

Dobson, rh Frank

Burstow, Paul

Donohoe, Brian H.

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Doran, Frank

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Carmichael, Alistair

Drew, David (Stroud)

Caton, Martin

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Chaytor, David

Etherington, Bill

Clapham, Michael

Farrelly, Paul

649

Fisher, Mark

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Foulkes, rh George

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

O'Hara, Edward

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Öpik, Lembit

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Owen, Albert

Gilroy, Linda

Picking, Anne

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Pickthall Colin

Hancock, Mike

Prosser, Gwyn

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Purchase, Ken

Harvey, Nick

Quinn, Lawrie

Hepburn, Stephen

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Hermon, Lady

Rendel, David

Hinchliffe, David

Robertson, John (Glasgow

Holmes, Paul

Anniesland)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Salter, Martin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Sanders Adrian

Sefton E)

Savidge. Malcolm

Hoyle, Lindsay

Sawfora, Phil

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Sedgemore, Brian

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Shaw, Jonathan

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Sheridan, Jim

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Simpson, Helan (Nottingham S)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Squire, Rachel

King, Andy (Rugby)

Steinberg, Gerry

Lazarowicz, Mark

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Stunell, Andrew

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Taylor. Matthew (Truro)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Thurso, John

MacDougall, John

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Mclsaac, Shona

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

McKechin, Ann

Kemptown)

McWilliam, John

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Mahmood, Khalid

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Mallaber, Judy

Walley, Ms Joan

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Ward, Claire

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Wareing, Robert N.

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

White, Brian

Wilson, Brian

Martlew, Eric

Winnick, David

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Mole, Chris

Tellers for the Ayes:

Morgan, Julie

Mr. Andrew Love and

Mountford, Kali

Tony Lloyd

NOES

Amess, David

Burt, Alistair

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Cameron, David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

Bacon, Richard

Fife)

Baker, Norman

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Baron, John (Billericay)

Barnet)

Bercow, John

Chope, Christopher

Blunt, Crispin

Clappison, James

Brazier, Julian

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Browning, Mrs Angela

Collins, Tim

650

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

May, Mrs Theresa

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

Moss, Malcolm

Howden)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Djanogly, Jonathan

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Paterson, Owen

Doughty, Sue

Pickles, Eric

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Dinefwr)

Flight, Howard

Pugh, Dr. John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Randall, John

Francois, Mark

Redwood, rh John

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Robathan, Andrew

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Grayling, Chris

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

Green, Damian (Ashford)

M-Kent)

Greenway, John

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Grieve, Dominic

Ruffley, David

Gummer, rh John

Selous, Andrew

Hague, rh William

Shepherd, Richard

Heath David

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Hendry, Charles

Spicer, Sir Michael

Hoban Mark (Fareham)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Hogg, rh Douglas

Steen, Anthony

Horam, John (Orpington)

Streeter, Gary

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Syms, Robert

Jenkin, Bernard

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Tredinnick, David

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Tyrie, Andrew

Keetch, Paul

Viggers, Peter

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Watkinson, Angela

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Weir, Michael

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Whittingdale, John

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Wiggin, Bill

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Wilkinson, John

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Lilley, rh Peter

Wilshire, David

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Wishart, Pete

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Maclean, rh David

Young, rh Sir George

McLoughlin, Patrick

Malins, Humfrey

Tellers for the Noes:

Maude, rh Francis

Mr. Eric Forth and

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Mr. Nigel Evans

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by John Mann, Angela Eagle, Helen Jones, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, David Winnick, Tony Lloyd, Geraldine Smith, Mr. David Crausby, Brian White, David Taylor and Mr. Bill Tynan.

TRADE UNIONS (POLITICAL FUNDS) REFORM
John Mann accordingly presented a Bill to limit the requirement to re-ballot on the maintenance of trade union political funds to a total of three consecutive ballots: And the same was read the First Time; and ordered to be read a Second Time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 116].
Opposition Day
[10TH ALLOTTED DAY—SECOND PART]
Opposition Day

  Transport
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  12,59 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that the Government has failed to meet its target of reducing congestion on Britain's roads by 5 per cent., that congestion is set to rise by up to 20 per cent. by 2010 and that, according to the CBI, traffic congestion costs British industry £15 billion to £20 billion a year; recognises that the Government is failing to meet its targets for increased passenger and freight use of the railways and that rail freight declined by 0.3 billion net tonne kilometres in 2002; regrets the fact that one in five trains is still running late and that reliability on the railways has not even returned to the levels achieved before the Hatfield crash; condemns the Government's failure to decide the future of Crossrail, the East London Line Extension and Thameslink 2000 and the delay of improvements such as the upgrading of the East Coast Main Line; further notes that the Transport Committee stated that the Government has had 'years to address the problems of the railway but failed to take effective action'; calls on the Government to acknowledge that its Ten Year Transport Plan has failed in all its key objectives; deplores the Government's failure to develop a coherent planning strategy for Britain's ports; further condemns the Government for the confusion and blight caused by the Aviation White Paper to many communities near airports; and further calls, in the light of these failures, for a re-evaluation of transport policy which properly recognises the needs of both drivers and users of public transport.
  I am delighted to have an opportunity to debate these important issues one day into my new job.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Pull the other one!
  Mr. Yeo: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that I am not enthusiastic about this. No one is more concerned than I, who have talked to many of my constituents in recent months about their transport problems, and no one is more enthusiastic about addressing the issues. I will, however, start on the rational and grown-up note that I intend to adopt in dealing with this issue during the next few months, by acknowledging that some of the problems of transport are, indeed, long term. The origins of some of today's difficulties lie far in the past.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: In a moment. It is precisely because of that that many of the difficulties need to be addressed more urgently than they are being addressed by the Government.
  Let me thank the Secretary of State and his predecessors, however, and most notably the Deputy Prime Minister, who predictably is absent from the House today, for creating a background in relation to transport that is so familiar to someone who has just spent seven and a half months shadowing health and education.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Yeo: I shall give way in a moment. Health and education are two areas in which Labour has spent
  652
  much of the past seven years setting targets in Whitehall, very few of which are ever achieved, establishing expensive new quangos that, after a few years of consuming huge sums of taxpayers' money, none of which reaches front line services, are then abolished, and making claims that waiting times are getting shorter. In fact, whether someone is waiting for a hospital bed, for a consultant's appointment or for a train to arrive, they know in many cases that waiting times are getting longer.
  Mr. Foulkes: I know that the hon. Gentleman's Chief Whip is desperately trying to protect him from my intervention, but the hon. Gentleman said that many of the problems that our Government face go back a long way into the past. Surely the main problem on the railways is the botched privatisation of the previous Tory Government.
  Mr. Yeo: I wondered how many minutes it would be before a Labour Member tried to address today's problems by referring to issues that were decided many years ago in the past. If Labour Members are so concerned about privatisation, have they asked the Secretary of State why he has not renationalised the train operating comp lilies? What is the answer to that? Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be a renationalisation programme, and how does he propose that that should be financed? Which taxes on his constituents does lie want to see raised to repurchase the train operating companies, many of which have done a successful job?
  Mr. Foulkes: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I said, and to what many others on this side of the House have said. The problem was the particular way in which the privatisation was carried out. It could have been done sensibly, although I should not necessarily have supported it, but to set up all the different organisations—train operating companies, leasing companies and the predecessor of Network Rail, Railtrack— clearly created chaos and confusion. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are the architects of that chaos and confusion.
  Mr. Yeo: I note that the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that he would raise the tax on whisky to pay for the renationalisation of the railway industry.
  The similarities in the ways in which Labour has let people down on health, education and transport are depressing, with the same combination of over-hyped policies, endless centrally set bureaucratic targets, broken promises and frustrated consumers. Britain's transport system is used by almost every family in the country almost every day of the lives and, equally importantly, by almost every business. Families, businesses and the whole economy are damaged by the Government's failures on roads, railways and airports. That damage is not confined to the endless delays experienced by travellers in cars, trains and aircraft every day, but extends to businesses, whose competitive position is undermined at a time when competition from abroad is more intense than ever before.
  Richard Burden: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is new to the job, and he is setting out his concerns on transport policy. I think that he was today quoted as saying that Tory transport policies were at a fairly undeveloped stage. If that is so, when will he start to develop them? Will he be arguing with the shadow Chancellor that the Tories should increase transport spending by more than inflation?
  Mr. Yeo: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of Conservative transport policy. My colleagues have set out a 10-paint plan to deal with one aspect of policy, about half a which has already been adopted by the Government. We will gradually set out further policies, and the electors will have the choice of either persuading the Government to do the sensible thing and adopt them or, before too long, electing a Conservative Government who will implement them wholeheartedly. After the results of the elections last week, it seems that that day is not far off.
  Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main problem is a shortage of transport capacity of all kinds? We are short of rail capacity and road capacity. Will a Conservative Government start to produce the bind of infrastructure that we need, preferably using private finance?
  Mr. Yeo: My right hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter, and I shall deal with our approach and the Government's shortcomings and failures to increase capacity in the way in which he has suggested in a moment. Looking at business, it is perfectly true that our competitive position worldwide is now threatened by capacity shortages, particularly in roads, railways and airports.
  Only this week, the CBI has concluded that Labour's 10-year transport plan has failed. The director general, Digby Jones, pointed out that even after £50 billion of spending in four years, the lack of improvement in road congestion and train performance is "exhausting tolerance" among the public and employers. He went on:
  "We have a first-class economy which deserves a first-rate transport system, not the substandard infrastructure that is letting down the country."
  Earlier this year, the British Chambers of Commerce reported that only one company in 10 believed that the transport system met its business needs. Only one company in 50 believes that the Government's proposals will provide an effective solution to the transport problems that are holding its business back. The BCC estimates that the costs of meeting the problems caused by the transport infrastructure now amount to £15 billion. One business in three states that the resulting higher operating coats have a significant impact on its business.
  Labour's failures on transport, therefore, not only let down millions of frustrated motorists, rail travellers and airport users every day, but are costing the country dear and undermining our international competitive position.
  Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is giving an insightful analysis into the failings of the policy. Does he also accept that much of the policy was a work of fiction? If we read the transport plan, we find that project after project that the Government committed themselves to having open by 2010—modernising the east coast main line, upgrading the Great Western main line—has now been scrapped. The document is not worth the paper that it is written on.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend anticipates some of the points that I intend to make. He is quite right to say that the Department has an almost unbeatable record for setting targets through a variety of documents, then failing to achieve them. I should mention that we support the idea of having a long-term transport plan. The nature of the issues and the industries involved requires long-term planning, and our criticism of Labour's approach is not the existence of the plan but the execution of it.
  Let us consider the Government's record in relation to the motion. The 10-year transport plan promised to cut road congestion by 5 per cent. by 2010, with bigger reductions in major cities. Last year, however, the CBI reported that congestion on key parts of the road network was worse than it was before the plan. Perhaps that is not surprising because under Labour, Britain spends the lowest proportion of motoring taxes on transport of any advanced country. Throughout the period of the 10-year plan, Labour plans to spend less every single year on new roads than Baroness Thatcher's Government spent every single year for which she was in power. Under Labour, in 2001 not a single inch of new bypass was built anywhere in the United Kingdom.
  The £6 billion road-building programme that was left behind by the outgoing Conservative Government in 1997, including a commitment to building 150 new roads, was scrapped. Only 37 of those roads were completed. I welcome the fact that belatedly, Labour has restarted the road-building programme. In just the past few days, I have heard that a small project, involving less than £1 million, is to go ahead in my constituency, and I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), for listening to the representations that I and my constituents made about the Old London road link road in Capel St. Mary. I hope that that is the harbinger of further roads to be built in Suffolk. They are certainly badly needed, most notably the Sudbury western bypass. I shall take that up with the Under-Secretary in due course.
  Changes of mind in the Government's approach to the roads have not been confined to decisions about building. Road pricing has suffered a similar fate. In the 2002 Budget, the Government said that they would introduce a UK-wide, distance-based road user charge for lorries to ensure that all lorry operators, including those from continental Europe, pay their fair share towards the cost of using British roads and of financing further investment. Since that time, the Department says that it
  "has been working closely with HM Customs and Excise to establish the framework for the lorry road-user charge."
  It has produced no fewer than three progress reports on the proposed framework, the most recent being issued

  655
  this March. It announced that the implementation date has been moved back to 2007–08 to
  "leave more time for trials of the final equipment and a phased introduction",
  so that
  "the Government is now in a position to begin the procurement process".
  This is another example of the dithering for which the Department for Transport has become famous.
  On the third anniversary of the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of the 10-year plan, figures from Trafficmaster showed that average journey times had risen by 16 per cent. since 1998, and that motorway congestion was up by 40 per cent. The Freight Transport Association pointed out earlier this year that the condition of local roads is 6 per cent. worse than a decade ago.
  It is not just the state of the roads;but the cost of driving that causes concern. Labour remains addicted to raising fuel duty, but we have long opposed the 2p increase planned for this autumn. I remind the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his 2003 Budget that high and volatile fuel prices provide no basis for raising duty, and that he was therefore deferring duty rises until this autumn. It is clear that if ever there has been a time of high and volatile fuel prices, it is now. All we get from the Chancellor is a commitment to review the decision, despite the fact that because of the fuel price increase, the revenue that he is raising from petroleum revenue tax already greatly exceeds the amount that would be produced by a 2p increase in duty.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend accept that the 2p extra per litre on petrol, which will be introduced later this year, will hit disproportionately those who live in rural areas? They do not have a choice between public transport or the car; they have only the car, which they rely on to do their daily business. It is therefore vital that the 2p increase is not imposed in September, so that rural people can at least buy their fuel—the most expensive anywhere in Europe—without that extra tax.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right: no group of people suffers more from the Government's war on the motorist than those living in rural communities. He knows from his constituency experience—as I know from mine, and from the visits that I pay to rural areas throughout the country—that the Government have systematically discriminated against people in rural communities. The 2p increase in fuel duty is yet another example of that. As long as the conditions of high and volatile fuel prices remain, the Conservative party will fight tooth and nail against this duty increase. The question now is whether the Secretary of State will join in that fight. We know how close he is to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; motorists will look to him to use his influence on their behalf.
  On the railways, the picture is really no better. The 10-year plan promised a 50 per cent. increase in passenger use by 2010, but the Department for Transport's own annual report reveals a growth figure of only 6 per cent.
  656
  so far. When Labour's own Commission for Integrated Transport advised that the 50 per cent. target be reconsidered, the Government were forced into a U-turn on this issue as well. One way to encourage greater use of the railways might be to make the comparative cost of rail travel more attractive. The 10-year plan promised real reductions in rail fares, but the Government subsequently removed the cap on rail fares, resulting in larger fare increases, with double-figure percentage rises becoming commonplace.
  Regular users of the trains, such as me, are painfully aware of how out of date much of our rolling stock remains. The 10-year plan promised that by 2010, new and faster tilting trains would be travelling at speeds of up to 140 mph. There is no longer any possibility of that happening by 2010 on the west coast main line, and there is no definite date thereafter on which this pledge will be honoured. The Deputy Prime Minister's promise that the old mark 1 slam-door trains would be replaced by the end of 2004 has also been broken.
  We were promised that under Labour trains would be more punctual, but more than one train in five continues to arrive late. Meanwhile, confusion reigns. The Office of the Rail Regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail—all creations of this Labour Government—are vying with each other to be the organisation that runs the railways. Re-franchising agreements struck 1D3 the SRA have resulted in station cuts and longer journey times for London commuters—who, incidentally, account for 70 per cent. of all rail journeys in the United Kingdom.
  In the period after privatisation, services were increased in response to demand and passenger railway use grew. Now, as uncertainty prevails, the number of complaints from passengers is rising sharply. The Transport Committee, pointed out that
  "overcrowding on public transport is bad and is likely to get worse … The current chronic overcrowding in all the major conurbations that gave evidence is unacceptable".
  Mr. John Horam: On commuters and London commuters in particular, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the Government's major failings is that they simply have not taken decisions on the railway infrastructure spending that is necessary—I am thinking, for example, of Thameslink 2000—if we are to have the capacity to which he has referred?
  Mr. Yeo: I shall deal with Thameslink in a moment. May I tell my hon. Friend how much I enjoyed the journey that he and I look by railway to his constituency only a few weeks ago—in only moderate discomfort—in rolling stock that dated from the 1950s and certainly no later than the 1960s?
  Whether the taxpayer is now seeing value for money for rail subsidies running at £14 million a day is extremely doubtful. A s for future projects, as more than one of my hon. Friends has said, delay and dither continue to be the order of the day. Labour claims that it is committed to Crossrail, yet we still have no confirmation that this project is to go ahead. Such delay now means that it will not be built in time for the Olympic games, should they be held in this country in 2012.

  657
  In 2001, Labour's general election manifesto stated:
  "We support plans to extend the East London line".
  Despite that commitment and the fact that only three miles of new track are needed to join up the existing railways that form part of the project, the scheme has been delayed until 2010 at the earliest, and there is doubt as to whether it will ever be completed. Of course, this scheme is part of our Olympic bid, 'allure to complete it may well jeopardise London's chances of success. Indeed, if our bid fails it is extremely likely that transport failures will be one of the main reasons why.
  We should not overlook the fact that our financial services industry—an industry in which Britain remains a world leader, and which is heavily dependent on London—itself requires an up-to-date infrastructure to maintain that position, to meet its needs, and to ensure that London remains a city in which people can move around easily, that is pleasant to live in and which can meet the demands of a 21st-century industry.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I wonder whether my hon. Friend intends to address the future of the Strategic Rail Authority. He is doubtless aware of the rumour that it will be abolished, which has come about because the prediction that we made during the legislative passage of the Transport Bill 2000— that the SRA would be a bottleneck for investment and would slow down decision making—has come true. Indeed, even the Government regret setting it up. Is he aware that more people in London are now employed by the SRA than were originally employed by British Rail? Is this not an area in which we could cut waste and improve transport?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I certainly look forward to the Government's announcing their decision on the future of the SRA. I am afraid that this is typical of Labour's approach in so many areas. They establish large new quangos arid employ large numbers of people, none of whom do anything to improve services to customers. What is true for the railways is also true for education and for health. Huge sums of taxpayers' money are then ;pent, and in the end, the Government see the folly of their ways and close down such organisations. The SRA was a creation entirely of this Labour Government, and my hon. Friend has raised a most important point.
  On airport capacity, a similar method of ducking or delaying decisions has characterised the Government's approach. The Secretary of State lacks any coherent plan or vision to address the environmental concerns associated with the future of Heathrow. Given that it is very likely that extra airport capacity will be needed—and given that this problem will not only not go away, but will get harder to solve the longer decisions are put off—it is time that we had some answers. Many thousands of people are now suffering blight as a result of the Government's inability to reach decisions.
  My own constituency of South Suffolk is affected by developments at Stansted. The expansion of activity there has already caused considerable disturbance in some of the most tranquil areas of East Anglia. There is widespread and justified dissatisfaction with the consultation process, whose shortcomings mean that the first thing that many people in rural communities
  658
  know about changes in flight paths and increased aircraft movements is the sound of jet planes droning over their homes.
  John Mann: What would the hon. Gentleman say to people who are concerned about the dangers of pollution and night noise from the new Finningley airport?
  Mr. Yeo: I would say that they need a clear decision from the Government on how they will tackle those problems—a decision that the Government have wholly failed to take. A proposed further expansion of Stansted now seems to be being advanced without proper environmental or health impact studies or a convincing business case.
  We have seen the same head-in-the-sand approach in relation to ports with the refusal of the container port at Dibden bay. There may have been very sound environmental reasons for refusing the application. That is all very well, but at the same time, no one disputes the fact that, within a few years, the UK will run out of container port capacity. Where is the Government's ports strategy? Where is the leadership on that vital issue, which is so crucial to Britain's trading future? We cannot escape the view that, as with airports, the Government are stoking up a bonfire that someone else will have to dampen down.
  Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: I must conclude.
  Mr. John Taylor rose—
  Mr. Yeo: Transport is an area of policy—
  Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I wanted to intervene before he altogether leaves the question of airports. What would he say to constituents such as mine who are blighted by the possibility of having a second runway at Birmingham airport, with no idea whatever of what sort of compensation scheme will apply? So far, they have had no consultation either.
  Mr. Yeo: I am afraid that my hon. Friend's constituents have suffered not only from the Government's dither and delay, but from the failure of the consultation process. I sympathise greatly with his constituents, some of whom will be in a similar position to those in East Anglia who have similar anxieties. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that, when the happy day dawns and a Conservative Government are elected, those issues will be addressed urgently and responsibly.
  Lembit Öpik: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, does he agree that there is a role for smaller airports—I mean very small airports—to provide something of a regional link? The remote areas of Wales are an obvious example. That can be done without undue disturbance to local residents and there are considerable economic benefits to the communities that such airports serve.
  Mr. Yeo: I am happy for local communities, if they want to exercise that choice, to have the opportunity to be served with additional local airport capacity.

  659
  Transport is an area of policy whose impact is wider than almost any other. Decisions are in their nature very long term. Delay and uncertainty therefore have particularly harmful effects. A joined-up approach is needed to link planning decisions more logically to transport policy, which provides maximum choice to users and ensures that investment grows on a steady basis. That process should involve a greater element of private finance as a way of promoting that very steadiness.
  The country is running out of patience with this Labour Government. After last week's excellent election results, the Conservative party looks forward to presenting its alternative prescription. Meanwhile, I commend the motion to the House.
  1.23 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: "recognises that the problems with the transport system stem from decades of under-investment; welcomes the Government's commitment to long-term funding for transport through the Ten Year Plan; acknowledges that one of the main reasons for the continuing pressure on transport networks is that the United Kingdom is enjoying the longest period of sustained economic growth for more than 200 years; supports the Government's determination to face the tough decisions which will be required to meet these pressures and put UK transport on a sustainable footing, including runway capacity at UK airports, management of road space and re-organising Britain's railways following a failed privatisation; and welcomes the early signs of success, including the halt in the decline in bus use, the biggest replacement programme for railway rolling stock ever seen in this country, the major programme of investment in the West Coast Main Line and the 22 per cent. decline in the numbers of people killed or seriously injured on the roads since the mid-1990s."
  Mr. Speaker, some of us must have seen a different set of election results last Thursday from the one that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) saw.
  I should first acknowledge the departure of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who had the shadow transport job for what seems a comparatively short time. We did not see her very much the second time in that role, but I see from the Conservative website that her new job as shadow Secretary of State with responsibility for the family includes the task of having
  "a campaigning role highlighting the success of Conservatives in delivering better local services at lower cost",
  so I think that it will be some time before we see the right hon. Lady again.
  I also noticed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, that on the appointment of the hon. Member for South Suffolk yesterday, which we are told was a total surprise to him, he thought that the Tory transport policy was "fairly undeveloped". That seems a rather damning indictment of his predecessors, but I would say that he is absolutely right in that analysis. I have waited the last two years to see just a glimmer of Tory party transport policy. They have now had seven years to develop one, but we still have not seen it. There must come a point at which we debate some of the big transport issues that we face—the hon. Gentleman is right that there are some, on which
  660
  the electorate are entitled to make choices between the two main parties likely to form a Government—and I hope that that day will come.
  Mr. Jenkin: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I introduced the policy of the Brit disc—charging foreign lorries for the use of British roads—to this House some time ago. The difference between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government is that we would have gone on and done it, while the right hon. Gentleman is dithering and wasting money.
  Mr. Darling: I shall come on to the lorry road user charging point in just a moment, but I hardly think that a single suggestion or a quote in a newspaper amounts to a coherent transport policy. The Conservatives do not have one and, arguably, they did not have one when they were in government either.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Talking of coherent policies, did the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), when he said that he wanted to tax motorists out of their cars? Does he agree with that coherent policy?
  Mr. Darling: He did not say that, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to read what my hon. Friend actually said.
  Let me start by acknowledging that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who has managed to hold his place in the transport team, made an interesting speech in Portugal this year
  Mr. Yeo rose—
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Member for South Suffolk must find it interesting, because he used the same words at the tail end of his speech—perhaps the hon. Member for Ashford acts as his speech writer. He made three points, which were absolutely right. He said that there were three principles that were essential to transport. First, the Government should give people genuine choice about the mode of transport that they choose. That is absolutely right, and I have long said that. Secondly, he made the important point that long-term transport success will come from steady and predictable investment policies, sheltered from incessant political interference. Thirdly, he went on to say that investment would require substantial private sector money, which is also absolutely right.
  In respect of the second point, the hon. Member for South Suffolk started off by referring to it—at that stage I thought that he might be offering a thoughtful tour around transport policy—when he said that many of the problems that we face now have grown up over many years and many decades. That is absolutely true. Successive Governments, Conservative and Labour, have failed to spend enough on a consistent and sustained basis. Whether we are talking about the railways or the roads, the problem is that, despite the fact that we are the fourth largest economy in the world and the fact that there have been times over the last 30 or 40 years when we should have been spending money to improve capacity, successive Governments did not do

  661
  so. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is no longer in his place, was absolutely right about that.
  If we are to improve transport, several things need to be done in respect of management and policy, which I will develop in a moment, but the one thing that is absolutely essential is to continue with sustained and increased investment.
  Chris Grayling: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will give way in a moment.
  That is what the CBI called for the other day. The one policy that the Conservative party—though not, curiously, the hon. Member for South Suffolk—has is a commitment to freezing public spending. That is what the shadow Chancellor has set out. Doing that in transport terms would mean a cut of nearly £600 million. Whatever the problems with transport, it can never be the answer to cut from the budget an amount roughly equivalent to what the Highways Agency spends on motorways and trunk roads, or to the amount spent on concessionary bus travel.
  When the hon. Member for South Suffolk was speaking and taking interventions, he gave a number of nods and winks that he would back. Crossrail, the East London line, Thameslink 2000—you name it, he would back it. Where is the money going to come from to pay for that?
  Chris Grayling: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: In a moment. For six months, the hon. Member for South Suffolk dealt with health and education, and he was not afraid to make spending commitments. He attended the National Union of Teachers conference—and I suppose that he deserves a medal for that—and said that he was determined that the next Conservative Government would not only match Labour's spending commitments on schools but surpass them. Interestingly, he had the opportunity to say something on transport spending, but he did not. Perhaps he saw an interesting extract from Andrew Neil's BBC interview with the shadow Chancellor. Andrew Neil asked whether a Conservative Government would match Labour's spending on education, and the shadow Chancellor said, "No, we'll stick to our plan." When Mr. Neil noted that in his famous lecture—he was being funny—the shadow Chancellor had said that he would match whatever Labour spent on health and education, the right hon. Gentleman said, "No, I didn't. You can read my entire text. You will never read any words like that."
  Whatever he turns his mind to over the next few weeks, the hon. Member for South Suffolk will find that he is stymied—if I can use that transport term—by the fact that his shadow Chancellor is not prepared to give him the money that he will need. Indeed, the shadow Chancellor actually proposes to cut the money that would go to transport.
  Chris Grayling: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: Yes, in a moment. I cannot wait to give way to the hon. Gentleman. All the things that the hon.
  662
  Member for South Suffolk has said today, and all the hints that he has made, will come to nothing if the means to make them happen are not available.
  The Government are increasing the amount of money going to transport by about 50 per cent. in real terms. The Conservatives want to cut that transport budget. It is therefore very difficult, if not impossible, to take seriously any protestations by the hon. Member for South Suffolk—or whoever the next Conservative spokesman happens to be, or the one after that, given that the average tenure under the new Opposition leadership seems to be rather shorter even than under the previous leadership.
  At least two former Conservative Transport Secretaries are present today. They will know that transport needs consistent and sustained levels of spending beyond all else. All the grand plans for road building, for example, set out by the Conservatives at the beginning of the 1990s had collapsed by the time the former Government left office. The reason was that their boom-and-bust philosophy and the cuts that they had to make meant that they could not pay for those plans.
  Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Given what he has just said, why do the figures on page 99 of the 10-year plan show that public investment in the railways in 2010–11 will be less than what it was 15 years previously, under the Conservatives?
  Mr. Darling: We have just been listening to the Opposition belief that private finance must be brought into transport. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. Over the period, £33 billion in public sector investment will be made, and that will bring in a similar amount from the private sector. I make no bones about that, and I thought that there was some agreement on it across the Chamber—although I know that the Liberals have changed their policy as well. However, it must be right to bring in money from both the public and the private sectors. I certainly do not apologise for that. It does not matter to the railways whether the money comes from the public sector or the private sector. What matters is that it gets there in the first place.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: I shall move on to considering some of the elements in the motion before the House, but before that I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Turner: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. From his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), it appears that the right hon. Gentleman is proud of the amount of private sector finance going into transport. When they go to the rest of the UK, my constituents can only use transport financed by the private sector. There is no public sector subsidy for services from my constituency to any other part of the UK. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that private sector finance is more stable, when it comes to investment, than public sector finance?
  Mr. Darling: No, I think that we need both, frankly. We shall discuss the railways shortly, but I cannot see how any railway system in the world would not need money from both the public and private sector. The Conservatives privatised the railways, and they believed that they could move rail transport substantially into the private sector, rather as happened with aviation. That is not going to happen. It is impossible, as the sums of money involved are just too large. That is why I think that both forms of investment are needed.
  I want to deal with a number of matters, the first of which—the role of speed cameras in road safety—is topical today. However, it is curious that the Conservative spokesman did not mention it, as the matter has been raised at every Transport Question Time since January. Today, the Government have published an independent report showing that the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites has fallen by almost 40 per cent., and I have published data in connection with every speed camera in the country. Those data show why each camera position was selected, and what has happened since. It is therefore curious that the Opposition have said not a word on the matter.
  The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said at the beginning of the year that the Opposition wanted a national audit of all the camera sites. At the time, all the controversy—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the figures are wrong?
  Mr. Damian Green: They are old.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman says that the figures are old. He has spent most of the year giving the impression that all speed cameras are wrong and in the wrong place, but when confronted with the evidence, he has absolutely nothing to say.
  Mr. Green: The Secretary of State has completely traduced what I said. I never said that all speed cameras were in the wrong place, although I did say that some of them were. The roads Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), has said constantly that no speed camera was in the wrong place. On the radio this morning, however, the Secretary of State said that some speed cameras were in the wrong place. I am delighted that he agrees with me, and not with his own junior Minister.
  Mr. Darling: We should not get into a slanging match. However, I remember that the hon. Gentleman left the House with a clear impression, after the first Transport Question Time of the year, that he was against speed cameras, and that he thought that most of them were in the wrong place.
  In light of all the controversy at the beginning of the year, I asked my officials at the Department to produce data for each and every camera site. In that way, anyone who has a question about any particular camera—why it was situated where it was, and what difference it has made—can now find out, as the information has been collected. That information is backed up by an independent study produced by University college London, which shows that the cameras save lives.
  664
  The hon. Member for Ashford has said that some cameras need to be looked at more closely, and he is right—indeed, I think I said the same thing at the most recent Question Time. The vast majority of cameras appear to be having the right effect, and the number of accidents in which people are killed or injured has fallen. A small number of cameras—about 200-odd—were installed in the early 1990s. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) introduced the policy, and so will know something about this matter. In those days, it was not necessary, as it is now, to show that cameras led to a significant reduction in the numbers of people killed or injured. Therefore we will have to consider whether those cameras are justified. I suspect that people will say that many of them are justified, but some may not be.
  About 200 other cameras do not appear to be having the effect that was intended, and I have asked that the local partnerships and the police consider their placement. However, there are something like 5,000 camera sites in the country. Most people believe that the use of cameras should be considered rationally. We hear a lot from people who do not like speed cameras, but a lot of others are campaigning actively for more.
  Moreover, we mug t never forget that today, and every day of the year, nearly 10 people will be killed or seriously injured on this country's roads. We owe it to them to do all we can to improve road safety. That goes beyond concentrating on speed cameras, which are just one element of an overall strategy. The information published by the Government today is a major step towards ensuring that the debate has a rational basis. People do not need to believe any of us: they can look at the figures, and decide for themselves.
  John Mann: No driver likes speed cameras, but that does not mean that we do not recognise that they are important. Last year, seven people died on the A631 in my constituency. This year, no one has died since speed cameras were introduced. My right hon. Friend said he was reviewing the siting of 200 cameras. Will he also look at roads such a; the A638? The number of people killed at one place on that road has not been sufficient to warrant a speed camera. but should not there be more flexible criteria in relation to siting cameras? The number of people killed on a longer stretch of that road than can be taken into account for the purpose of siting a camera shows that he road is a killer, and that it needs speed cameras.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend illustrates the problem that we face. All Members of Parliament and local councillors will know that for everybody who says that a camera should not be in a certain place, there is someone else who says that we should do something about that dangerous road. The decision on the siting of individual cameras is a matter for police and local authorities, and my hon. Friend should pursue the matter with them.
  Miss Anne Mclniosh: The Secretary of State will be aware that Durham and North Yorkshire do not have fixed camera sites, so his letter to me was silent on that point. The Under-Secretary with

  665
  responsibility for roads has admitted that the child pedestrian casualty figures are unacceptably high, but what do the Government propose to do about that?
  Mr. Darling: Durham and North Yorkshire are not in the netting-off scheme, and that is why they were not included. If they are not in the scheme, they are not obliged to provide figures and that i why they were not mentioned. It is for those areas to decide whether they want to have speed cameras. Child casualty numbers are falling, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was right to highlight our concern. We need to keep up the pressure to reduce casualties among children and motorcyclists, and the Department has a number of strategies to address that. No doubt we will return to the issue in future debates.
  It is necessary to recognise that we have an inherited problem, built up over many years in which the country did not spend enough on road capacity. The solution has three strands. First, we need to increase capacity where necessary, and over the pa ;t few years I have announced plans to widen the major motorways and improve other roads and junctions Secondly, we need to ensure that we put money into public transport so that people can have the choice to which the hon. Member for South Suffolk referred. Thirdly, we need to improve the way in which our roads are managed, because they are not managed particularly well. That is why we set up the traffic area officers, starting in the west midlands, to assist in keeping traffic flowing after an incident or accident.
  All three aspects of our approach require investment, and so I come back to the issue of Tory policy. We have just received a lecture on the shortcomings of our policy, and that is fine. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to criticise, because that is what Oppositions do. However, at some point, the Tories will need some sort of policy if they do not think that our policy is right.
  Pete Wishart: Those three strategies are fair enough, but what would the Secretary of State say to rural motorists in constituencies such as mine, who have little public transport and are completely dependent on their cars but who face the highest fuel prices in Europe? What words of comfort does he have for them?
  Mr. Darling: It is true that many people living in rural areas do no have the same access to public transport. That applies throughout the country, and transport policy has to recognise that cars are essential for many people. However, the real problem with fuel prices in the past few weeks has not been caused by tax, because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor deferred the increase in tax this year. The problem was caused by the dramatic rise in international oil prices over a very short period. The answer to that problem is to try to bring influence to bear on the OPEC countries to increase production, and that is precisely what the Government have done. Oil production has increased and we have seen a modest reduction in prices. However, the opportunism of the Conservatives in trying to suggest that international oil price changes would not have happened if they were in government beggars belief.
  The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who used to be a transport spokesman, asked me about road user charging for lorries. Sadly, it seems that he could
  666
  not wait for the answer, as he is no longer in his place. However, the Government remain determined on that issue. There has been some slippage in the timetable, but that is primarily because we want to ensure that the scheme works when it is introduced. Our experience of big IT projects and the experience of a similar scheme in Germany lead me to believe that we should take the time to get the scheme right, and not rush into something that then fails.
  The Tories have also indicated that in the longer term they would consider whether road pricing for cars was a possibility, including distance-based charging. That will not happen in the near future, because it is a long way off technically, but the Government will shortly publish the feasibility study that we set up. It will be interesting to see whether the hon. Member for South Suffolk has the courage to look ahead 30 or 40 years instead of concentrating on the 30 to 40-minute time horizon that has appeared to occupy some of his predecessors.
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: My right hon. Friend mentioned road management. What, if any, work has his Department done on variable speeds on motorways?
  Mr. Darling: There are two separate issues there. The first is whether we intend to change the motorway speed limit, and I can confirm that we do not have any plans to do that. The second is variable speed limits on, for example, the M25 and other motorways to manage traffic flow, and we intend to develop those because they work.
  On the subject of our railways, the legacy of a lack of investment is clear. We are putting money into the railways. The hon. Member for South Suffolk was critical of how much money we are putting in, but we are putting more money in because we are getting more out of it. British Rail used to reckon on replacing 500 miles of track each year. In the lead up to privatisation, that fell to 300 miles. After privatisation, it dropped to 200. However, this year, Network Rail will replace some 850 miles of track. If we want a reliable railway, the track and the signalling must be maintained just like the rolling stock itself.
  In what could prove to be an expensive speech when the great day of judgment comes, the hon. Gentleman hinted that he would provide 140-mile an hour running on the west coast main line. However, he knows that the Tories' friends in Railtrack—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead only had one policy, and that was to bring back Railtrack—hopelessly underestimated the cost of doing up the west coast main line. Under Railtrack the cost soared to more than £13 billion. Now it will cost some £7 billion, but when it is finished it will cut the London to Manchester—and indeed to Glasgow—journey times by half an hour; and when it is finished in four years' time, it will cut the journey to Glasgow by an hour.
  The channel tunnel rail link is open, and it has already cut the journey time. Its reliability is good and it is due to be completed in 2007. To listen to the hon. Gentleman, one would think that no rolling stock was ever replaced. In fact, nearly 40 per cent. of rolling stock has been replaced over a five-year period, and nearly half of that has been done on London commuter routes.

  667
  We are also improving the power supply south of the Thames, something that Railtrack never got round to doing, because of its incompetence. Last year saw 1 billion passengers travel on the railways for the first time since the early 1960s. I do not deny that much remains to do, but on roads, railways and the tube—which now has £1 billion a year invested in it—we are putting money into the system, which successive Governments failed to do, and that will lead to improvements.
  Chris Grayling: The Secretary of State will accept that the Government have made various promises over the years. He will remember the Strategic Rail Authority plan that specifically set out projects, with timetabled starting dates, for this decade, but most of them have now been abandoned. The Government have made commitments and promises that they have failed to keep.
  Mr. Darling: Many of the things that we said we would do are being done. As I have said before, it is true that costs in the industry are far higher than they should be, primarily because Railtrack completely lost control of its spending. Bringing maintenance back in house has saved substantial sums. Last year, Network Rail spent £1 billion less than it thought it would, through efficiency savings, and that demonstrates the problems that were stored up by the policies that the hon. Gentleman supported.
  Richard Burden: I certainly acknowledge the investment that has been made. In my constituency, for instance, the Northfield relief road was on the stocks for about 30 years because there was no money, but work should start on the site at the end of this year or early next year, purely owing to the investment that is being put in.
  In the west midlands, there is still a huge need for increased transport infrastructure investment over and above what is going in at present. The region not only needs to be able to move its manufactured goods around but, strategically, it is slap-bang in the middle of the route between the south-east and the north-west and beyond. My right hon. Friend will know that that is a real issue for businesses and others, as well as for commuters, in the west midlands, so although I acknowledge what has been done, will he revisit the need for extra investment in the west midlands?
  Mr. Darling: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. The west coast main line will help the west midlands, in particular, and the M6 toll, which is of course privately financed, has relieved much of the pressure on the existing M6 and freed up much capacity. Last year, I announced that quite substantial sums of investment were available to the Birmingham area and the west midlands to improve local transport. However, I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. Across the country, the argument about investing and capacity is powerful, but I come back to the point that if policy is to cut spending rather than to increase it, there is an inevitable consequence—we do not have to speculate about what it is because this country has been there before.
  668
  I want to say a few words about aviation. The hon. Member for South Suffolk has held his appointment only for a few hours so I forgive him for not having read the air transport White Paper that we published in December. For the first time in a long time, it set out a framework for policy for airport development for the next 20 to 30 years and has been widely welcomed outside. Of course, there is controversy at individual sites about runway development and so on, but as I listened to the hon. Gentleman, he gave me the clear impression that he was against development at Stansted, against development at Heathrow, against development at Birmingham and, I dare say, if a few other Members had stood up he would have been against development in their areas, too. Perhaps I should have asked him about his plans for Edinburgh airport, although he might want to check out local opinion before he gives his view.
  The matter is duff cult. The number of people flying has increased dramatically over the past few years; nearly half the population flies at least once a year, so if we are to avoid the problems we currently experience on our roads and railways we need sensible capacity increases in aviation We have set out our stall. I used to ask the right hon. Member for Maidenhead what her policy was, but sadly. she never got around to telling me. Before the hon. Member for South Suffolk leaves his post, in six and a hall months' time, I hope that he at least will come up with a policy.
  Mr. Mark Francois rose—
  Lembit Öpik rose—
  Mr. Darling: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the Secretary of State accept that small, regional airports have an important role to play for a relatively small number of passengers who need to get from one place to another fast? As long as development is carried out sensitively, with attention to planning and noise considerations, such airports can be an important aid to economic development, especially in rural and outlying areas. The Government should think about making small investments that deliver big returns of that sort.
  Mr. Darling: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. With the Welsh Assembly, we are looking at the Welsh airport network. He is right to say that small airports have an important role. But we must be realistic; we cannot put small airports everywhere. There has to be a balance. He would no doubt find that opinion among his constituents was sharply divided as soon as they thought that a runway would be built nearby.
  Before I turn to abusing the Liberals, as I said I would, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois).
  Mr. Francois: I am reluctant to delay any initiative that leads to abuse of the Liberal Democrats, so I thank the Secretary of State for giving way.
  On Stansted, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that current capacity for the existing runway is approximately 20 million passenger movements a year,

  669
  and that, with full utilisation of that runway, it would be possible to increase the number to about 40 million. Given the tremendous environmental damage that would be created in the county of Essex by the large expansion of the footprint of Stansted that will be required for the second runway, is not the logical compromise to increase capacity on the existing runway to 40 million? That would give some of the expansion in capacity that the right hon. Gentleman wants without causing tremendous environmental damage in Essex.
  Mr. Darling: We looked hard at that matter and I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, when considering Stansted and the south-east, we took the view that we needed additional capacity, although the hon. Gentleman should remember that it will not happen next year or the year after, given the length of time that it takes to do such things. We are talking about a second runway at Stansted in the first part of the next decade and the Heathrow development will take place even later than that. At present, capacity at Stansted is almost fully taken up at peak hours, so we need to plan ahead. Our starting point was that we should make maximum use of what we already had and we considered that, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, we came to the conclusion that a second runway was necessary.
  The Liberals have been very quiet, so I shall not say too much about them. However, I am curious about two things. When I looked at their rebuttal of our paper about their spending commitments, one of which was almost £2 billion more for the railways, they responded that that was no longer a commitment, owing to changed circumstances. Have the circumstances changed again? Secondly, their plan was to double investment in local transport schemes, but their response was that that, too, was no longer a commitment, owing to changed circumstances. Have those circumstances changed? I make those points only because occasionally the Liberals suggest that many things could be done, without always mentioning that the money has to be provided, too.
  I conclude on this point: there is a lot more to do on transport. We face huge problems that have built up over many years, but the central point and, I suspect, the dividing line between the parties over the next period of time, is that we are prepared to sustain the amount of money that we are spending on transport, where we have already seen a steady increase, but the Conservatives are committed to a dramatic cut. For as long as that remains the case, whatever they say about transport will lack credibility. For that reason, I suspect that the House will reject their motion.
  1.57 pm
  John Thurso: I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to his new post It is nice to see him at the Dispatch Box, as his predecessor was rarely in the Chamber when we debated transport. I look forward to debating the subject with him on in my future occasions. He will probably find that transport is one of the most fertile policy areas for his party, as it is currently entirely policy-free.
  No one can doubt that transport is central to our future prosperity and we must pay great attention to it. However, we need to address a paradox at the centre of
  670
  transport policy; it is a key part of transport policy, but I have not heard much about it this afternoon. On the one hand, transport is critical to the economy. The ability to move freight and passengers efficiently is vital to productivity; it is both a driver of, and is driven by, the economy. Equally important, people need good transport links to give them access to facilities and services—shops, education, culture and many other things. Sometimes, especially in rural areas, the lack of transport is a major cause of social exclusion.
  On the other hand, however, in our modern, highly fossil-fuel-consuming, mobile society, transport has major environmental costs that we ignore at our peril. In March, for example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a report on air emission estimates, which revealed that carbon dioxide emissions from road traffic were 31.9 million tonnes in 2002—the highest since 1970—while nitrous oxide emissions had increased to 14,800 tonnes, a rise of 55 per cent. over five years.
  Aviation produces an even gloomier picture. Consumption rose by 21 per cent. between 1997 and 2003. London's three busiest airports alone produce a staggering 2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and 13,000 tonnes of nitrous oxide each year. The aviation industry's emissions are projected to double between 1990 and 2010.
  Clearly, such emission levels are wholly unsustainable. We are long past the time when we can stick our heads in the sand and hope that global warming will go away. Climate change is clearly a reality. We simply cannot go on like this if we want to avoid what the film "The Day After Tomorrow" shows us.
  Mr. Francois: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. He mentioned one Select Committee report. He may be aware that the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I serve, has produced a number of reports on the environmental effects of aviation. Given the effect of so-called "radiative forcing", aircraft emissions can have four times the effect on the ozone layer when they are made at altitude—when aircraft are in flight—than they have when those chemicals are released into the atmosphere at ground level. That very important environmental point is not lost on people who live in north Essex.
  John Thurso: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a valid point. It is extremely valid when one considers that projections suggest that aviation emissions will constitute 50 per cent. of emissions in this country by about 2020.
  The objective of our transport policy, therefore, must be to reconcile the need for an efficient and effective transport system with the imperative of reducing emissions. Such an objective can be achieved only if the Government, providers and consumers change their attitudes considerably, but the Government must set out the vision—the long-term plan—and provide the leadership. Currently, plans are laid on a 10-year basis. I suggest that 10 years is far too short. It is obvious that we need to deal in a much longer time scale for all modes of transport—something like 25 to 30 years. Indeed, the Secretary of State has recognised that, and I pay tribute

  671
  to the Government for the aviation White Paper, which takes a much more long-term view. I may not agree with all its conclusions, but I absolutely agree that considering modes of transport in the long term is vital if we are to have sustainable policies and a clear vision that the public can sign up to. The same is needed for the railways.
  Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether imposing an additional environmental duty on aviation fuel is Liberal Democrat policy?
  John Thurso: Our current policy is to seek to ensure that the external costs of aviation are properly reflected. There have been suggestions that that should be done by means of an aviation fuel tax, which I believe has considerable merit. The problem is that aviation fuel tax would be extremely difficult to put it in place without treaties at the very least in Europe. if not throughout the world. So I rather prefer—this is what I am arguing for within my party, and I hope that it may become our policy—a tax based on the aircraft that take off from this country, rather than air passenger duty, which has absolutely no green benefit whatever and was introduced by a Conservative Government simply to balance the books. I would get rid of air passenger duty and tax aeroplanes instead. That would not only encourage the aviation industry to start to produce more fuel-efficient aeroplanes and airlines to ensure that they operate more effectively, but direct the taxation at the bad. It would be a much better way to externalise the taxation. I sincerely hope that, when that policy has been adopted through our party channels, I shall be able to present it.
  Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for diverting for a moment to clarify that interesting point. He is talking about scrapping air passenger duty and replacing it with a levy on planes. Presumably, the airlines would pass on the cost to passengers. How would that change anything?
  John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman misses an obvious point: air passenger duty is levied on each passenger, so it is easy to put on each ticket whatever the cost is. A duty levied on the aeroplane could not be passed on to passengers by adding it to the ticket price for the simple reason that the airline never knows how many people will fly on it. If the aeroplane itself were taxed, the amount would have to be included in the airline industry's costs. It would be passed on in the total cost of the tickets for all passengers, which is precisely what we seek to achieve, so the true costs would be externalised. The airlines would not be able to show £9 to fly somewhere in Europe and then add on tax and all the other bits in brackets.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that I very much hope that that becomes Liberal Democrat policy?
  John Thurso: I am confident that it will.
  We must also consider managing demand, and we have already started to talk about doing so. It is important that we consider the true cost of each mode of
  672
  travel as well as managing demand, which is a vital tool in resolving the paradox. We can no longer accept that everyone has a free and unfettered right to travel wherever they wish. whenever they wish, by whatever mode of travel they wish. Transport is a limited resource, so it must be managed wisely. It is for the Government to influence how people and goods are transported by the policies that favour those modes with the least environmental cost. Our citizens have a right to efficient transport, but not by every mode, everywhere. Our resources must be managed. Against that background and given the resources available, it is clear that we have not begun to maximise our potential.
  Take freight, for example, which is vital to commerce and industry. More than 90 per cent. of freight arrives at and departs from our shores by sea, but it is largely transported by road thereafter. Yet, all along our coasts, many medium and small ports are underused. Surely, transporting some of our freight onwards by coastal shipping would be an important addition to our armoury. After all sea travel is one of the most environmentally friendly ways to move freight. The infrastructure exists. so why do the Government do nothing to promote that form of transport?
  The railways offer a considerable opportunity for further freight movement, but freight trains need access to the rail network to maximise it. We also need to promote the concept of freight villages and the related logistics. That, too, will require Government support. Getting our railways right is the keystone for transport in the future. The industry needs sound structures for the future, and the outcome of the current rail review must settle the questions about the current arrangements.
  The objective of rail policy should be. first, to provide a safe, reliable and affordable system of public transport and, secondly, to invest in the network's future to provide a modern and efficient railway for the 21st century. If we are to have a successful rail network, three functions need to be undertaken in considering the structure, which is the objective of the rail review: first, strategic direction; secondly, service delivery; and, thirdly, regulation.
  On strategic direction, the Department for Transport should provide a long-term, strategic vision for our railways. The Government, in partnership with the private sector, provide much of the funding, and it is their responsibility to ensure that an inefficient transport infrastructure exists to support the economy. The Government must therefore provide the leadership and vision, which, as I have said, should be over 25 to 30 years, in the Department for Transport. That would effectively remove the need for the Strategic Rail Authority.
  The management of service delivery should remain with Network Rail for the infrastructure and with the train operating companies for the franchises. The Department for Transport should be responsible both for funding arrangements and for defining the strategy for Network Rail, working in a new, simplified regulatory framework. Network Rail is best placed to be responsible for the day-to-day management and running of the network, together with the day-to-day co-ordination of services. I saw a leak in the weekend press that suggested that Ministers would be responsible

  673
  for some of the day-to-day management of the railways. I sincerely hope that we never arr lye at that unhappy state of affairs.
  On regulation, it is essential that there is an independent regulator. The current arrangements are clearly over-bureaucratic and complicated, particularly with regard to safety. The regulation model best suited to the railways must follow that of the Civil Aviation Authority for air transport, whereby economic, environmental and safety regulation come under one body. The new regulator would include the new rail accident investigation branch as well as consumer representation. That would mean removing all safety functions from the Health and Safety Executive and giving them to the new body, which should also take responsibility for organising the franchising process. It might also be worth looking at the duties of the Office of Fair Trading relating to the railways and considering whether they might more suitably be placed under the auspices of the new regulator.
  There is, however, one leftover from the awful privatisation that is a complete waste of time, wholly unnecessary and adds un-needed cost. I refer to the monopolistic rolling stock companies, which add very little. If anyone wants proof that they are simply a cash cow, the fact that they are all owned by banks does it for me.
  If franchises were longer, it would be possible to envisage a system whereby the train operating companies could become owners of rolling stock and therefore be able to have control over their assets and costs in much the same way as happens in other areas, such as lifeline ferry links, where expensive assets are passed on from one franchisee to another, having been amortised for their life over the balance sheet of the first company. Examining the rolling stock companies is a critical part of taking forward the seduction of costs on our railways.
  Chris Grayling: I am amazed by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is describing a wish to move from one leasing arrangement to another. Leasing companies, regardless of who they are and what they do, will make a margin. Surely he agrees that the rolling stock side is the one demonstrable and tangible success of privatisation: the substantial new investments in rolling stock are visible and can be found on the rail network all the time. Does he want to go back to a situation in which the companies buy their own stock, or is he talking simply about moving from one kind of leasing company to another?
  John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman's comment that the ROSCOs are the one successful part of privatisation is very revealing. That is at the heart of Conservative thinking. Those companies are the one part that makes a great deal of money for the City, which is the only thing that they seem to add to the equation. It would be perfectly possible for the train operating companies to have access to capital, and their capital cost is considerably smaller than the lease cost that they currently pay. I believe that their average cost of capital is around 7 or 8 per cent., so if they are paying 7 or 8 per cent. using capital from the equity market or from the borrowing to which they have access, they will be very able to acquire stock. What is needed is a mechanism by
  674
  which the stock can be transferred at the end of the franchise. Above all, in the longer term, we need to commit to expanding the network to permit more capacity, particularly for fast trains and freight.
  The Secretary of State asked me to say a word about our spending plans, and I am happy to confirm that our current policies for the next Parliament envisage nothing that involves an increase in transport spending. We are quite happy to live within the sums that are currently available. I agree with him that there has been considerable waste in the rail system, and Network Rail, through the policy that I agreed with of bringing maintenance back in-house, has been able to make savings. In the shorter term, all that is required to be done can be achieved within the existing budget.
  I do not seek the same expenditure on each area. I would certainly seek a shift in policies that might lead to more being spent on public transport than on other things, but I am happy to confirm that the global figure for the Department would remain the same. However, before the Secretary of State announces on a website that a new commitment has been made—it is not a new commitment—I hasten to add that I believe that whoever is in government has a duty to look 25 to 30 years into the long term and decide about the infrastructure that needs to be put in place over that time to meet our goals. There is a serious and mature debate to be had about that, and I would be happy to enter into it.
  I believe that there should be an assumption against expanding the road network. There will certainly be areas in which new schemes present the best cost-benefit overall and sometimes the best environmental option. We should certainly invest in those cases. However, I do not believe that simply building more roads provides an answer to the problems that we face. It is well documented that new roads create traffic.
  We also need to consider how roads are charged for. The Secretary of State mentioned road charging, and it is worth mentioning in parenthesis that the actual cost of motoring in 2001 was lower in real terms than it was in 1974. An answer that one of my hon. Friends received from the Secretary of State's Department helpfully used a base of 100 for the cost of motoring in 1974. In 2001, the figure had reduced to 98.7. Interestingly, on the same time scale the costs of rail travel had increased from 100 to 185.3 and of bus travel from 100 to 166.1. Since 1997, the cost of rail travel has gone up by 8 per cent. and that of bus travel by 5 per cent., but despite what the Conservatives say, motoring costs have gone down by 1 per cent.
  Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House on Liberal Democrat policy on this issue? Is it to get the cost of motoring up to 100 or perhaps a bit beyond, and the cost of rail travel to below its current figure?
  John Thurso: We would like the true cost of motoring to be apparent. I note from the table that the previous Conservative Government had the highest figure, having got it up to 104 in 1979. Our policy, as I shall show in a moment, is to make sure that the real costs of motoring are seen. That is best done by removing vehicle excise duty and fuel duty and replacing them with road

  675
  user charging. As the Secretary of State said, the technology for that is by no means proven, although there is one scheme that believes that it could be implemented immediately. It will take time to develop and implement the technology but, over a five to 10-year period, I see no reason why road charging should not prove the best way forward. If I heard him right, he invited us to discuss that matter, and I an certainly happy to do so.
  I shall not go into detail on aviation. We had a very good debate on it last week, but my points about emissions make it clear that restraining the uncontrolled growth of aviation must be part of the longer-term strategy. In part, that can be done by providing real and competitive alternatives. It is mad that, in an island as small as ours, the most effective way of getting from London to Edinburgh is by air. There should be a rail alternative. A rail alternative was timetabled some years ago that would have done the journey in four hours, which is almost exactly the same as the time of a door-to-door journey by air. If we could promote that alternative, we might be able to remove some of the short-haul requirements for domestic aviation. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Korea and, on the day that I was there, a headline in the International Herald Tribune highlighted the collapse of domestic aviation demand there because of the opening of a new high-speed rail link from the south of the country to Seoul. It achieved the exact objective of reducing demand, so we should consider such schemes.
  My colleagues and I will support the Conservative motion, albeit with some reluctance. It is pretty high on complaint yet, as the speech made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk showed, low on alternatives. When the Conservatives were in government, they did little for roads—the facts do not back up their rhetoric. They completely rodgered the railways and hid from just about everything else. The answer to the problem that Conservative Members have given in recent Westminster Hall debates and other debates in which I have participated has seemed to be. "Just build more roads." We had a long discussion about port capacity during one debate, and the Conservative spokesman's answer to the problem was, "Build more roads everywhere." Up until today, their answer seemed to be, "Build more roads and speed. You can go as fast as you like."
  Although the Conservatives have little to offer, their criticism of the Government is justified. There are alternatives. In the longer term, we need a clear strategy and, above all, a commitment to an integrated transport policy that uses all available modes of transport. It is up to the Government to provide and deliver that vision.
  2.21 pm
  Lawrie Quinn: I feel the same way that I felt on Sunday night when we got to the 90th minute. I thought that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) was going to support the Government amendment, so I feel very disappointed. I regret that because I have a considerable amount of time for the hon. Gentleman. His constituency is similar to mine, although it is on the other side of the border. I applaud his attempts to talk
  676
  and listen to people from the transport industry. I hope that he will reconfigure his approach on the amendment during the debate. It is sad that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has left the Chamber because I thought that the official Opposition might be making a visionary attempt to hold a timely and appropriate debate on this day—I shall come to that in a moment.
  I had especially hoped that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) would be in the Chamber so that I could take up an outstanding matter that arose during her recent visit to my constituency during the election campaign. It was a whistlestop visit with quick photographs by the quayside before she left, but that is not easy to do in a constituency such as Scarborough and Whitby. The right hon. Lady failed to listen or respond to any of the many questions asked by my constituents—albeit local journalists—about Conservative party transport policy. Indeed, the only reference made to transport policy as a result of her brief visit to the quayside in Whitby was a photograph in the local paper of her famous shoes—I do not think that that had anything to do with pedestrian strategy. The visit showed how the right hon. Lady, who is in charge of an official Opposition policy, failed to recognise a key priority in my constituency and many others throughout the country, despite the fact that her party wishes to become the Government.
  As I said earlier, the debate is timely because today is the day on which the Institution of Civil Engineers publishes its report "The State of the Nation"—I declare an interest because I am a chartered civil engineer. The report is an independent assessment of the nation's logistics, key elements of the economy and everyday life, that is written by people such as me who are involved in the delivery of renewal and maintenance for our infrastructure. I pay tribute to the institution for commissioning the work. Many right hon. and hon. Members will have received invitations from fellow civil engineers to the Institution of Civil Engineers parliamentary reception this evening. I hope that the hon. Member for South Suffolk will go along and listen to practitioners who are trying to maintain this country's transport network because they do not feel that Conservative prescriptions thus far match their assessment on the country's transport policy.
  During my 19 years in the transport industry, I reckon that about 60 per cent. of my design and assessment work behind my prognosis of what needed to happen to our transport infrastructure, and especially the rail infrastructure, was done to no effect. It was consigned to drawers and the archives—I guess that some might have ended up in the national railway museum by now. The Conservative Government of the time failed to deliver a transport policy. They failed to deliver on railways and certainly on this country's road network. The hon. Member for South Suffolk said that when the Conservative party left government in 1997, it left a wish list of road schemes at the Department for Transport. However, the wish list could not be delivered, so many of my constituents were disappointed that the much-needed revitalisation of the A64 corridor did not happen, despite the fact that my predecessor in my constituency, the Conservative Member John Sykes, had long promised it. Such a situation was a consequence of the boom-bust economy and the stop-go approach on policy delivery during the 18 sad and

  677
  backward-looking years when the Conservatives failed to listen to the many communities that wanted investment in transport.
  The Institution of Civil Engineers has rightly framed a national debate in much the same way that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross suggested. We need a debate from which politics is removed and a long-term strategic approach. As we try to reach conclusions on what needs to be put right, we need not only to assess what must be put in place, but to ensure that appropriate finance is available. I hope that as many Conservative Members as possible will go to listen to my colleagues in Great George street.
  I pay tribute to the current president of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Douglas Oakervee, who has a worldwide reputation for producing transport schemes. He was one of the people behind the provision and delivery of the Hong Kong mass rapid transit system and Hong Kong airport. He is a world-class engineer. The possibility of earning real revenue for the country through exporting his and my colleagues' skills and their ability to deliver such major projects must be based on a coherent and strategic domestic approach. We need a flow of work so that we may not only renew, build and maintain this country's infrastructure—especially our transport infrastructure—but ensue that we introduce new technologies and techniques.
  The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross talked about his experiences in Korea. I remind him that one of the results of the Channel tunnel rail link was a modal switch affecting journeys from London to Paris and Brussels. The switch occurred because the high-speed railway was delivered on time and on budget. Many civil engineers thought that that deserved much celebration, but sadly, as ever, the national press failed to recognise the tremendous achievement of the team that put the project together. Such achievements can be delivered if there is continuity of approach.
  I agree with Douglas Oakervee, who says in "The State of the Nation", the report that was published today:
  "It is up to government, in partnership with other stakeholders, to educate public opinion and thereby gain support to take the important but unpalatable decisions that will protect our standard of living and keep this nation prosperous.
  Our report this year does not therefore simply challenge government to take action. It challenges everyone to become part of the solution, not part of the problem."
  I expressed a similar sentiment to great effect, I believe, when I stood for election in 1997. As an engineer who is also a Member of Parliament, I believe that if Members focused on listening to practitioners our debates would be better informed and there would be an opportunity, well received by our constituents, to achieve the right transport solutions for the nation.
  As well as making an assessment of the nation's transport infrastructure, ICE looked at regional questions this year. Many Members will have received correspondence from it during the past few days indicating the nature of progress in their own region. I pay tribute to Mr. Colin Clinton, who chaired ICE's work on transport in "The State of the Nation" and examined the Government's performance in Yorkshire and the Humber, a region that I represent. Like any
  678
  school report, it assesses performance with an A, B or C. I was pleased that ICE, an unbiased, independent body, believed that there was an improvement in the delivery of transport policy in Yorkshire and the Humber, and gave it a B/C grade. I do not know whether that is a B-minus or a C-plus, but it is a distinct improvement on the position in my region and many other parts of the country in 1997.
  We obviously face challenges in rail, the area of transport that I know most about. The east coast main line gives cause for concern as it has almost reached capacity. The frustrations of business people and other passengers are sometimes recorded in the regional press. Urgent progress should be made on tackling delays in upgrades on the route because there is a strong indication that that is starting to have an effect on the growth of the economy in the region. The TransPennine service is vital to my Scarborough constituency, and the new franchise has produced some of the best improvements in the country in recent years. I pay tribute to the TransPennine team for the delivery of the new service. New rolling stock is promised and rapid services link the Pennines to the north-west and connect my constituency to the east coast main line and thence to the capital.
  Some improvements on the TransPennine route could be translated into developments on the east coast main line, including longer passenger trains and the provision of passing loops. Above all, more capacity should be built into the system to allow for freight services, which are vital to the manufacturers on the Yorkshire coast and in the rest of the region. I welcome the fact that the franchises are being renegotiated. The northern franchise is important to communities in the Whitby area, which is serviced by the Esk Valley line, and I urge the Minister to do all that he can to encourage speedy announcements on that route.
  I pay tribute to the Strategic Rail Authority for its work with the community rail partnerships to revitalise and reinvigorate the crucial relationship between local communities, particularly rural communities, and the railways. I urge the Minister to consider the outputs of the Esk Valley line, which has been identified as a suitable pilot by the SRA, as we need to make sure that the public get value for money on rural railways and that we achieve efficiency and effectiveness in our transport network.
  Since 1997, the Yorkshire box, which consists of the M1, the M62, the A1 and the M18, has improved and reinvigorated local transport systems in the heart of the region. Promised improvements to upgrade the A1 corridor to motorway standard are in stark contrast to the state of affairs under the right hon. Member for Maidenhead. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), took considerable time and effort to meet my constituents, including members of the business community, and learn about the importance of the upgrade of the A64 corridor to the area. I pay tribute to the work that has been done to redefine strategic priorities in Yorkshire. The Government's regional transport policy has enabled us to have a dialogue and consider appropriate improvements and upgrades to the A64 corridor.

  679
  Scarborough and Whitby are important tourism destinations in the summer and early autumn—in fact, almost all year round now—and local transport plans have been introduced in partnership with local authorities, North Yorkshire county council and Scarborough borough council. Park and ride schemes are about to come on stream and there is better handling and management of traffic systems in the area. Those vital schemes would not have been introduced by a Conservative Government. My constituents know that if such a Government were elected before those plans are fully delivered they would go into the wish list bin that was clearly utilised in the mid-1990s.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and his comments about Conservative policy. He talked about the Yorkshire box and the work that began in 1997. Will he not pay tribute to the last Conservative Government for making it possible to create that box?
  Lawrie Quinn: I pay tribute to any Government who respond to the agenda of the region. That is why I have made great play of all political parties listening to practitioners. Regrettably, for a vital scheme of regional and national significance, there were many schemes that were not delivered by the Administration that the hon. Gentleman supported. Many schemes were consigned to the dustbin of history the—wish list of transport policy, as I would call it.
  It behoves all Members to make a proper assessment of the requirements of transport policy. We must not just propose schemes—we must ensure that the resources are available to support them. The central failure of the economic policy of the previous Administration prevented transport policy from moving forward. If the hon. Member for South Suffolk had been allowed to develop his argument further, he would also have come to the conclusion that the main problems for the development of transport policy, as I experienced during my professional career, arose from the boom-bust, stop-go approach. We need a national settlement, a strategic view and a long-term agenda, as proposed by members of my institution over at Great George street. I hope to see the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) there and I will gladly introduce him to his constituents there, who support the proposition that I am advancing. The ideas proposed by the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer do not come close to responding to a national agenda, which is extremely important.
  I shall deal briefly with airport strategy in the region of Yorkshire and the Humber. Earlier in the debate reference was made to Finningley. Regrettably, the spokesperson for the Conservative party did not seem to know much about Finningley or what it was. Air journey possibilities from outside the region need to be developed. Partly because of the excellent TransPennine railway connection from Scarborough to Manchester airport, 85 per cent. of air journeys undertaken by my constituents probably start from Manchester airport, rather than from an airport in the Yorkshire region that is a shorter trip away. Finningley offers great
  680
  possibilities not only for business and leisure travellers, but for air freight services. I look forward to a rail link into that airport near Doncaster.
  Finally, I was pleased to hear the comments about coastal traffic, coming as I do from an area with a long maritime tradition. I say that with no humility, because my constituents would never forgive me if I did, given the art of navigation, the legacy of Captain Cook and the legacy of maritime skills that originated and developed in Whitby, which has a long naval heritage. The potential for that small port to make an effective contribution in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is tremendous, but to bring that about investment would be needed in the land links into the port.
  I should be delighted to speak to my hon. Friend the Minister, probably at some length, about the possibility of supplying an eight-mile missing link between Pickering and Rillington junction near Malton, which would afford access par excellence from the port of Whitby to the east coast main line and avoid the long journey around. That would be particularly useful for freight traffic and would revitalise the port of Whitby and make a major contribution to the strategy mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross to reinvigorate coastal traffic. That would be a worthwhile project and my colleagues from the Institution of Civil Engineers would undoubtedly support it.
  On road and transport safety, it is well known to the House that one of the challenges of representing a part of the country containing a national park is that there is a higher than average number of accidents caused by motorcyclists. The so-called boy racer has moved on, and people of my age or even older who have a large disposable income power through the North Yorkshire countryside on a Harley-Davidson or whatever. Regrettably, there is a higher proportion of accidents in my constituency than elsewhere in the countryside.
  I was interested to note that the Yorkshire Post today highlights the fact that the roads of the Yorkshire region are a blackspot for motorcycle accidents. That is based on a new report from the AA Motoring Trust, which found that four roads in the region are blackspots for motorcycle accidents. I raised the issue earlier this month with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton).
  It is incumbent on my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us about the work that is going on between the Department for Transport and health bodies to improve rider behaviour on our roads. That has a great impact on accident and emergency services and on transport and leads to loss of life. I urge him to tell the House what work is in progress to improve the behaviour of motorcyclists not only in my constituency, but throughout the country. A better information service is needed, because prevention is better than cure. The fatalities that unfortunately occur on our roads are a price too high to pay.
  In conclusion, I commend the Government on what has been achieved so far to provide continuity in transport policy and a long-term approach, not a short-term fix. It is part of the Government's overall approach to use the benefits of a stronger economy to deliver. I

  681
  know that my constituents and the people who work in the construction industry, some of whom hon. Members might have the opportunity to speak to later today, will tell them that bridge builders believe in building bridges and setting foundations for the future. I believe that the Government's policy does that, and that is the way forward for transport in this country.
  2.48 pm
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Institution of Civil Engineers is an historic, estimable and professional organisation, and it is fortunate to have the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) as its Member. The ICE will be well pleased with his contribution to the debate, although given the rosy picture that he painted on its behalf, it may be confused by the fact that he represents 50 per cent. of the total Labour Back-Bench force. Two Labour Members came to defend and commend the Government. If, on the other hand, he had claimed to represent one of the best purveyors of fish and chips in the country, he would have carried both sides of the House.
  If one looks across the range of Government policy, transport is the best example of where old Labour and new Labour collide. The Government have lost the plot on transport, but they did so primarily in their first Parliament. I well remember the days when it was my privilege to stand at the Government Dispatch Box and the right hon. Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is now Deputy Prime Minister, frothed at me from the Opposition Dispatch Box, shouting that privatisation of the railways was wrong. When I told him that I believed that, after 40 years of annual decreases in the number of people using the railways, privatisation would mean significant increases in passenger numbers and more investment that would lead to new trains, he frothed and fumed and vehemently denied it; but of course that is exactly what happened. He made the big mistake of being so emotionally antagonistic to the developing railway system that he could not form objective judgments, so he focused the debate on punctuality, which, although important to passengers, is not as important if it is the exclusive focus, as it was in his case. As a result, issues relating to safety and maintenance got set to one side.
  The right hon. Gentleman also fulminated against roads. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby was right to say that it is traditional for Governments—not just the last Conservative Government, for his information—to have a long list or roads that it would be good to build. I can lay claim to being the first Secretary of State to decide to inject a degree of rationality into that list, which was so long under both Governments that some people would have had to wait 30 or 40 years to see their particular road. That did not seem sensible, and I tried to reduce the list to a size that would be deliverable within a reasonable time frame. In describing it as a wish list, the hon. Gentleman condemns his own Ministers. We initiated a change of policy that said, "It would be good to build all these roads, but let's at least have a list that is likely to be deliverable in the foreseeable future."
  As the Government's first Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hull, East brought to Government the antagonism to roads that he had honed
  682
  on me and my right hon. Friends and, as it says in the eighth report of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, slashed all the road building programmes. On 6 June 1997, he said:
  "I will have failed if in five years' time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order, but I urge you to hold me to it."
  That is like everything else that Ministers say: it is all spin. He did not mean it, he did not deliver it, he never could deliver it, he was not capable of forming a coherent policy that might be the basis for delivering it and he still rides around in his two Jaguars having failed by his own account, but not in the least embarrassed by it.
  Although it is never a good career move for an Opposition Back Bencher to be mildly supportive of and sorry for the current incumbent of any Cabinet job, the blame for the fact that the Government's transport policy is a mess lies primarily not with the current Secretary of State, but with his two predecessors. I commend him—again, not a good career move—for having talked about reinstating a road-building programme. That takes him back, as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby will note, precisely to where we left off in 1997: we have lost seven years in the process. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State in his place. His two predecessors—I shall come to the other one in a moment—did their best to screw up transport policy because they were not comfortable with trying to bring it into the 21st century and he now has to make decisions that are driven less by their political ideology, and in some cases emotional distaste, than by the need to realign Government policy with the realities of today.
  One problem that the Secretary of State faces—I hope that his successor, whom I believe will be my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), will address it—is the need radically to speed up the roads programme. I was the Secretary of State who made the decision to widen the M25 between the M4 and the M3 as part of the Government's submission to the fifth terminal inquiry. That work is only just starting. I was the Secretary of State who made the decision, in the context of speeding the cross-Channel rail link, to put the terminal at St. Pancras. That work is only just starting.
  I say to the Secretary of State that if we are to modernise the roads programme—he has said that he wants to do so, as would any sensible person, particularly a former Transport Minister—we need to have a radical look at the public inquiry arrangements and decision-making processes that relate to road building because they are so antiquated that nobody could even put a date on them. I have some ideas of my own about how that might be achieved while still defending the democratic process and I am happy to share them with anybody who is interested, though not in today's debate.
  I want to say a few words about rail. The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) characteristically made his early comment and dashed for the door. In this case, it was: "Wasn't the rail privatisation process awful?" or words to that effect. I was not the Secretary of State who devised that policy or carried it through the House, but I moved it forward to completion and the increased passenger numbers and

  683
  investment that we see today. It tends to be forgotten that other countries looked at how we privatised our railways and followed our example.
  I find it sad that these days we spend too much time talking about the process instead of the passengers whom the process was designed to benefit. I chide the Secretary of State ever so slightly for his recent decision on fares. One of my most cherished memories of government is the Cabinet sub-committee meeting in which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and I debated my proposal to move to a retail prices index minus 1 regime for 70 per cent. of fares. Hon. Members who know the previous Chancellor will understand when I say that it was a robust conversation. However, we agreed the policy. We did that because, as I said at the time, it ought to be made clear that passengers should get and be seen to get some benefit from privatisation. It was a signal that we were in favour of the railways. It was also, given that we had an RPI plus policy on roads, an indication of how we wished people to behave. I regret that that signal has been removed and that fares will increase, perhaps sharply, when the Government's rhetoric is about trying to get more people to use the railways.
  Lawrie Quinn: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the architecture of and preparation for rail privatisation, were not the previous Government trying to manage a decline in expectation of the railways, especially for freight, rather than cater for the expansion that subsequently occurred as a result of an economy that has done well? The previous Government sought to establish a system to manage a decline rather than to provide for expansion.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: On the contrary. For once, I do not have to bore the hon. Gentleman with many facts and figures. Indeed, I condemn him to a worse fate: he should read all the speeches that I made when I was Secretary of State for Transport. He will then know precisely what we were doing.
  On reflection, we made one mistake in the privatisation process. The train operators were all new business men, who were keen to run businesses that would benefit passengers and customers but also their shareholders. It is possible to do that simultaneously. Our mistake was to allow old British Rail management to become the management of Railtrack. The consequences were not good and change had to be introduced.
  At that point, let us consider the contribution of the Secretary of State's other predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers). In a statement to the House, he announced that he intended to put Railtrack into a special vehicle. In response to that, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and I got to our feet and warned the Government that it was one of the most damaging decisions that they had ever made in the context of the public sector. We said that it would seriously undermine confidence in the private finance initiative and make public-private partnerships much more expensive. All that happened.
  I remind Labour Members that the private holders of Railtrack shares will take the Government to court later in the year. We will then see precisely the effect of the
  684
  former Secretary of State's judgment. If there is evidence that Her Majesty's Treasury leaned on the Secretary of State about the decision—as a former Secretary of State, I would be amazed if the Treasury had not leaned on him—the consequences for the Government's transport policy will be catastrophic.
  We gave operating companies 15-year leases because we understood that they needed certainty to invest. The Government give them two-year leases and the companies will not invest. In one sense, that is not a party political point but a reflection of the marketplace. If companies do not believe that they have time to recoup their investment, they will not invest. The Government must make up their mind quickly about whether they wish to sustain and develop the investment and the passenger attraction of the railways through the contracts that they are willing to give the operators.
  It has become clear beyond peradventure that the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail do not have money to invest in stations. The operating companies are the only ones that have money to improve our stations. They will not invest if they are given only two-year contracts. They need long contracts if they are to have the confidence to invest not only in developing services but in stations.
  Let me make a constituency point. I am greatly privileged to be in r ty 26th year of representing some part of the city of Peterborough. For years, we have been promised badly needed redevelopment of our railway station. Pete) borough is the first stop on the east coast main line but he promise of redevelopment was made circa 1975 or 1980. Railtrack promised that we would have it and die SRA said that it would happen. Now the SRA will not even promise.
  Indeed, in Peterborough, we do not know whether we shall have a new station and, if we do, whether it will face in the same direction as the current station or whether the plan will be reversed and the buildings constructed on the ether side of the track. We have a plan to develop our station 25 years after the end of the development corporation and we do not even know the direction that it is likely to face and what will be built in its environs, despite its position at the heart of the master plan to redevelop the city. Ministers will understand that such long-standing constituency problems cause hon Members from all parties to get agitated when we consider transport policy.
  My last point concerns aviation. Again, I believe that I have the privilege of being the last Secretary of State to review airport policy At that time, I made it possible to have a second parallel runway at Gatwick, although legal constraints meant that that could not happen before the middle of the next decade. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk was right to say that, because aviation policy is so sensitive, decision making must be exceptionally sharp. Our difficulty is not in acknowledging the need for greater capacity—I agree with the Government that greater capacity is required. However, decision making to reduce blight, uncertainty and unhappiness not commensurate with that understanding.
  The Government have a wonderful opportunity to site the third major hub in the United Kingdom not in the south-east but in the midlands or the north-east, where an increasing number of people go for their

  685
  transport needs. I pay special tribute to those who run Manchester airport because, from my days as Transport Secretary, I was impressed with the service that they provided.
  This Government made a decision that they will live to regret when they decided, after we had robustly resisted the proposal, to pass responsibility for landing rights from our control to Europe. We all know how difficult it is to put in place new treaties. I hope that I will not bore the House when I say that I was the last Secretary of State to conclude an agreement on this issue with the Americans. We have not had one for eight years, or even longer. Now the future of Heathrow, Gatwick and the third hub, wherever that is, will be determined in Brussels and not in this country. Hon. Members must ask themselves why Brussels should look after our interests when Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol and Frankfurt airports are there. I worry about the longterm health of our aviation industry. That issue would be a good one to repatriate to the competence of the British Government and I shall corn mend that proposal to my right hon. Friends when we return to power.
  I started by saying that this Government had lost the plot, but we made some mistakes in our transport policy as well. I want to admit to one today, to try to head off the present Secretary of State from making things worse. He said that he was considering extending variable speed technology after the M25 experiment. I have to tell the House that, on one of the few occasions in my ministerial career when I was conned by civil servants, I agreed to that variable speed limit being put in place. It is a waste of public money. I drive down the M25, crawling at 10 mph while looking at a sign telling me that I am allowed to drive at 40. Or sometimes I crawl at 20 mph past a sign saying that I can actually go to 50. The reality of the road controls the speed, not a number on a gantry. I put my hands up in this regard. With hindsight, which is always 20:20, I realise that I wasted some taxpayers' money. and I urge the present Secretary of State to learn from my example and not do the same.
  The Government's transport policy is a mess, but it is not primarily a mess of this Secretary of State's making. Like a duck, he is serene on the surface but paddling like crazy underneath to reposition the policy in an attempt to make it palatable to the public at next year's general election. The best indicator of the fact that the policy is a mess is that Labour Members insist on making speeches about things that happened pre-1997 rather than post-1997. At the next election, the public will want to talk about the future, and the future will not include a Labour Government.
  3.13 pm
  Shona Mclsaac: I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate. I am going to focus not on things that happened pre-1997 but on the many things that have happened subsequently, and on policies for which the Government deserve praise. I have certain constituency concerns, however, that I also want to raise.
  The Conservatives seem to suggest that nothing has been done since 1997, but that is a caricature of the Government's transport policy, particularly in regard to roads. The Opposition give the imp Session that virtually
  686
  no road schemes have been completed since 1997, but that is simply not the case. Many major and minor road schemes and road safety schemes have been completed since then. In my area, the Newark to Lincoln dual carriageway was completed last year, which has added to the speeding up of traffic in that area and got rid of a notorious bottleneck on one of the major link roads to the Al from places such as Grimsby and Cleethorpes.
  The Conservatives have caricatured the Government's transport policy as a failed one, which is simply not the case. That is not to say, however, that everything is perfect, because it is not. The Secretary of State admitted that there were great difficulties involved in dealing with the major infrastructure projects. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is not present today. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) alluded to her whistlestop tour of the Yorkshire and Humber region, during which she also visited Immingham in my constituency to drum up support for her party. The Conservatives topped the polls in Immingham a year ago, but the effect of her recent visit was that they came last in that electoral ward, with their vote collapsing by about a third. She is therefore more than welcome to visit my constituency any time she likes, if that is the effect that she is going to have on the Conservative vote there.
  The words of the motion on the Order Paper, and the comments of Conservative Members today, are simply whinge, whinge, whinge. There does not seem to be any policy behind them for us to get our teeth into, so that we can see what the Conservatives are offering. It is not sufficient simply to criticise; they must offer credible alternatives. From what I have heard today, however, they did not seem to have any credible policies. The only certainty was that, according to the shadow Chancellor, there would be cuts in their transport budget. That would be particularly worrying to my constituents, because one of the major projects to be affected by such cuts would be the Government's commitment in the 10-year transport plan to resurface all concrete trunk roads with low-noise material.
  The A180 in northern Lincolnshire is a concrete trunk road and a major link between the ports of Grimsby and Immingham. Immingham is a rapidly expanding port that deals with most of the freight coming into Britain from the Netherlands. That road is therefore heavily used; it also has many residents living alongside it. When the Government's resurfacing policy was announced in July 2000, my constituents were therefore very pleased. However, projects such as that would be put in jeopardy if the Conservatives' proposals for cuts—or a freeze; let them call it what they will—went ahead. Such a freeze would mean that my constituents would have no chance of getting that low-noise material on a road that carries a lot of freight traffic.
  That is not to say that freight does not also go by rail. I want to point out to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), that much of the freight that comes into Immingham goes on from there by rail—it is one of Britain's major rail freight depots—but there are capacity issues in regard to the track leading from Immingham that feeds into the east coast main line. Much of that track is also in poor condition, and those issues need to be looked at.

  687
  Today, when we have talked about rail, we have mainly referred to passenger transport. In my constituency, freight transport is the big issue. Most of the rail jobs are related to that, and it generates economic growth in the area. We must consider the freight infrastructure as much as we do other aspects of the transport infrastructure.
  I referred to the A 180 resurfacing programme, and my hon. Friend the Minister knows that subject well, as I have raised it in the Adjournment debate and with other Transport Ministers. I hope that Ministers can get to grips with the Highways Agency, because its timetabling of some of these projects seems at times to get a little woolly, to put it politely. It commits to one day, then to another. Last year, I received a letter from the agency telling me that the project was due to go ahead in 2001, and my constituents were certainly a little confused that a project that was going to go ahead two years earlier had not yet started. Let us get to grips with the Highways Agency, make sure that it spells towns' names correctly— every time that I write to it about the Habrough to Stallingborough section, I get a response connected to Harborough. I have not yet taken over the Harborough constituency, but I am sure that that leads to some of the woolly thought in this area.
  The other subject on which I wanted to touch briefly—not many other people have alluded to it—is the place of bridges within our transport network. I will refer particularly to the Humber bridge connecting my constituency with Hull on the north bank of the river. Ever since the bridge was built, there has been concern about the level of debt, and the money that must be paid to the Treasury to finance it. I praise the Government, who in 1998 wrote off £62 million of that debt, and rescheduled the remaining debt to make the interest repayments more manageable. However, those tolls can still be a barrier. Because of the reorganisation of health care in the area, many more people must travel over to the north bank of the river for treatment, and must therefore incur tolls. Responsibility for giving concessions lies with the strategic health authority and other partners.
  As I have also raised this issue in Adjournment debates, could the Government re-examine the remaining debt on the bridge? They have written off debt previously, rescheduled the remaining debt and reduced the interest rates, and for us to remove the barrier to further economic growth in what is one of Britain's major industrial manufacturing heartlands, we need to consider that. If my hon. Friend the Minister could assist the bridge board with removing that barrier to economic growth, we would appreciate it. If he will not do that, may I suggest that some of the £15 million that toll payers in my area pay into the Treasury each year could go towards finishing off the A180 resurfacing project?
  3.23 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I know that other Members want to speak in the debate, so I shall speak for only four minutes.
  Clearly, transport policy is one of those areas in which people feel let down by Labour. First, we have seen petrol taxation go up again and again. Deferring the tax
  688
  on fuel and pretending that it is okay as long as it is announced in a Budget and introduced in December or October is simply not acceptable. It is a stealth tax. Sneaking it in a few months after a Budget does not make it any easier for people living in rural areas or hauliers, who rely on their cars or vehicles either to pursue their social life or to make a living. All that I have been able to detect from the debate so far is that the Liberal Democrats want to push up the cost of motoring—that is the only thing that I have been able to glean about their policy. Will the Minister please ensure that he influences the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a speedy announcement that he will not introduce that stealth tax in September?
  People also feel cheated by speed cameras, which they also feel are a way of taxing by stealth. The money goes partly to some of the police forces but also to the Exchequer. According to one figure that I have heard, the Chancellor received £20 million from speed cameras. We should use that money to introduce other imaginative traffic calming measures. In my constituency, we have asked for a roundabout to be built where the A59 leads down from Sabden into Clitheroe. All sorts of reasons have been given for why that could not happen. The main reason, I believe, is cost. Therefore a cheaper version was suggested, whereby people cannot turn right off the A59 towards Clitheroe but must E o further along the road to another roundabout that already exists. Let us use the money so that that part of the A59 can be made safer. There have been so many accidents around that area, and if we use the money that has been raised legitimately by cameras in the right places to introduce other traffic calming measures, that would be welcome.
  Three cheers for the 71-year-old Hampshire man, whose name escapes me, who held up a sign saying that there was a speed trap around a corner. I assume that the mobile speed camera was in an area that was a black spot, so he was doing a public service by warning motorists that a speed camera was there, that it was a black spot, and that they should slow down. That is what motorists did, but he ended up losing his licence for it, which is an utter shame.
  Finally, on regional airports, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) said, Manchester airport is superb. It has 90 airlines flying to 1 i0 destinations. Let us ensure that a lot more support is given to those regional airports. One clear example might he to allow fifth rights—I believe that that is what they are called—whereby a plane originating from one area, landing at, say, Manchester, could be allowed to fly on to another airport in another country. Let us consider boosting the number of airlines that could come into a regional airport such as Manchester by giving them those extra, special rights.
  3.27 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: As time is so short, I will just cover some local issues affecting my Bosworth constituency.
  In particular, we are concerned about the proposed discontinuation of the Nottingham-Hinckley-Coventry line. Will the Minister consider Railfuture's proposal to reinstate a tunnel at Nuneaton, with what is called a dive-under tunnel or the main track? That would be a cost-effective way of preserving this important link, which concerns many of my constituents.

  689
  Secondly, will the Minister consider that Hinckley station still has many features of the 1920s, not of the 1990s or 2000 and beyond? It is important that we get passenger screens there telling passengers about the arrival of trains.
  I am also worried about the 254 bus route; it is to be discontinued, which will cause great hardship to residents in Botcheston, particularly at the Kirby Grange retirement village, and for that I see no justification. My hauliers, such as Crowfoots, are deeply concerned about the Government's failure to tackle fuel price increases, as trucks flood into the continent with cheap diesel, threatening their business.
  Let me deal with one or two national issues, as I find that I have time to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) spoke of the importance of Thameslink 2000 in London, and the problems caused by failure to widen the Borough Market junction. I remind the Minister that it was under a Conservative Government that the Snowhill tunnel was finally reopened, and that that made the Thames link possible. I remember arguing the case in the House in the late 1980s. It was a Conservative policy, and it was implemented.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), a former Secretary of State for Transport, referred to privatisation. Privatisation was of course hugely successful in several respects. It increased passenger use of trains, increased the quality of services—certainly on the midland main line—and increased frequency. To rubbish privatisation is to try and rewrite history.
  3.29 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: Many eloquent contributions have been made over the past few hours, but perhaps the most eloquence is represented by the fact that, despite having at least 419 MPs, including hundreds of Back Benchers, the governing party could persuade only two of them to come and defend it.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): Look behind you.
  Mr. Green: I was about to say—if the Minister could contain himself for the first few seconds of my speech—that regrettably some of my hon. Fr ends who wanted to speak could not do so, because of the length and eloquence of other contributions. That tells its own story about attitudes to the Government's transport policy.
  As ever, we have been given a varied diet. I thought it noteworthy that both Labour speakers—the hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn)—not only said the loyal things that are expected on such occasions, but managed to slip in some cogent comments on the effect of transport problems in their constituencies.
  I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not present yet, but I am delighted to learn that he is spending his time reading my speeches. I command that to him as a helpful and constructive activity, and hope he will continue to engage in it. I know that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), does the same. During last week's
  690
  aviation debate he complained that he had been reading my speeches on the subject, and that what I had said last week was consistent with what I had said the previous month. I make no apologies for that: if I thought something last month I am quite likely to think it this month, particularly when it comes to the Government's failures in regard to transport policy. The Under-Secretary of State, however, seemed to find that surprising.
  What the Secretary of State said—not just that he had been spending his time usefully in reading my speeches, but that he agreed with the three principles I had mentioned in them and with points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo)—was genuinely constructive. I believe that those three principles—consistency, the use of private finance and the provision of real choice between different modes of transport—constitute the basis on which a sensible policy should be introduced. The question that the Government need to consider today is whether the longterm problems and failures identified by the Secretary of State and by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), who spoke from his experience as a former Secretary of State, have been addressed. That is the key question: have the Government, with their 10-year plan, provided steady, consistent investment and the planning structures that allow for it?
  Like other Labour Members, the Secretary of State made great play of spending. That is simple to address, and we will address it directly by means of two policies. The first is to try and ensure, much better than the Government, that money is spent in the most effective way and in a way that is most sensitive to the needs of local people. In an early intervention on the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) referred to spending in the west midlands. I am sure the Minister knows that a serious and crucial debate is under way in the west midlands about whether the extra money will be spent in the right way, because of restrictions that the Government are imposing on the way in which it can be spent. For instance, it cannot be spent on the motorway network; and yet many people to whom I talk in the west midlands, particularly those involved professionally in the road haulage industry, say that relieving congestion on the network is by far the most important step that could be taken to improve transport in and around Birmingham and the rest of the area. Another important aspect of efficient spending—as I think the Secretary of State, whom I now welcome to the Chamber, would agree—is the use of private as well as public finance, which we would wish to extend. The Government are setting up an Aunt Sally when they talk simply about spending levels.
  While I am on spending, it is important to note the contribution of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats. As I understood the thrust of his economic analysis, he said that he wanted to stick to the Government's spending plans, so there would be no spending increase, but that despite that, he wanted a number of tax rises. He suggested that he would tax drivers and air travellers more. That was a great burst of clarity from the Liberal Democrats. They are not going down the Labour route of taxing and spending; they are

  691
  not going to spend any more, they are just going to tax for the fun of it. They like taxing, even if they do not want to spend the money after they have raised it.
  John Thurso: I am terribly sorry to prick the hon. Gentleman's balloon. I did not say that the taxes would be increased, but explained at some length that the method of raising them would be changed. In road user charging, the overall burden on the taxpayer would remain the same, but the method by which it would be collected would be different. Air passenger duty would be abolished and replaced by an aeroplane tax. The actual quantum of tax would remain the same.
  Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman spent a significant time explaining to the House that the cost of motoring was too low, particular when compared with other modes of transport. It seems to me not unreasonable for the House therefore to divine that what he wants to do is to make the cost of motoring higher. He can do that only by putting up costs for tens of millions of drivers in this country. I think that he is nodding his head, so we now have that confirmed. Everyone who drives a car in this country will know that the Liberal Democrats would like to tax them even more.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) is trying to dig himself out of a hole. We all remember hearing him say that the freedom to fly had to be constrained, which reminded me of those good old communist days, and that he would introduce a new tax on aeroplanes to constrain that freedom. For him now to say that there would be no increase in the total cost simply will not wash. Will my hon. Friend reinforce that message for the benefit of the House?
  Mr. Green: I cannot reinforce that message any more strongly than my right hon. Friend has just done. He is absolutely right, and I am sure that the House has taken on board the Liberal Democrats' desire to tax for taxation's sake. I can pledge to my right hon. Friend and to the House that I will certainly take that message around the country between now and the next general election.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire was exactly right in his contribution about the problems bequeathed to current Ministers by the Deputy Prime Minister. He expressed a sensible degree of sympathy with the current Secretary of State, much of whose work involves undoing the bad work of the Deputy Prime Minister. Inasmuch as he can do that, my party wishes him well. I just hope that other Ministers will be able to reverse the Deputy Prime Minister's other disastrous policies in such fields as planning and regionalism.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made a particularly cogent point about petrol taxes, especially for the road haulage industry, for which there is no sense in which petrol is a luxury. It is vital for the industry itself and, of course, for everyone in this country who depends on an efficient road haulage industry to deliver the essential goods that we use every
  692
  day. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) made a key point about hauliers in his constituency.
  Let me turn to the substance of what the Secretary of State said, particularly on speed cameras. It was a fascinating juggling act that, although he and others on the Government Bench complained that they would prefer to discuss our transport policy rather than the subject of the debate—the Government's transport policy—they had to admit at the same time that we do in fact have a 10-point plan for safer driving, published in April. The Government are now up to about point three and a half in terms of stealing those ideas. I welcome that theft. which is extremely sensible. The more Conservative transport policies are introduced, the better it will be for this country. The quickest way in which people can achieve that is to elect a Conservative Government, which they will no doubt do next year. Inasmuch as the Government want to use these ideas between now and then, I am happy to provide them. I was glad to discover that in today's document, the Government talk about moving to variable penalty points—an idea that is number four in our list. I welcome the fact that they are keen to extend driver education programmes to those caught speeding—idea number five in our list—and that they want to encourage lower speed limits near schools.
  Of course everyone in this House wants safer roads, but there is one point on which I take issue with the Secretary of State. He talked about striking the proper balance and said that cameras cannot provide the full solution. I completely agree, but that is not what the Government are doing. In the past three or four years in particular, we have witnessed the introduction of thousands of new cameras and a reduction of several thousand in the number of traffic police. So we are relying increasingly on static technology, and less and less on active policing. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that the most dangerous drivers in this country are often those who drive without insurance or tax. Such people are far more likely to drive while drunk or to drive unroadworthy vehicles. Cameras do not catch them, which why the policy is so severely out of balance.
  The Secretary of State talked about private sector finance coming into the railways and I completely agree with him. I am happy to support him against many of his own Back Benchers who do not believe that there should be private finance in the railways, and who think that they would be better off under complete state control. He will be aware that there are two things that will deter private investment, the first of which is constantly changing the regulatory system, so that none of the private sector operators knows what the regime will be from year to year. I am aware that his predecessor left him a complete dog's breakfast—the Strategic Rail Authority, the current rail regulator set-up and so on—and that he will be undoing that in the coming weeks. So I have sympathy in i hat regard, but he must recognise that that is a deterrent to private investment.
  The second big deterrent to private sector investment is the constant rumbling of calls from Labour Members for complete re-nationalisation. The Secretary of State has so far been robust in fighting off those calls, and I very much hope that he remains robust in opposing what is clearly the spirit of the age in his own party. As

  693
  panic increases on the Government Benches, it is clear that demands for old Labour policies are likely to increase. They provide some amusement for the Opposition, but the extremely sad fact is that they are doing real damage to the future of our rail industry.
  Several Members from all parts of the House raised the subject of aviation, on which we had a very good debate last week. All that remains for me to do is to point out that in the intervening few days, we have witnessed a successful High Court application for action to be taken against the Government. I am afraid that the Secretary of State brought a slight degree of complacency to this debate when he said that everything is wonderful and that the Government have produced a White Paper on the issue. We said when the White Paper was published that because of the failure of the consultation exercise, court action was very likely. Since last week's debate, such court action has indeed arrived.
  Most people who use Britain's transport networks ask themselves two basic questions: are the roads less congested under this Government, and is the railway more reliable? To both questions they answer no, and as the Government limp into their eighth year in office, their attempts to blame anyone and everyone else become less convincing by the day. Their attitude to roads and drivers has switched. They have gone from hostility on first taking office, when they cancelled dozens of road schemes, to neutrality, when they restored some of those schemes. Now, it seems that they have reverted to hostility. In a now notorious interview, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) equated driving a car with smoking.
  I remind Ministers that driving is a necessity for millions of people. I know that the Government are a little ambivalent about smoking at the moment, but even the Secretary of State for Health does not regard it as a necessity, whereas driving is a necessity. It is time that the Government ended their war on drivers. Forcing people out of their cars by making driving miserable is a rotten policy, but it comes perilously close to the Government's current policy.
  On rail, the Secretary of State has set up a review to dismantle the system set up by the Deputy Prime Minister. Good for him. However, I warn him that, if he goes down the route of having more day-to-day interference by Ministers, he could yet make things even worse.
  If Ministers ever look back at the 10-year plan, they will be deeply embarrassed to read the Deputy Prime Minister's foreword, in which he says that
  "the Plan will bring greater certainty and coherence in decision-making. It will provide a stable framework against which planning and investment decisions can be made."
  That is what the Government hoped for. Instead, they have provided uncertainty, incoherence and instability. The travelling public have been badly let down by the Government. I commend our motion to the House.
  3.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): We have had a useful enough debate, I suppose. We have heard useful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) and for
  694
  Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). The local issues that they raised can be pursued outside the context of this particular debate.
  We had a nice journey down memory lane from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney). As I understand it, his speech consisted of saying that everything good that has happened since his departure from being Secretary of State for Transport was down to his tenure of that office at some stage or other, and that everything bad was down to successive Labour Ministers since 1997.
  I suppose that the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) made some reasonable comments, as did the Liberal Democrat spokesman, but we have not had a serious exposition or analysis of where we are and where we want to get to. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire said that we needed to talk much more about where we go from 2004 towards the future, rather than hark back on what prevailed before 1997 or between 1997 and 2004. That is absolutely right, but any honest assessment of the two Conservative Front Benchers' contributions would suggest that they are not listening to, or are ignoring, his advice.
  I welcome the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to his new position. However, with the best will in the world, what we heard from him and his Front-Bench colleague offered nothing to the British travelling public for the future and no vision of any alternative to the Government's position. Happily, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has made only one speech—he presented the same speech twice—on aviation, which is preferable to having more.
  Underneath all the hot air and rhetoric, dated though much of it was, is a kernel of where the debate should be. We should be debating how best to utilise our capacity. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, we should be debating whether we need more capacity across the piece. We should be debating road pricing and the balance between public and private funding. Just about the only thing that the hon. Member for Ashford got right was his point about presenting people with real choices. A real public policy debate is needed, but it is not one to which Conservative Front Benchers have made any able contribution.
  I can, in part, understand the embarrassment of Conservative Front Benchers. A shadow Cabinet member apparently said, regarding the appointment of the hon. Member for South Suffolk:
  "Yeo has been told to get a grip on transport policy. We haven't really got one at the moment."
  That was made more than clear by the Conservative Front Benchers' contributions. Apparently, according to another newspaper today:
  "A new package of policies put together under Mr. Yeo's direction has been approved by Mr. Howard, who let it be known that he was 'delighted' with the work carried out"
  by the hon. Member for South Suffolk in the area of health and education. Indeed, his leader was so delighted that he
  "wanted Mr. Yeo to apply his skills to transport and the environment."
  It is reported that one MP said:
  "We've neglected transport yet it affects every family in the country. It's a vital are, for us. Tim is a problem-solver and a salesman, which is what Michael Howard needs in that brief."

  695
  I am afraid that, given the paucity of substantial policy offerings today by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, he is clearly more of a salesman of second-hand cars or snake oil than one of any repute. After six years in opposition, it is bad enough that the Conservatives have offered almost no substantive transport policy, but it is completely irresponsible of them to fill the policy vacuum with opportunism, as they have done over the past two or three years.
  I come now to some of the substantive issues in the motion. It states that the Government have failed to meet their target of reducing congestion on Britain's roads by 5 per cent. There was no such target in the 10-year plan. The motion states that the decline of 0.3 billion net tonne kilometres in rail freight in 2002 is a matter of serious concern, but it says nothing about the increase of more than 25 per cent. in rail freight since 1997, nor about the fact that rail passenger journeys have grown by more than 25 per cent. since 1997.
  Chris Grayling: The Minister is going on about percentages and targets. Will he confirm that he stands by the target in the 10-year plan for an increase in passenger kilometres on the railways, and the 80 per cent. target for rail freight?
  Mr. McNulty: I had the great pleasure, around the time of Christmas, of frightening the hell out of a passenger down at Liverpool Street station. I presented that person with a bouquet for being the billionth passenger on the rail system, and that had not happened since the 1940s.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham was right in what he said about capacity, but mirror images of another party's policy are no substitute for proper policy. It is not sufficient for a party to suggest that it knows where people are coming from, even though it neither opposes nor supports a particular approach.
  Some gentle green shoots of policy were evident among Opposition Front-Bench contributions, however, and that has been clear even before today. For example, there was an understanding of the debate that we have to hold in respect of transport. That was outlined for the Liberal Democrats by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso).
  Another example can be found in the speeches of the predecessor but two—I think that that is right—of the hon. Member for South Suffolk. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said last year that the Conservatives supported the difficult decision to suspend some rail services for long periods in order to accelerate the completion of engineering work.
  "It is a difficult decision…but, in some circumstances, it is the only means by which engineering work can be completed in a reasonable time."—[Official Report, 2 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 388.]
  That is evidence of a real understanding of what is required in transport. In another speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he was happy to agree with the Secretary of State that we needed
  "to consider, on a non-partisan basis, why it took so long for any major transport project to be brought to fruition in this country."—[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 793.]
  696
  The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire made the same point today.
  We agree that that should be looked at actively. Such an examination should cover the Department's processes, the wider planning process and the TWA process. Sadly, however, any recognition of the substantive elements needed for the mature debate that the country deserves on transport was missing from Conservative Front-Bench contributions today. We are back to the snake oil salesman.
  We heard much about the CBI report, whose conclusion stated:
  "Government policy will need to promote a coherent package of measures, but at the heart of its approach must be a programme of sustained public and private investment."
  That programme is at the heart of our policy. Whatever the protestations of the Tory Front-Bench transport team, they need only to travel to the office of the shadow Chancellor to see that nothing that he has said will give the CBI what it requires—
  "a programme of sustained public and private investment"—
  in respect of transport. Such a programme cannot be achieved through a freeze on public spending on transport, or the severe real-terms cut in transport spending proposed by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). Nowhere does the CBI report say that there are difficulties and problems but that everything will be OK if public spending on transport is frozen—or, indeed, cut, as the shadow Chancellor has suggested.
  The Opposition have given us smoke and mirrors all over again. They agree with the CBI report but are not allowed by the shadow Cabinet to promise to put in the money and funding necessary for the task. That is typical.
  The motion goes into detail on the delay to Crossrail, the East London line extension and other projects, with the clear implication that if only the Conservatives were in government, they would all be achieved overnight. That is not what the shadow Chancellor says. He will not let the hon. Member for South Suffolk, in his new capacity, anywhere near the necessary pot of money. However, that did not stop the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and his colleagues bobbing up and down like Bill and Ben in a recent Adjournment debate on London's transport needs in Westminster Hall. By the time they had finished, they had spent the best part of £15 billion to £20 billion on transport in London alone. That is more smoke and mirrors, because none of it would happen if they ever got near power. But they say that it would anyway.
  The same is true on aviation. However eloquent the little speech by the hon. Member for Ashford—and it was not so good that we needed to hear it twice—there would be no more money. It appears that the Conservatives are not against flights, but against airports. They are back to a nod and wink and more smoke and mirrors. The hon. Member for South Suffolk, in his first day as shadow Secretary of State for Transport, came out against Birmingham, Stansted and Heathrow. He is also against noise levels at Doncaster Finningley, which is not even open yet. What is the Tories' substantive aviation policy? Well. they have not got one.

  697
  The Tories have shown naked opportunism on the issue of safety cameras. We have scotched that today, given the publication of the report of t their use, although the hon. Member for Ribble Valley tried his best—as usual, he was not up to it—as did the hon. Member for Ashford. They say that they are not against safety cameras. They say that they are not in favour of vandalising or destroying safety cameras, but they say to the protestors, "We know where you are coming from and we broadly support you." The Tories cannot be against Chope cameras, because they were introduced by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). They dice with road safety considerations, taking their lead from the Leader of the Opposition, who is not against illegal fuel protests.
  There was one glaring omission from the contributions from Tory Front Benchers in this debate. Some 70 per cent. of passenger journeys in this country are by bus. The hon. Member for South Suffolk, in his new position, and the hon. Member for Ashford said not one word about buses, which serve—among others— our most deprived communities. Pei haps that is because they take the same view as Baroness Thatcher, who once said:
  "A man who, beyond the age of 26, fin is himself on a bus can count himself as a failure."
  As for their second-hand car salesman, who was reduced to a feeble second place in the campaign to be Mayor of London, he likes the healthy smell of exhaust and kebabs and he could care less about buses. However, buses are an essential and vital part of our transport policy and they must feature in it. They did not feature at all in the contributions from the Conservatives.
  This country needs the Opposition to understand fully the difficulties with transport. It does not need them to offer the techniques of the snake oil salesman or smoke and mirrors. It needs them to work with us and to commit to match—at least—our investment plans for Europe. The Opposition should confirm to the CBI that they understand the points it has made about sustained investment and that they will match our spending plans. The Opposition cannot say that because the shadow Chancellor has locked them in a box and thrown away the key. If the Conservatives ever get close to power, there will be substantive cuts in transport.
  David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 281.

  Division No. 197]

  [3:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Baker, Norman

  Allan, Richard

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Barrett, John

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Bellingham, Henry

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bercow, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Bacon, Richard

  Blunt, Crispin

  698

  Boswell, Tim

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Brady, Graham

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brazier, Julian

  Lansley, Andrew

  Breed, Colin

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Burnside, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Burstow, Paul

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Burt, Alistair

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Maclean, rh David

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cameron, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Mates, Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Maude, rh Francis

  Barnet)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Chope, Christopher

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clappison, James

  Mercer, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Moore, Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  Norman, Archie

  Curry, rh David

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Page, Richard

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Paterson, Owen

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Pickles, Eric

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Evans, Nigel

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Flight, Howard

  Randall, John

  Forth, rh Eric

  Redwood, rh John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Rendel, David

  Francois, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Grayling, Chris

  Sanders, Adrian

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Selous, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gummer, rh John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hague, rh William

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hammond, Philip

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

  Hancock, Mike

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Harvey, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heald, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heath, David

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Spring, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Steen, Anthony

  Hermon, Lady

  Streeter, Gary

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Syms, Robert

  Holmes, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Teather, Sarah

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Thurso, John

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tredinnick, David

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Trend, Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  699

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Willis, Phil

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Waterson, Nigel

  (Macclesfield)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Weir, Michael

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Wiggin, Bill

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. David Ruffley and

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Mr. David Wilshire

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Ainger, Nick

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cummings, John

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davey. Valerie (Bristol W)

  Austin, John

  David, Wayne

  Baird, Vera

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Banks, Tony

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Barnes, Harry

  Dismore, Andrew

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Battle, John

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Best, Harold

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Betts, Clive

  Efford, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Ellman. Mrs Louise

  Blizzard, Bob

  Etherington, Bill

  Borrow, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Flint, Caroline

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Follett, Barbara

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Burden, Richard

  Burgon, Colin

  Foulkes, rh George

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Cairns, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godsiff, Roger

  Casale, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Challen, Colin

  Grogan, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Heyes, David

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cohen, Harry

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Coleman, lain

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Corston, Jean

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  700

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  O'Hara, Edward

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Owen, Albert

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Perham, Linda

  Jamieson, David

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Purnell, James

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kidney, David

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Lammy, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Rooney, Terry

  Lepper, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Salter, Martin

  Linton, Martin

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Love, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCafferty, Chris

  Sheridan, Jim

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Short, rh Clare

  MacDonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacDougall, John

  Singh, Marsha

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Skinner, Dennis

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Soley, Clive

  McNulty, Tony

  Southworth, Helen

  MacShane, Denis

  Squire, Rachel

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McWalter, Tony

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Timms, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Tipping, Paddy

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Merron, Gillian

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Trickett, Jon

  Miller, Andrew

  Truswell, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mole, Chris

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Morgan, Julie

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Morley, Elliot

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mountford, Kali

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Mullin, Chris

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  701

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Woodward, Shaun

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Ward, Claire

  Worthington, Tony

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  White, Brian

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wilson, Brian

  Tellers fir the Noes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Margaret Moran

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises that the problems with the transport system stem from decades of under-investment; welcomes the Government's commitment to long-term funding for transport through the Ten Year Plan; acknowledges that one of the main reasons for the continuing pressure on transport networks is that the United Kingdom is enjoying the longest period of sustained economic growth for more than 200 years; supports the Government's determination to face the tough decisions which will be required to meet these pressures and put UK transport on a sustainable footing, including runway capacity at UK airports, management of road space and re-organising Britain's railways following a failed privatisation; and welcomes the early signs of success, including the halt in the decline in bus use, the biggest replacement programme for railway rolling stock ever seen in this country, the major programme of investment in the West Coast Main Line and the 22 per cent. decline in the numbers of people killed or seriously injured on the roads since the mid-1990s.

  EU Finance
  [Relevant documents: Fifteenth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 42- xv, The EU's Financial Perspective for 2007–13 and Reform of the Structural and Cohesion Funds; 21st Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 42-xxi, paragraph 2, on regional and cohesion policy; 22nd Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 42-ii, paragraph 1, on the Financial Perspective 2007–13; Minutes of Evidence taken before the European Scrutiny Committee from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 20th April, Session 2003–04, HC 528-i; and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the European Scrutiny Committee from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 4th May, Session 2003–04, HC 574-i.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.16 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Union documents No. 6232/04, Commission Communication: Building our common future: Policy challenges and Budgetary means of the Enlarged Union 2007–2013, and No. COM (04) 107, Commission Communication: "Third report on economic and social cohesion"; supports the Government's efforts to refocus allocations within a budget of 1 per cent. of EU Gross National Income in support of the European Union's goals, with structural funding focused on the poorest member states; and in particular, supports the Government's view that the Commission's overall proposals are unrealistic and unacceptable, that its structural funds proposals are inconsistent with the United Kingdom's objectives for reform, and that the future European Union Budget should be reprioritised and refocused in line with the principles of subsidiarity and spending that adds value at the European Union level.
  The Government welcome the opportunity to debate the European Commission's communication on its framework proposals for the next financial perspective and its third report on economic and social cohesion. It is of course right that the debate is taking place on the Floor of the House so that all hon. Members with an interest may contribute.
  As part of the scrutiny process, the European Scrutiny Committee has asked further questions about the Government's position on the Commission's future financing communication. The Government have given full answers to those questions and I am glad to learn that the Committee shares our attitude that the EC budget should be subject to a rigorous assessment of its value for money and supports the need to appraise existing activities.
  On 10 February 2004, the Commission published "Building our common future: Policy challenges and Budgetary means of the Enlarged Union 2007–2013", which set out its proposals on the political priorities of the enlarged European Union, the framework, instruments and levels of EC budget expenditure, and how that expenditure should be financed between 2007 and 2013. That was followed on 18 February by the publication of the Commission's third report on economic and social cohesion, which set out progress made towards achieving economic and social cohesion

  703
  in the Union and the Commission's proposals on the future of the structural and cohesion funds over the same period.
  As the European Scrutiny Committee noted, the Commission's communication is an important document, so it is right for the House to have the opportunity to debate its contents. In the communication, the Commission defines its three priorities for the next financial perspective: first, the completion of the internal market so that it can play its full part in achieving the broader objective of sustainable development; secondly, establishing the political concept of European citizenship that is based on the completion of an area of freedom, justice and security, and access to basic goods; and, thirdly, having a Europe that plays a coherent role as a global partner.
  Mr. John Redwood: Will the Minister remind the House what the auditors found regarding the high proportion of waste and fraud in the current disposition of the budget? What action can Her Majesty's Government take to force the Commission to undertake better and wiser expenditure of moneys so that our taxpayers may get a rebate instead of being asked for more?
  Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman, who follows these debates closely, raises an important issue. We shall debate this afternoon how to ensure that the Commission has an appropriate budget that is clearly based on subsidiarity, and is also based on added value and understandings about appropriate expenditure that is properly monitored and accounted for. I urge him to bear with me as I outline the Commission's view before moving on to the Government's key principles and our objectives in the negotiations. In doing so, I will deal with his points, as well as many others.
  The Commission communication sets out its budgetary proposals to support the achievement of its objectives. As for the overall level of spending, it proposes commitment appropriations of more than €1 trillion over the period 2007 to 2013, representing an average of 1.26 per cent. of the EU gross national income, compared with 1.08 per cent. in 2004. The corresponding proposed payments ceiling is about €930 million, averaging 1.14 per cent. of EU GNI, compared with 0.97 per cent. in 2004. Hon. Members will note the wide scope of the communication proposals, which include increases in spending on research, education, training and EU networks intended to boost competitiveness and employment covering: fresh action in the area of citizenship, freedom, security and justice; the integration of the European development fund in the budget; measures to improve the quality and effectiveness of expenditure; a road map designed to bring together goals, objectives, instruments and indicators; proposals on the duration of the financial perspective; and the classification of expenditure.
  Mr. Peter Luff: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: I should first like to make one final point. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that I am setting out the Commission's proposals, which include flexible procedures for adjusting expenditure ceilings.
  Mr. Luff: The document that the right hon. Lady is outlining seems to be one of huge and genuine significance. Is it primarily a matter for the Treasury or the Foreign Office? I understand that the Minister for Europe will respond to our debate.
  Dawn Primarolo: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the House is discussing two sets of communications this afternoon—the financial perspectives, on which the Treasury leads, and the cohesion report, on which the Department of Trade and Industry leads. However, it works closely with he Treasury, both on the financial perspectives and on cohesion.
  It may help the House if I give the Government's view of the Commission s proposals, which are politically unrealistic and unacceptable. It has failed to grasp the opportunity offered by the negotiation of a new financial perspective to increase the effectiveness and transparency of European Union expenditure and to consider how allocations within a limited EU budget can best be focused on adding value at the EU level, including underpinning the Lisbon strategy for European economic reform. The issues of effectiveness and transparency go to the heart of the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
  Mr. David Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the fact that the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget is a crunch issue? Increasing the budget effectively means that the UK taxpayer is paying twice.
  Dawn Primarolo:In his uncompromising message to Finance Ministers in European-level discussions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that, when each member state has to take tough decisions on spending and show fiscal discipline, it is unacceptable and unrealistic for the Commission to propose a 25 per cent. increase in its spending. He also told Finance Ministers that it would be wasteful and inefficient to increase spending on current Commission programmes that do not match the European Union's economic reform priorities and in some cases, such as the common agricultural policy, work against them. The Government's view clear about the negotiation that is necessary on the financial perspectives and where we are starting from.
  Indeed, as the Prime Minister set out to the House in December last year, the Government view a budget of 1 per cent. of EU gross national income, with growth and reprioritisation, as adequate to meet the needs of an enlarged Union. That view is shared by the heads of five other member states—Germany, France, Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands—who have also written to Commission President Prodi, arguing for a budget stabilisation around 1 per cent. of EU gross national income.
  With that in mind the Government believe that EC budget spending should be objectives-focused, with the emphasis on policy outcomes rather than budgetary inputs; that it should he evidence-based, with a proper evaluation of budget, try policy; that it should be based on a proper assessment—again, I think this is what the right hon. Member for Wokingham was driving at—for existing and new arras of spending, of whether the

  705
  Union budget is the best instrument for adding value at the EU level; and that it should ensure sound financial management, budgetary discipline and an equitable distribution of spending across the EU, consistent with value-added principles and objectives. It is the Government's view that the Commission has failed to respond adequately to the challenge posed for the next financial perspective.
  Mr. George Howarth: As my right hon. Friend may have expected, I have received a communication from our colleague the Member of the European Parliament for the North West, Arlene McCarthy, who asked me to stress that she fully supports the Commission's proposals. For my own part, I am concerned about the effect on objective 1 status on Merseyside, particularly on many of the ongoing projects and schemes across Merseyside and in my constituency that are addressing problems that need to be addressed. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet local authority leaders, myself and parliamentary colleagues to discuss our concerns so that we can hopefully reach an equitable solution?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am always happy to facilitate meetings between Members of the House and Treasury Ministers, including myself, as my hon. Friend requests, so that I will be able to explain clearly to Members of Parliament and the colleagues whom my hon. Friend wishes to bring to such a meeting the Government's intentions with regard to reform of the structural funds and the benefits that that will bring. If he will forgive me, I shall return to that matter later in my speech when I discuss the cohesion report.
  On the common agricultural policy, the Government are a leading advocate of CAP reform, pressing for a more liberalised and market-focused agricultural sector. Last year, we succeeded in a significant reform of the CAP, for the first time largely breaking the link between tax-funded subsidies and production. This year, we secured yet more reform, including an end to the specific subsidies for tobacco from 2010 and a significant reduction in trade-distorting support for cotton, which is a key product for some of the world's poorest countries. The Government will continue to press for CAP reform, with the next stage likely to be the reform of the sugar regime.
  For external actions, the Government would like the next financial perspective to refocus development assistance on poverty reduction and achieving the millennium development goals, to enhance the EU's capacity for crisis management an i conflict prevention and to improve flexibility across the budget to respond to unexpected spending needs.
  For present internal policies, the Government will seek to focus spending on a smaller number of initiatives that demonstrate added value, especially in supporting the Lisbon agenda objectives and n pursuing freedom, security and justice objectives.
  I turn now to the Commission's communication on the third cohesion report. Again, that is a wide-ranging document that examines changes it economic and social differences between member states, regions and social groups and how member states and EU policy may be affected by these changes. In terms of the link with the
  706
  wider Commission proposals for EC budget expenditure, it sets out the Commission's proposal for the reform of the structural and cohesion funds for the period 2007 to 2013. The Commission's proposals in that regard focus on the three objectives of convergence, regional competitiveness and employment, and European territorial co-operation. To meet those objectives, the Commission proposes increasing spending by 30 per cent. from €260 billion over the current financial perspective—2000 to 2006—to €336 billion, or 0.41 per cent., of EU gross domestic product, over the period 2007 to 2013. Including, as now, expenditure on the proposed single rural development and fisheries instruments, spending would rise by around 40 per cent. to €370 billion, or 0.46 per cent. of EU GDP.
  Despite the fact that with enlargement the richest parts of the Union would become more than 10 times richer than the poorest, the Commission proposes that less than half of the structural and cohesion funds should go to the new member states where they add most value.
  The Government do not share that view of the future of the structural funds. Following a UK-wide consultation on the future of the funds last year, the Government proposed an EU framework for devolved regional policy. Under that approach, all EU member states would agree to pursue common objectives in support of regional development, but delivery would be substantially devolved and decentralised to give member states and regions the freedom and flexibility that they need to pursue their own strategies.
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: As my right hon. Friend will know, the north-west has received multi-billion-pound investment through the objective 1 funding programme. I welcome her comments on devolving budgets, but given the region's concerns about the future of funding, will she, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) requested, agree to meet local chief executive officers and Members of Parliament so that we can talk further about the investment that is needed to underpin our economy and our robust employment situation?
  Dawn Primarolo: I see the potential for a long queue outside my office. I understand that the Minister for Industry and the Regions has met my hon. Friend and her colleagues for discussions. I would not wish to deny Members access to Ministers to discuss such important issues but I emphasise that preventing the costly recycling of funds is at the heart of reform. Let us consider the instruments that are already in place in the United Kingdom and the further commitments that have been made, for example, through regional development funds, the role of local authorities and the funding streams for employment, enterprise and competitiveness. We must ensure the continuation of the Government's commitment to economic growth in all regions and nations of the United Kingdom and of our support for those regions in that development.
  Although I would be happy—another Treasury Minister may have to be happy—to discuss this important matter with my hon. Friend the Member for

  707
  Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and others, I stress to her that it is inappropriate for any member state to pay an increased contribution to get less back when arrangements could be secured in the negotiations to support the development of the regions.
  Adam Price rose—
  Ms Candy Atherton rose—
  Mr. George Howarth rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: I shall give way to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) shortly. A few Labour Members want to intervene and I have a feeling that I shall be in meetings until Christmas at this rate. However, I shall not forget the hon. Gentleman. First, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton).
  Ms Atherton: I do not wish to add to the length of the queue outside my right hon. Friend's door but I ask her to acknowledge that the Commission is calling for the poorest region in both the United Kingdom and the north of Europe—Cornwall— to receive the full tranche of 2007 objective 1 funds. Will she make a commitment that the Government will work with Cornwall to ensure that we enjoy the same employment and other opportunities as other parts of the European Union, north, west, central and south?
  Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is a fierce and convincing advocate for Cornwall and use of objective 1 funds. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with her previously. I emphasise to her and all hon. Members that the Government's policy on the economic development of all the regions and countries of the United Kingdom is clear. Our objective is to ensure employment growth, skills development, competitiveness and productivity in them all. We are discussing the most effective and efficient way, with added value and respecting subsidiarity, to continue to achieve those objectives.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will the Paymaster General give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: If my hon. Friend will wait a moment—I have given way to him previously—I shall come back to him. First, I give way to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr.
  Adam Price: The Commission said that, under its proposals, regions such as west Wales and the valleys would have continued to qualify for objective 1 under the previous system with 15 member states but will not because of enlargement, and would therefore receive transitional relief of between 60 per cent. and 85 per cent. of the funding that is currently available. Will the Government guarantee that the same amount of
  708
  transitional relief—between 60 per cent. and 85 per cent.—will be available to those regions under their proposals?
  Dawn Primarolo: First, if the Commission is making promises, it is doing so on the basis of a budget that it does not yet have. Secondly, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement of he Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in which she clearly set out the methodology that the Government would follow to ensure the development of all t le regions and nations of the United Kingdom in pursuing our objective of raising all to the levels of growth and employment from which some currently benefit.
  As all member slates will do, the Government are entering a negotiation process with the Commission about future funding. It is crucial that we judge that on added value, subsidiarity, the efficiency and effectiveness of the pending, and the opportunities for us to streamline and simplify the process and cut out the wasteful recycling of funds that often happens. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to achieve the continued support for that development that will result from the Government's economic policy.
  Mr. George Howarth: From the tone of my right hon. Friend's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and me, I think that she may have misunderstood the point that we were trying to make. We are not into special pleading for Merseyside and the north-west, although, since the occasion presents its elf, we might well engage in some. My concern is that, as matters develop and as the Government develop their own approach to those matters, we should deliver my right hon. Friend's objectives—many of which I share—to the areas where they are most needed, rather than spraying them about indiscriminately. There is probably not much difference between us on this, which is why I think that a meeting would be helpful.
  Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for the area that he represents, as I would expect all hon. Members to be. I hope that I did not misunderstand his pleadings, or give an incorrect indication to the House. What I said was that, following a UK-wide consultation on the future of the funds last year, the Government have proposed an EU framework for the devolved regional policy. Under that approach, all member states would agree to pursue common objectives in supporting regional development, but the delivery would b. substantially devolved and decentralised. That would give the member states and their regions and nations the opportunity to pursue their own strategies.
  To ensure that funding is focused where it will add most value, the Government have proposed that those member states eligible for the cohesion fund—Greece, Portugal and the new member states—would continue to receive EC funding, while richer members would take primary responsibility for financing regional policy themselves, thus ending the current system of wasteful recycling of funds between net contributors. That is the issue from a financial perspective.
  Hon. Members on both sides are rightly pressing me to ensure that the Government remain strongly committed to regional development and, to that extent,

  709
  we have guaranteed that, if our proposals on reform of the structural funds are agreed, domestic spending on regional policy will be increased, so that the United Kingdom's nations and regions will receive a level of resources that will ensure that they do not lose out following the UK proposals. That has been the subject of discussion and consultation, involving a large number of meetings. The UK pays 1.6 euros for every 1 euro that it receives under the current financial perspective. Paying for UK regions means paying for other regions of equal wealth elsewhere, which could cost a great deal. That is why the Government are suggesting this way forward, so that we can direct our resources to our regions.
  Sir Archy Kirkwood: I come from a region where the use of European funds could hardly be better. Improvements can always be made, but we have been very successful in deploying such money as we have had.
  I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, and the problem with the Government's position at the moment is that, while they may have support from five other member states for the reduction of the budget— she mentioned that in the first pan of her speech and I understand it—there does not seem to be any agreement between the six that are trying to get the budget constrained about what should follow. Her suggestion that there should be subsidiarity may well be sustainable, but how much support is there among those six colleagues for that? Obviously, if she gets regionally repatriated policy, she must make serious amendments to the state aid rules for that to be of any use whatever.
  Dawn Primarolo: If I can start with the state aid rules, as the hon. Gentleman knows, those are also a matter for discussion under the proposals being put forward by the Commission with regard to slate aid and regional policy. I am sure that he finds this in his local communities as well, but there are issues with regard to the bureaucracy and complexity of the application for funds. I will put it simply: the Government have committed to increased funding on the basis of 1.6 euros for every 1 euro that we receive, whereas the current proposals in relation to distribution among all member states are for a 50:50 arrangement, so the richer states would also receive it. I am sure that he will agree that we should put forward the proposal passionately and enthusiastically.
  The hon. Gentleman questions me with regard to a consensus on cohesion. As he knows, that is sometimes a difficult issue. At this point in the negotiations and discussions with other member states, the Government are strongly of the view that we can put forward our proposals and that they will receive support. I must say, however, that this is the beginning of a long negotiation. If we consider other long negotiations in which the United Kingdom has entered discussions with 14 against and only the UK in favour—the discussions on the savings tax directive spring to mind—he should take comfort from the Government's persistence and ability, in representing the House, to persuade other member states of the correctness of the proposal. On the financial perspectives, the process is about negotiation and putting forward a strong case. I am setting out for the
  710
  House the principles that we will follow and the objectives that will guide us in negotiations, and we will pursue that process with considerable vigour.
  Mr. Michael Moore: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood). In our part of Scotland, which has a series of economic problems, whether in the agriculture sector or textiles, structural funds from Europe, coupled with regional selective assistance over the past few years, have been absolutely crucial to the restructuring of that economy. There is now a state of flux and uncertainty about the future in relation to both those issues. Can the Paymaster General explain to the House exactly what the guarantee from the Government will mean for our region?
  Dawn Primarolo: I have covered that clearly in terms of the Government's commitment to the English regions and the nations that make up the United Kingdom. As I have suggested in response to previous interventions, the hon. Gentleman should consider the statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the methodology that will be used. I would also say that this Government, since 1997, at times in the teeth of opposition from some Members, have created an active regional policy through the regional development agencies and investment in skills and employment. Over that period, we have clearly articulated our commitment to growth and prosperity in all the English regions and the nations that make up the United Kingdom. I see no reason for the hon. Gentleman to doubt that commitment, and I am a little surprised that he does not understand the importance, at the beginning of negotiation, of setting out—clearly as I have here today—the principles, the objectives and the process according to which we will negotiate the delivery of priorities.
  Mr. Wayne David: Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of our current difficulty is caused by the fact that the European Commission, which is strongly opposed to the Government's proposals, is trying to promise UK regions larger sums which have not been agreed and will not decide where those sums will come from?
  Dawn Primarolo: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend puts the case rather more succinctly than I did.
  As I have said, the Government are strongly committed to regional development. We are guaranteeing that if our proposals for reform of the structural fund are agreed, domestic spending on regional policy will increase so that the UK nations and the English nations receive an amount that will ensure that they do not lose out. I do not think I could be any clearer at this stage.
  Mr. Bill Tynan rose—
  Mr. Mark Hendrick rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: May I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) to wait for a moment? I shall return to him after giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South.
  Mr. Tynan: Obviously there is concern about the structural and cohesion funds. The assurances about the Government's position and the protection that will be given to areas that are currently beneficiaries are important, but the real issue is this: if we are sticking to a budget of 1 per cent. of EU gross national income, the poorest nations will qualify under a 75 per cent. formula. Does my right hon. Friend support that?
  Dawn Primarolo: I dealt with that earlier. According to the Commission's proposals, funds will be distributed among all 25 current member states. There will be a 50:50 weighting arrangement for the nations at the heart of the European Union, which are the richest. That too must be dealt with. Aid should be directed towards those in greatest need. If we arrange spending at the EU level we must do so on the basis of added value, in a way that is appropriate and supports subsidiarity. That will not prevent other member states from agreeing, with a common purpose, to pursue their own regional policies.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: I must give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, who has been waiting patiently.
  Mr. Hendrick: I am sure that no Member on either side of the House would object to the continuance of greater assistance for regions that need it, but can my right hon. Friend explain the logic of reducing the size of the EU budget to the extent that is proposed when 10 new states, mostly very poor, are entering the EU with worse economic situations than ours?
  Dawn Primarolo: One per cent. growth in the budget is substantial. At a time when other member states are following a tight fiscal discipline, the Government think it reasonable to require the Commission to do the same, and to pursue the policy that we pursue domestically. That is why the Government are advocating, as I said, that there should be, at the beginning of the debate on financial perspectives, a thorough appraisal of where the Commission is spending its money, the efficiency and effectiveness of that, and whether that is the most appropriate way of spending.
  When spending at a European level, it is right that we ensure that we are getting added value. We are talking about a substantial budget, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston will agree that it is right for the principles of budgeting to include: first, defining what sort of items merit public spending; secondly, determining the available resources; and thirdly, determining spending priorities based on evidence and political judgment. That is what the Government are advocating in pursuing this matter.
  A budget of 1 per cent. of EU GNI is ample to meet the needs of the enlarged Union, but reprioritisation to ensure that EC fund spending adds value at EC level is key, and it is on that that the Government and other member states are pressing the Commission. It would be absolutely irresponsible to European Union taxpayers simply to lump new spending proposals on top of existing ones. We would expect neither our domestic Administrations nor the international community to do that, and the Commission should not do so either. So, as
  712
  I have said, a thorough appraisal of spending and where it goes has to be part of the financial perspective in order for us to come to reasonable judgments on future financing.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I find myself in the somewhat unusual position of agreeing with much of what the Paymaster General says. Can she give us some idea of the Government's thoughts on state aid if she succeeds in repatriating regional development money? That is a key issue in the north-east of England. Who would adjudicate on the issue of state aid if it had been repatriated to the individual nation states, and who would decide whether that state aid was being given in a justifiable way or being used by another country in a backdoor way to subsidise a particular industry?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point on regional state aid guidelines. In case he was not able to look at this, I must tell him that the Government explained yesterday in a written statement to Parliament how we plan to consult shortly on the Commission's proposals. The Commission has set quite a tight deadline for the UK Government to respond. The Minister for Industry and the Regions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), will tell me if I get the date wrong, but I understand that the statement says the t the UK Government will consult on the matter and receive responses by September.
  We agree with the Commission that state aid should be limited, and we agree on the need to create a level playing field for businesses across the European Union, but state aid can also distort competition—perhaps that is the point that the hon. Gentleman was touching on—and limit business performance, prosperity and quality for consumers. Through the consultation and discussions with the Commission, the Government are seeking to explore alternative approaches to address that point. It is absolutely right that consultation should be a part of that, and I commend to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) the written statement to Parliament that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions made yesterday. He might well find, uncomfortably, that he agrees with even more of what the Government are currently saying.
  I turn to the financing of the budget. The Government are against any proposal for an EU tax. We believe that taxation is a matter for member states to determine on a national basis. The United Kingdom's abatement remains justified and necessary to correct for its disproportionate budgetary imbalance.
  It is clear that we at e just at the start of what is likely to be a long negotiation. It is the Government's strongly held view that the Commission's current proposals are not a basis for such a negotiation. The Government are working with other member states that share many of our principles and areas of common interest, in order to question and to challenge the Commission's ideas, and to develop an approach consistent with our objectives.
  I have taken note of the Opposition's amendment—which requires the Government to lay out the principles underpinning our negotiations, the objectives that we will use in conducting them and the negotiation process—and I hope that they agree that these issues have been discussed thoroughly in the House. The

  713
  Government have no difficulty at all with the Opposition's amendment; indeed, it might be slightly uncomfortable for them to discover how vigorously we are pursuing these issues. I commend these documents to the House.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Mark Prisk: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion at end add:
  "and calls on the Government to set out its principles and plans for those objectives and how it will achieve them."
  I thank the Paymaster Genera 1 for her generally patient and apparently helpful opening remarks. I shall, if I may, begin by commending the European Scrutiny Committee's recommendation that this debate be held. I suspect that, on looking at the title of the two documents involved—the "Third report on economic and social cohesion", and "Building our common future: Policy challenges and Budgetary means of the Enlarged Union"—some of us thought that this would be a rather technical and dull debate. In fact. the two documents consider how much taxpayers' money the Commission should spend and what it should spend it on. Indeed, the Commission's proposal ranges e yen further. As the Committee states,
  "It will also largely determine the net contribution to the EU of each member state, and the future of the UK's budget rebates. It will, in practice, be binding on the panics to it for those seven years. It is, therefore, one of the most crucial forthcoming EU decisions, with important consequences for enlargement and the draft constitutional treaty."
  For all those reasons, we believe that this debate provides an important opportunity, and we are grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending that this debate proceed.
  The EU's recent enlargement provides the backdrop to these documents. We argued in favour of the accession of the 10 new member slates for many years, so we are delighted to see their arrival in the European Union. Obviously, the arrival of 10 more nations means that the EU will need to adapt if it is to cope with this fundamental change. It needs to tic far more flexible and to be able to accommodate wide diversity within its borders. Above all, it needs to become a Union for its people, not for its leaders.
  On the financial perspective, the Commission is seeking a significant change in its expenditure, as the Paymaster General alluded to, with a proposed increase above 1 per cent. of the Union's gross national income. There have indeed been a number of proposed new spending totals from various member states, but as things stand the Commission has sought an increase to 1.24 per cent. of gross national income. In monetary terms, that equates to more than €336 billion over the seven-year period in question, compared with a figure of €257 billion in the past seven years. Yet, to date, that same Commission has failed to manage its existing budget properly.
  Mr. Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend for intervening, but what I have to say is relevant to what he is talking about and I would appreciate your guidance and assistance. One of the most important papers that we are debating today is "Building our common Future', document 6232/04. The financial framework and requirement for an
  714
  increase in resources claimed by the Commission is supposed to be set out in a table that should appear on page 30. On page 29 it states:
  "The following table provides an illustration of the framework described above."
  On page 30, however, there is a blank page with the words "Insert table" at the top. I do not know whether the table is available somewhere else in the documentation and I have been unable to find it, or whether it is simply missing. In that case, could you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, gently suggest to those on the Treasury Front Bench that the necessary information should be provided before the end of the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is not a matter for which the Chair is directly responsible. I am sure, however, that everyone in the Chamber will have heard his points and that those responsible for providing the documents will seek to make the omission good as quickly as they possibly can.
  Mr. Prisk: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The problem that I was alluding to was the fact that the Commission, despite asking for all the additional money and a change in the budgetary requirements, has failed to manage its existing budget properly. The fact that the European Court of Auditors has not approved its most recent budget highlights a serious lack of basic financial management. Yet this is not the first time that that has happened. Indeed, the Commission's budget has not been approved by its auditors for nine years. Frankly, that is a shameful record, redolent of Enron's accounting standards—a mix of rampant fraud and inadequate financial management.
  In response to this year's budgetary woes, the Financial Secretary said that the EU budget should—the Paymaster General rightly repeated these words—ensure "sound financial management" and "budgetary discipline". We agree. The problem, however, is that the Government have been saying that throughout their entire seven years in office. When are they going to do something about it? When will they try to make the Commission accept its financial responsibilities? After all, if the accounts cannot be trusted, the Commission's financial legitimacy is undermined. How can we know, for example, if the new financial perspective is being achieved? How can we be sure that the Commission's priorities are getting the money that they require? Most important of all, how can taxpayers have any confidence that their hard-earned money is not simply being lost in fraud and waste?
  I ask the Minister for Industry and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), to set out in her reply the representations that the Government have made on this issue. Will she also set out what the Government plan to do if the Commission fails to respond? As far as we are concerned, until confidence in the accounts has been restored, Conservative MEPs will refuse to sign off the Commission's accounts—and so will the future Conservative Government.
  Turning to the total expenditure plan, we strongly oppose any increase in the Commission's budget beyond 1 per cent. The Government have correctly identified the need for restraint to act as a discipline to achieve value

  715
  for money for the taxpayer. I only wish that the Treasury would do the same in Whitehall—though I know that it is trying. In Brussels, the Government's pleas for financial restraint have sadly fallen on deaf ears. Indeed, the Commission seems to hold a fundamentally different view.
  The 15th report of the European Scrutiny Committee rightly highlights the problem in a series of rather worrying quotes from the Commission. Apparently, the Commission believes that budgetary discipline does not deliver any value for money. Financial management is simply "matching resources to needs". The Commission is also quoted as saying:
  "To saddle the Union with a set of goals and then deny it the resources required would be to condemn it to the justified criticism of citizens denied their legitimate expectations."
  How the Treasury must blanch at those words! That is the language of an unreformed spendthrift—the desperate cry of a shopaholic asked to hand over credit cards. It denies financial accountability and, worryingly, it shows the wide gulf that exists even between Whitehall and Brussels, let alone between Brussels and the poor, self-selected taxpayers who have to foot the bill. When the Minister for Industry and the Regions replies to the debate, will she say what plans the Government have to achieve any meaningful financial discipline in Brussels?
  The Commission suggests three new financial priorities for the forthcoming period, as part of its regional and cohesion policy. They are: assistance for regions with per capita gross domestic product below 75 per cent. of the EU average; promotion of regional competitiveness and employment; and support for interregional, cross-border and transnational co-operation. I do not know what that last phrase means, but I love the language.
  The Government have argued instead that the focus should be on the poorer member states, notably the new ones. The Opposition agree: equally, we feel that many of the proposed schemes are too remote from the practical assistance that those countries want. A European police college, a disaster recovery capacity and a new European border agency—none of those begins to address the basic wishes of the people of the new member states. What they want is to get their basic infrastructure sorted out. That is more important than a disaster recovery capacity.
  The impact of the structural funds is important, and that is true for much of the UK, as we have heard in the debate. The funds are important for parts of Cornwall, the north-west, Scotland and Wales, among other areas. Last Thursday, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), the Minister for Industry and the Regions spoke about the Government's plans. She said:
  "If our recommendations are accepted, we will ensure that we increase the resources necessary in the regions and the devolved Administrations to continue the focus on productivity and skills and make the necessary investment to ensure that they are successful."—[Official Report, 10 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 393.]
  However, as questioners this afternoon have emphasised, the important point is what happens if the Government's recommendations are not accepted—an outcome that is quite likely. When she replies, will the
  716
  Minister say whether she can still make that statement? The Paymaster General made a valiant effort to answer that, but hon. Members of all parties would appreciate a clear and unequivocal statement on that point.
  Mr. David: The Dutch take over the EU presidency for the second half of this year. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Dutch Government indicated recently that they strongly support the British Government's proposals? Does he accept that that represents a gathering of momentum behind what the Government are arguing?
  Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for adding that information to the debate. My concern is the lack of clarity in the Government's position, which was illustrated by the questions from Labour Members earlier. I hope that the Minister will provide that clarity when she winds up the debate.
  Mr. David Stewart: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman remarked on the effectiveness of EU spending. Does he accept that spending in UK objective 1 areas has a very good effect? In my area, in the highlands and islands, 90 per cent. of the projects have a high effectiveness rating in terms of the efficiency of the spending. That has led to the creation of 1,800 jobs.
  Mr. Prisk: I certainty accept that that can happen. My work in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has made that clear, but it has also shown that there can be problems. It is dangerous to tar the entire programme with one brush, one way or the other; the important point is that we muse ensure that taxpayers' money is well spent. That is what we want to hear from the Minister.
  Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is equivocating slightly. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) about the effectiveness of money spent on programmes in Scotland. From Eyemouth and Hawick to Galashiels, Selkirk and Peebles, one will find very good projects that are both efficient and effective. What evidence does the hon. Gentleman haw that wipes that out and proves that spending that me ney is a bad thing?
  Mr. Prisk: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood. I do not claim that all objective 1 funds are good or bad: my concern is what the Government will do, because—as several hon. Members have pointed out—projects are anticipating that funding and may suddenly find that it w 11 not be forthcoming. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us on that point.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: On regional spending, surely we should measure not only whether the money has been spent well and effectively, but the cost in terms of the original input. We should measure the cost in terms of budget spend and contributions from member states, as well as the effectiveness when the moneys have finally been spent.
  Mr. Prisk: I agree. The danger is that those Government programmes that are not carefully thought through—whether funded by EU or UK money—

  717
  simply transfer job creation from one area to another. We need to ensure that such programmes are fashioned in a way that takes into account the true spatial dynamics of both counties and regions. We need to ensure value for the taxpayer, whether money is spent directly through UK-funded programmes or through EU programmes.
  The new financial perspective for the coming years, which the Commission has highlighted and which is contained in these documents, would. in our opinion, need to deliver radical reform of Europe's economies, if the EU nations are to compete globally. At the Lisbon European Council in 2000, member states committed themselves to a 10-year strategy for economic reform, in order to improve Europe's employment and productivity. We were told at the time that that would transform the EU into a dynamic, knowledge-based economy, achieving strong but sustainable growth and creating a thriving environment for enterprise in general, and entrepreneurs in particular.
  Sadly, four years on, the reality is rather different. As the Centre for European Reform aid earlier this year:
  "Even the most enthusiastic proponents of the Lisbon agenda can only describe the EU's performance over the last 12 months as mediocre."
  Indeed, the Commission seems to agree. The Financial Times reported on 25 March:
  "Instead of catching up with the US the EU has fallen even further behind. A report by the European Commission in January this year says that in the three most important categories—economic growth, productivity and employment—the EU is far from meeting its own goals.
  With gross domestic product per heal stuck at 72 per cent. of the US level, Brussels concludes that `the Union cannot catch up on the US."'
  In recent months, there have be en negotiations to try and revive the reform agenda. T le Government have been making the right noises, but to date there seems to have been little actual progress. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how far the reform agenda has got and what progress she expects to see over the next year.
  Finally, there is the question of member state contributions. Alongside proposals to increase the overall spending above 1 per cent. of gross national income, the Commission has set cut a series of options for what it—to my pleasure—calls
  "a relatively major and visible tax resource payable by EU citizens and/or economic operators".
  Apparently, that would replace the existing system. I concur with the Paymaster General—we must not concur too often, or people will tart to wonder—that such an EU tax would be wrong in principle and in practice. We are happy to join the Government in opposing that aspect, although I look forward to the Liberal Democrats' comments when the moment comes.
  The Commission has also proposed a system of budget rebates that would replace our existing UK rebates. As I understand it, that system would be available to any member state making what the Commission describes as "excessive budgetary contributions", but unlike the current system, it would be entirely conditional on the a application of what is called "the threshold" and all member states would be required to contribute. I have read carefully through the
  718
  Government's responses and I see that throughout Ministers say that they will "defend" the current rebate. That is super—very encouraging—but what we really want to know is whether they will keep it—[Interruption.] The Paymaster General happily says that they will—
  Dawn Primarolo: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is, "Yes".
  Mr. Prisk: The Government will accept our amendment and now they are agreeing to my comments. I should probably retire gracefully while I am still ahead—[Interruption.] I shall do so in a moment, given that clamour from hon. Members.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying this, but perhaps the Government can help the Conservatives to clarify their European policy if they are now declaring that they agree with us.
  Mr. Prisk: It was all going so well, but then the right hon. Lady had to spoil it. Without pressing the point too much further, can she confirm that the Government have no intention of allowing the rebate to go? Can she confirm that it will not go and that it will not be amended?
  Dawn Primarolo: I can confirm that to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Prisk: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for that confirmation; it will certainly put the minds of many Members at ease.
  At the beginning of the debate, I said that the titles of the two documents underplay the significance of their contents.
  Ms Atherton: The hon. Gentleman knows Cornwall well. What commitment will the Conservative party make on regional policy for the county of Cornwall? Will it match the Labour Government's commitment?
  Mr. Prisk: Indeed, I know Cornwall well; I am an émigré, although perhaps ex-pat would be a better word. The hon. Lady knows that it would be quite wrong of me to try to make policy on the hoof and I have no intention of falling into that trap. I may be a relatively new Member of the House, but I do not intend to make that mistake.
  Adam Price: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prisk: No, I am coming close to the peroration. As hon. Members were keen for me to conclude, I shall accede to the wishes of the House and not give way again.
  The issues covered by the documents include some important questions: how much should the EU spend and on what, and how much should we contribute? That is why the Commission's proposals deserve thorough scrutiny. The Conservative party supports many of the

  719
  stated aims of the motion, especially on limiting total spending and on the "unrealistic and unacceptable" proposals for future spending priorities.
  We are, however, concerned that the Government have not been forthcoming or clear in explaining their aims and plans for fulfilling their objectives and those of the EU. Further to that, the scandal of nine years of unapproved Commission accounts reflects a huge gulf in attitudes towards public financial management between the UK and those who spend our money in the Commission. We have yet to be convinced that the Government have either the will or the plans truly to resolve that problem.
  Again, I commend the work of the European Scrutiny Committee and its continuing consideration of matters European. I hope that in her reply the Minister for Industry and the Regions will be able to answer the questions that I have raised. If she can also indicate that the Government fully accept our amendment and will include it in the resolution, we shall be quite willing to consider withdrawing it at the appropriate stage. I hope she will be able to give us that information when she responds to the debate.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, may I respond to the point of order raised earlier by the hon. Member for mid-Suffolk—
  Mr. Luff: Mid-Worcestershire.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I must have been thinking of my own constituency—so close to my heart, as always. I meant the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull).
  An expanded version of the table to which the hon. Gentleman referred is on page 11 of the original report of the Scrutiny Committee—House of Commons document 42-xv—but the table to which he referred and which should have been in the documents that we are discussing today is now available in the Vote Office. I hope that is helpful.
  Mr. Luff: I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Wayne David: This is an important debate because it is all too easy these days to allow the draft EU constitutional treaty to dominate debate on Europe, whereas the financial perspective for 2007 to 2013 is crucial as well. I understand that the perspective represents the EU's multi-annual budget for those years. We are also considering EU cohesion policy this afternoon. That, too, will have a profound impact on the EU in the next few years.
  The European Commission has proposed a budget for the next financial perspective of 1.26 per cent. of Community gross national income. That represents an increase in the EU budget of some 25 per cent.—a significant increase by any stretch of the imagination. The European Commission argues that that increase is needed to finance the common agricultural policy, to
  720
  support a wide range of policy initiatives, some of which are new, and to fund the structural and cohesion funds—in other words, the instruments of regional policy. Of course, the Commission argues very strongly that that significant increase in the EU budget is necessary because of the recent expansion in the EU from 15 to 25 states.
  Today, I want to question whether such an increase is justified, especially when, as has been said, the EU is concerned about the budget deficits of several member states in the eurozone. There is something of a contradiction therefore: the EU is saying, on the one hand, that certain member states should tighten their belts, but on the other that they should contribute more to the EU's budget. In particular, I want to question whether that large increase in expenditure is justified in two respects. I want to question the expenditure that is projected under the heading "Citizenship, freedom, security and justice", and I then want to say a little about regional policy.
  I should like to spend some time questioning whether it is sensible to increase the CAP budget, but we have to accept the current practicalities and the commitments that have been made on the CAP. The Government of the United Kingdom are to be commended for ensuring that at least a modest reform of the CAP has taken place.
  I find it very strange that the European Commission proposes in its draft financial perspective expenditure a raft of new proposals, on some of which there has been no agreement. I cite, for example, the European border guard corps, which has been suggested without any political agreement. The British Government have not agreed to that suggestion, yet the European Commission nevertheless proposes funding for that new entity. The European Commission also proposes that resources should be allocated to reinforce the political concept of European citizenship. That proposal is very dubious to say the least, given the belief of many hon. Members, myself included, that the EU should be based on the principle of subsidiarity. The regions, small nations and the nation states are the EU's essential building blocks, and that should be part of the mosaic of European citizenship
  I would question many other proposals, too, but I should like to focus in particular on the resource projection for what is called external representation. It is quite breathtaking to be perfectly honest, that the European Commission suggests that funding should be provided for single external representation at the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations economic agencies. We should place a very large question mark against that.
  I also question the need for the proposed increase on regional policy. The European Commission proposes in its draft financial perspective a regional policy that is financed to the tune of €336.3 billion. It proposes that roughly half the structural funds and the cohesion fund should be focused on the new accession states, the countries of central Europe, and that the remaining half should be focused on the 15 states that were members before 1 May this year. It wants to spend the money under three headings. The first is convergence, the second is regional competitiveness and employment and the third is the promotion of territorial co-operation.

  721
  The first part of the Commission's proposal makes a great deal of sense. We should focus our attention on the accession countries of central Europe. They are very poor by our standards and they are struggling to come to terms with the single market. They certainly want to develop their economies up to the standards of ours. From an economic sense, and also from a moral and social sense, we should give the greatest possible support to the development of those new democracies.
  I have problems, however, with other aspects of the Commission's proposals on regional policy. In purely monetary terms, it makes no sense at all for the United Kingdom to have to contribute €1.6 to get €1 back. That situation applies not just to the United Kingdom, but to other member states, and it is quite unsatisfactory and illogical.
  Mr. David Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the argument is about direction rather than speed and about finding the best organisation to add value? Is it the EU or the nation state?
  Mr. David: The argument is partly about that, and I shall specifically address that point a little later. However, it is also about hard cash. It does not make sense for the United Kingdom Government to give large sums of money to other quite prosperous regions, but receive only a small amount of money to spend on our regions. It is far more sensible for the 15 member states to control finance themselves.
  Mr. Hopkins: I remind my hon. Friend that every single region of the United Kingdom is still a net contributor to the European Union.
  Mr. David: To be honest, I am not sure that that is absolutely the case, but I suspect that my hon. Friend's facts are probably right; he would not have made that point otherwise.
  As Members will know from my accent at least, I come from a part of the United Kingdom, south Wales, where we have had large amounts of structural fund assistance—under the current financial perspective, the figure is £1.3 billion. That is because the south Wales valleys and west Wales are classified as objective 1 areas. It is true to say that the programme is very successful: large sums have been spent successfully. To be rather parochial for a moment, I refer to my constituency of Caerphilly and the Tredomen business park and the Ystrad Mynach college, which provides fantastic training opportunities, especially for young people. Widespread intermediate labour market measures have been introduced to help the long-term unemployed and many others.
  It is important to recognise, however, that although much has been done, there is still much more to do. As we have heard this afternoon, a debate is going on among many of the regions that support the structural funds about whether they would be better off with an extension of the current arrangements with the European Commission or with the Government's proposals. There is a genuine worry that money from Europe might dry up, but it is difficult for us to debate specific sums at the moment because the budget has not been agreed. The European Commission is talking hypothetically, so we will know exactly where we are only when the European Union budget is agreed.
  722
  There is much to commend about the Government's firm commitment that the regions of the United Kingdom will not lose out—that genuine statement was reiterated this afternoon. However, if we leave finance aside, we must take account of other considerations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) suggested. A few months ago, the British Government published a Green Paper entitled "A Modern Regional Policy for the United Kingdom". The document suggests a new way forward for the United Kingdom's regional policy and I commend much of what it contains, not only because of financial considerations, but because of administrative considerations.
  I followed closely the way in which the European single programme document was drawn up because it has governed the expenditure of objective 1 moneys in south and west Wales. Much of the document should be commended, but it would have been much better if more local control had been exercised over it. One of the problems encountered when drawing up such documents is that they must comply with European Union agreements—in other words, they must fit in with what the European Commission says. I shall outline a case in point. The south Wales valleys face the specific problem of a lack of transport because of the area's topography. We desperately need more roads so that we may open up our valleys. That suggestion could not be written into the single programme document because the European Commission was against it. In other words, despite the fact that local people wanted the scheme, European money could not be spent on it because people in Brussels deemed that it was against the blueprint that they had established. That situation is unsatisfactory.
  I hope that future policies will be determined according to the principle of subsidiarity. Local plans would thus be drawn up by local people who understand their areas, so in the case that I outlined, the National Assembly for Wales would do that. I want any funds that come via Brussels to match the strategy outlined in the Assembly's national economic development strategy, "A Winning Wales". At the moment, the European programme runs in parallel with that, but sometimes the complementarity is not perfect. The Government's proposal to streamline the system represents a far more logical and sensible approach on regional development.
  The Green Paper deals with regional policy and structural funds, but it also places important emphasis on the future of European state aids, which is equally important. The key word must be "flexibility". We must have flexibility so that the regions of the United Kingdom may tackle market failure. The current situation is unsatisfactory. For example, when the Government wanted to introduce regional venture capital funds to benefit regions, they had to wait 12 months for the European Commission's permission. Why should that happen? Why on earth are such measures not determined nationally and regionally, which would be far more sensible and straightforward? Let us consider what happened with the Government's implementation of stamp duty reductions. Again, they had to wait for the European Commission to approve

  723
  the proposal. There is no logical reason why that should have happened, and I argue that it should not happen in the future.
  Mr. David Stewart: Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about a possible double whammy for areas that lose objective 1 funding? First, they will lose the maximum amount of European funding, and secondly, they will lose the highest amount of dedicated state aid.
  Mr. David: There must be a response to cases of need, and people must choose whether they want the British Government or the European Commission to make that response. I am a committed European, but I have more confidence in the ability of our Government than in that of the European Commission to recognise what is needed here. That was not always the case, however, with previous Governments.
  Ms Atherton: Does my hon. Friend agree that objective 1 created a stand-alone pot of money that enabled communities such as mine to develop new projects that might have taken longer with Government structures? I hope that the Government will address that in their proposals after 2006.
  Mr. David: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. There is much to be commended in various European programmes and we can all cite examples of good practice and innovation. However, that is balanced by the drawbacks. I have cited the lack of complementarity, but there is also an emphasis on convoluted forms of partnership. In my own area, for example, there has been partnership after partnership, and excessive red tape and bureaucracy. We could all think of ways in which we could streamline the system in our area to make it more effective and ensure that resources get through quickly to the projects and people who need them. I hope that such an initiative will be realised.
  In conclusion, we have some way to go in discussions on the financial perspective and the future of EU regional policy, and I am sure that detailed negotiations will take place in the coming months. The Government are certainly correct to argue for a ceiling of 1 per cent. of gross national income in the EU budget, not 1.26 per cent. as proposed by the European Commission. I hope that they will not just be tough in the negotiations—it is all too easy to take such a stance—but persuasive.
  It is no longer enough for us to stand in splendid isolation and be self-righteous about our proposals. We must engage effectively with our partners in Europe so that we win the argument and make sure that our interests, along with other interests, are to the fore. The European Union and the budget used to finance it should be responsive to its citizens and reflect concerns about their priorities. Europe should not centralise for the sake of it, and should genuinely serve the people, having recognised their needs. I therefore look forward to the Government arguing their case strongly, passionately and persuasively in the EU, and to their success.
  5.43 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Last week, a vigorous national debate raged about Europe, but it seems to have passed us by this afternoon, as there is a substantial and, indeed, alarming consensus, to which I propose to add. I largely agree with the essential points in the Government motion, including the fact that the budget should not exceed 1 per cent. of gross national income, the fact that the Commission's proposals are unrealistic and unacceptable, and the need to refocus and reprioritise. If anything, the Conservative amendment strengthens the motion, so I support it as well.
  Our debate this afternoon has not been about the EU at all but about British regional policy, and what exactly happens when we nationalise or repatriate—I am not sure whether my terminology is correct—the regional budget. There has been insistent questioning from Members representing the north-west, Cornwall, the borders, the Scottish highlands and Wales about the meaning of the Government's guarantee that the regional flow of funds will continue. The more subtle question is how areas whose needs are met by European budget allocations will be sustained under a national regime with different priorities. There is a series of questions there that have been only partially answered so far.
  Returning to the essence of the budget, on the 1 per cent., a pertinent question was posed earlier by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), who asked why only 1 per cent.—after all, there are more countries coming into the EU, so should not the budget be enlarged? The answer to that is partly a national interest point that the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) made in an intervention—a larger budget would mean a larger net contribution from the UK. Apart from the national interest point, there is a wider point that is summarised in the letter from the six net contributors, of which we are one, that makes the case that until the European budget in general is tightened up and reformed, there is no case for its substantial enlargement. The formula must therefore remain at 1 per cent.
  Some balance is needed, however. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spoke about waste and corruption, as did the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk). We know that there has been waste and corruption in the European Union budget. It is evidenced, the audit trail exists and there are many anecdotes illustrating the point, but not everything that the EU does through its budget is wasteful and corrupt. We have heard examples today of good European budget allocations, such as the descriptions from the highlands of Scotland.
  I can quote an example from my constituency, which does not involve European regional funding but none the less shows that, when the EU gets things right, it can make a useful contribution at the margin. I have in my constituency the Twining centre, an institution that specialises in retraining the mentally ill—people who, for the most part, are permanently unemployed. The centre was established to retrain them for the labour force. There was no other source of funding. The council cannot afford to fund the centre. The Government do not regard Twickenham as a particularly high priority

  725
  area in urban deprivation, so there was no funding from the Government. The private sector is sympathetic and will use the graduates of the centre, but will not fund its running costs, so the European social fund did. Hundreds of local mentally ill people now owe their employability to that well-focused and well-managed centre, which has Spanish management drawing on best practice from the EU.
  There are similar examples all around the country and we should not disregard them by painting a wholly negative picture of waste and corruption. Moreover, there is a paradox associated with the arguments about waste and corruption: the greater the concern, the greater the need for detailed documentation of application and monitoring. As a result, some European applications and monitoring are extraordinarily complex. Of course, that is not unique to Europe. Anyone who deals with local area-based initiatives or with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will know that bureaucracy was not invented in Brussels.
  Mr. Prisk: One of our concerns is that, in the absence of properly audited accounts, we do not know how much is wasted or lost in fraud, so the accuracy of information is fundamental. Without that, all the funds and the priorities on which we may or may not agree are undermined by that lack of confidence. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Dr. Cable: Of course. The hon. Gentleman makes the point moderately and sensibly. Of course there must be audit. Much of the discussion over the past few weeks has been at a populist level, which is not the substantive point he makes, and much of the waste and corruption, as we well know, comes out of the agricultural budget. Because I regularly attend DEFRA questions, I know that many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are assiduous supporters of the common agricultural policy when it comes to their own constituencies.
  That is my next point. One of the key problems associated with the European budget is a disastrous decision a few years ago, which was heavily discussed in this place and over which the Government appear to have had very little control: the so-called Berlin agreement between France and Germany, which has maintained the share of agricultural spending in the budget for the next decade, effectively paralysing any real innovation in budget initiatives. That utterly disastrous decision reminds us of the many iniquities of the CAP. It paralyses the budget, is enormously detrimental to the consumer, harms the environment and damages international trade and international trade policy.
  Although this argument is about the budget, not agricultural policy in general, I hope that the Government will continue to reassert in Europe the fundamental belief that we should be aiming not only for reform at the edges, but for a world in which agricultural products are traded as freely as cars and televisions because there is no reason why they should not be. That is the open market destination to which we should all commit ourselves.
  I have a specific question about agriculture in the budget. Given that the Paymaster General said that sugar is next on the agenda for reform, what does that
  726
  mean for the sugar tariff? As sugar is one of the EU's own resources, the EU has an interest in increased tariff revenue and therefore in resisting the liberalisation of the sugar regime. What is the Government's view, and how do they see the future of the sugar tariff in relation to their reform proposals?
  The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford asked about the UK budget rebate. I joined the consensus on the rebate—I support it, as does my party. It was an achievement of the Conservative Government to have negotiated it and an achievement of this Government to have maintained it. Nevertheless, we could do better. Even after the rebate, we are still substantial net contributors. Over the past three years, we contributed an average of €4 billion a year, which, in comparison with France and Italy, would not be merited on any equitable basis. Although the rebate has secured enormous gains relative to what they could have been, the formula is still not entirely satisfactory.
  Moreover, in every negotiation with the European Union, we are hamstrung by the fact that, if the British Government make major demands, the other European countries—particularly the French—will pop up and say, "In that case, let's reopen the whole question of the British rebate." Instead of a special dispensation for the British, it would be better to have an automatic compensation mechanism for all net contributors similar to the system of floors and ceilings that has been developed in local government finance. Of course, that cannot be achieved in the short term—there is no proposal on the table and no political will to achieve it—but we cannot argue for the next 20, 30 or 50 years that the funding of the European Union must be built around the British rebate. There must be a better mechanism and we should keep that as our long-term strategic objective.
  My final point relates to the refocusing of priorities. It is a simple matter of logic that, if there is a limited budget pot of 1 per cent. of GDP, an expanded membership of predominantly poor countries and redistribution based on income, the existing recipients will lose revenue. The UK regions and regions of the other relatively high-income member states will have to accept that European regional aid will be phased out, albeit with transitional relief, because that is an inevitable consequence of the way in which the budget is evolving. There is a whole set of practical questions about how transitional relief is managed and how the Government's guarantee to honour regional payments will be met.
  Ms Atherton: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he think that his Cornish colleagues would agree?
  Dr. Cable: All hon. Members who have spoken rightly advanced strong arguments for maintaining funding for their regions. The Government have guaranteed that that will be sustained under the new arrangements. Several of my hon. Friends say, as would my Cornish colleagues, that they want not only the quantity of money, but the quality of the programmes to be maintained. We have not yet received clear answers from the Government about how that will be maintained. I do not disagree with the hon. Lady or my Cornish colleagues on that matter.

  727
  There is a more fundamental question. The poorer areas and depressed regions of the European Union will have to cope without much help from European funding. Even if the European budget were expanded, the money would be a drop in the ocean compared with the economic needs of the depressed areas and poorer regions of Europe. They will have to adjust in other ways and that is why the overall economic framework must be right. There are two key elements to that.
  Mr. Bolkestein, the Liberal Commissioner in Brussels, stressed the first element yesterday. It is the importance of the Lisbon approach, which essentially provides for a market mechanism to ensure a proper disciplined system for state aid, competition and the maintenance of the original principles of the Common Market.
  Secondly, the poorer areas of Europe cannot be constrained in their application of tax policy. Taxation is not simply a British red line issue; it is about the future of Europe. The poorer countries in Europe must have the flexibility to vary their corporate tax rates. There is nothing wrong with tax competition, which is entirely healthy and should be embedded in the institutions of the European Union.
  Mr. Hopkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman but does he agree with me that it is right for those countries to retain their currencies so that they can secure appropriate parity and maintain competition in that way, too?
  Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman knows that I perceive some merit in a common currency but he makes a clear point. Such a currency would increase the importance of the need for other forms of flexibility. That is essential not only for taxation but for regulation. Trying to impose uniform regulation can be damaging, especially in a monetary union. One of the most important elements in the treaty negotiation therefore relates to the terms of the protocol on subsidiarity. That should give maximum scope for national Governments to pursue independent approaches on regulation.
  Mr. Prisk: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman agrees with his Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament for the eastern region who has submitted to the Convention the proposal that the European Union should establish a system of its own revenue resources, which may include levying taxes and duties?
  Dr. Cable: No, I do not agree with my colleague. I have disagreed with him publicly and privately on many occasions, not least on the issue that we are considering.
  The hon. Gentleman has conveniently helped me on to my concluding point about whether there should be a European tax system. I believe that my colleague from the eastern region advocated that, but we do not. It is unnecessary because mechanisms for funding the European Union already exist. The third and fourth dimensions of own resources are perfectly adequate. The problem is the way in which the money is spent. It
  728
  should be spent in a disciplined way and the terms of the motion capture the essence of what we all agree should happen.
  5.58 pm
  Ms Candy Atherton: I am pleased to participate in the debate. It will not surprise hon. Members that I want to talk about Cornwall.
  Mr. Luff: A fine county.
  Ms Atherton: A very fine county, but one with some difficulties. Its gross domestic product is 59 per cent. of the European Union average. Everyone would agree that that is unacceptable for this country.
  I shall say a little about the history of how we obtained objective 1 funding. When I was first elected in 1997, not much had been done to tackle the economic problems of the county, which was in slow decline. We had high unemployment and low wages. We still have low wages but unemployment has fallen. People and the community wanted to tackle the problems and we came together in a campaign to try to secure separation from Devon.
  Standing alone, separate from Devon, is popular in Cornwall. However, it was difficult to achieve because the Commission was dead opposed to it on the ground of statistics. In its view, one should not separate geographical areas because it is then impossible to follow long-term statistical analysis. We had a campaign and when I went to sec our Prime Minister, he instructed our civil servants to make our case with the Commission. When, just a handful of weeks later, an agreement was reached that, statistically, we would be separated from Devon, we immediately stood out as a shining example of a community that needed objective 1 status and we started to receive the funding from 2000. That involved more than £300 million, plus public and private match funding.
  Mr. Luff: The hon. Lady has already acknowledged my recognition of the fact that Cornwall is a fine county. However, if I heard her correctly just now, she seemed to be calling for the separation of Cornwall from Devon. How does that fit with the Government's plans for regional government for the south-west?
  Ms Atherton: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. For Cornwall to qualify for objective 1 status, we had to be considered statistically on our gross domestic product. Devon's relative prosperity pulled us up above the 75 per cent. level of GDP, which meant that we did not qualify. Thanks to the Government, once the argument that I have described had been put to the Commission, we were able to stand alone and our relatively low GDP enabled us to obtain the objective 1 funding. As I have said, that involved about £300 million of European structural funds, plus match funding from the private and public sectors, including the Government. So the Government are putting money in through the European Commission as well as through match funding. Certain hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches were convinced that that match funding would never materialise, but I am glad to say

  729
  that it has, and I am very grateful for it. We now have a number of projects in place, which I shall talk about later.
  The funding has also opened the door to other pots of money. It was as though a curtain had fallen away from the eyes of civil servants and politicians in Whitehall, and a number of other programmes suddenly came together. The pots of money filled up to provide a sizeable amount with which to tackle our problems. One area in which we have used this money has been the combined universities in Cornwall Anyone who knows the county will know that our young people fly across the Tamar bridge, possibly never to be seen again until they retire. However, we need their ideas and their capacity to create new companies.
  We had a fantasy about having a university in the county, prior to obtaining the objective 1 funding. Our fantasy involved a university simply landing near Penzance just like the Tardis. However, the fantasy was not funded, which meant that it had a serious problem. But, because we had our stand-alone pot of objective 1 money, Falmouth college of arts and other higher education providers in the county came together with me to develop the concept. A new campus was purchased and the first students will arrive at combined universities in Cornwall this September.
  To deliver an idea—a dream—by planning, through the Commission and the British Government, and to have the first students arriving on time, to the day, is a tremendous achievement and I pay tribute to everyone who has taken part in the project. That all took place during the run up to the 2001 general election, when money was getting tight and Ministers were moving around. However, the appropriate Ministers were brought together and they put their hands in their pockets to get the match funding on to the table. They made this happen, and I have a real fear that that would not have been the case if those Ministers had not been brought together in that way. The graduates of the university will create new companies, which will create new jobs. They will be higher-level jobs than we have had in the past, which has to be good for the county.
  We are also leading the way on broadband. Being at the periphery of the country means that infrastructure and communications are our most difficult problems. However, once someone has broadband, they are at the centre of the universe. Cornwall now leads the United Kingdom with broadband. By this time next year, any small or medium-sized enterprise in Cornwall that wants access to the internet, either by means of broadband or wireless, will have the opportunity to get it. That will be a huge step forward for any business working in the county.
  That is why I have been so supportive of structural funds and I could go on to talk about the many other ways in which they have helped us. That pot of stand-alone money has enabled us to be creative, to think outside the box and to approach the Government for the appropriate match funding. I must be honest with Ministers: I am sympathetic to the case, and, clearly, I understand the economics in relation to why we want to renationalise, which is a nicer term than "repatriate", the structural funds money back to the United Kingdom. But I am concerned that we need to be able to think outside the box—not to come up with central
  730
  programmes that other parts of the country are following but innovative, new ideas that we want to work in Cornwall.
  I ask Ministers to think creatively over the next few months. I will be supportive of their plans to, so to speak, get our money back. I accept that the Government have made a commitment to Cornwall way beyond any commitment that any previous Government have made to the county, but I am concerned that there will be a lapse in the couple of years after 2006, because we cannot plan now for what will happen in those two years. We cannot make planning applications in case things are not quite in place. I ask Ministers to consider how we can move forward quickly and efficiently to deliver for the county of Cornwall.
  Once again, I am grateful to Ministers for their commitment to Cornwall. Our GDP and our need stand out, and I hope that Ministers will continue to work with us to improve the economic prospects of the whole county of Cornwall.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I am slightly surprised by the relatively sparse attendance in the House this afternoon, particularly after the interesting results of the European elections which were declared at the weekend. Perhaps it is a similar situation to that scene in "Fawlty Towers" in which Basil Fawlty says, "Don't mention the war." Perhaps that is what we are trying not to do this afternoon.
  This is a debate of huge importance, the significance of which I simply had not realised until I made the mistake of starting to read the documents available for the debate. In that context, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your assistance in obtaining the omission from one of the key documents—that valuable piece of paper is now in my hands.
  Having said that, to my absolute amazement, I must agree with every word of the Government motion— [Interruption.] It is not easy, but I am afraid that I must. I associate myself particularly with the following:
  "the Government's efforts to refocus allocations within a budget of 1 per cent. of EU Gross National Income…and that the future European Union Budget should be reprioritised and refocused in line with the principles of subsidiarity and spending that adds value at the European Union level."
  Of course, I am freed from the obligation to speak about regional and cohesion policy, not because it is not important in British terms, as it is for counties such as Cornwall—my father-in-law comes from Cornwall, hence my love affair with the county. It is also important for the whole future of the enlargement project, which is supported on both sides of the House. The enlargement project is tremendously important, and it is tremendous news that the former Soviet countries are now part of the enlarged, democratic European Union, which we want to make a success, as we do future enlargements, as the process has not ended yet.
  My part of the world, however, including the constituency of my neighbour, the Minister for Industry and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who will wind up the debate, does not benefit from regional policy funding, although we have pockets of poverty, as she and I would admit.
  Mr. David Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that it is not just important to help the poorest people in Europe but that there are great export opportunities for the UK to the 10 accession countries? It is a win-win: we help the poorest countries, but we also help UK enterprise.
  Mr. Luff: That is absolutely true. I agree entirely with that comment. The spirit of consensus rules yet again. Many concerns have been expressed about outsourcing of service sector jobs to India, for example, but we enjoy a trade surplus with that country at present, because of economic success and dynamism and our success—which has not always been the case—in selling to that country.
  The House owes a debt to the European Scrutiny Committee for its report—
  Mr. Richard Bacon: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Luff: I guess that my hon. Friend is a member of that Committee. I had forgotten. I repeat that we owe a debt, particularly to him. It is a useful report, particularly the second paragraph of the summary, which says it all:
  "The new Financial Perspective will determine the overall revenue and expenditure of the EU and the expenditure on each category of EU activity for the seven years from 2007 to 2013."
  One of the most important jobs that the House does is agreeing expenditure, so this debate about the future development of the EU is one of the most important debates that we could have.
  The report says:
  "It will also largely determine the net contribution to the EU of each Member State, and the future of the UK's budget rebate."
  I do not intend to say anything about the rebate, except that I was delighted to hear the marvellous achievement of my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher so widely acknowledged throughout the House. I am sure she would be very pleased to hear Liberal Democrats and Labour Members praising her for that historic achievement. I am also delighted to hear of the Government's robust intention to defend the rebate in the face of the rather worrying proposals in the Commission's document.
  According to the European Scrutiny Committee's report,
  "As well as determining the shape of the EU's finances it"
  —the new financial perspective—
  "will set the Commission's policy agenda."
  Two thirds of the document on which I want to concentrate, "Building our common Future", consists of a manifesto for the development of the European Union, while the remaining third is a bid for funding and management of that funding. We are therefore engaging in a debate of huge significance. The Committee concluded that the decision on the financial perspective was
  "therefore one of the most crucial forthcoming EU decisions",
  and I entirely agree.
  If we look at the missing page that you obtained for us through your good offices, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we
  732
  see that the Commission plans about a threefold increase in spending on
  "Competitiveness for Growth and employment",
  a tiny reduction in spending on agriculture, and almost a threefold increase in spending on
  "Citizenship, freedom security and justice".
  It plans to spend half as much again on the EU as a global partner, and there is a planned increase of a third in administrative costs. I can imagine how both the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor would feel about a proposal from any UK Department to increase its expenditure by a third over the next seven years. Overall, this is a total increase of 31 per cent. in real terms EU spending.
  Tucked away in the document, and highlighted by the Committee's report, is possibly the most horrifying recommendation of all—a recommendation for a Euro-tax, to be levied by the EU on individual citizens of individual member states. It would be
  "a relatively major and visible tax resource payable by EU citizens and/or economic operators"
  —whatever they are. it is a lovely phrase. That could partly replace GNI contributions. Three routes are proposed for the securing of tax revenue: a tax on corporate income, a "genuine VAT resource"—in other words, a sales tax imposed at European level—or an energy tax. It is all right, we are assured, because
  "In each case, the tax burden for citizens need not increase as the EU tax rate need not increase as the EU tax rate could be offset by an equivalent decrease in the rate accruing to the national budget in the same tax, or of the rates of other taxes."
  That means the EU becoming more and more like a state, a country in its own right, with its own flag, president and constitution and tax-raising powers. That is huge. I am delighted to hear that the Government are resisting what is, for me, a sticking point, but it is extraordinary that the idea has even surfaced in the document.
  I made the mistake of reading the document. I think that every Member should be compelled to read it, because it would horrify most of them. The introduction gives us three hints about why the Commission is driving in this direction. I love this:
  "To give Europe a Constitution is a powerful and symbolic act, but it is as yet unrealised. The European Union must continue down the path of integration, and avoid the trap of unwieldy inter-governmentalism."
  Unwieldy inter-governmentalism! That is the view of co-operation between nation states: it is unwieldy and out of date, and we must have integration.
  According to the second principle, Europe has not been doing terribly well economically compared with the United States. That, of course, is true. There is a paragraph on growth rates, and how much better the US has done than the EU-15. The Commission's solution is not the solution it should be proposing—deregulation. It says:
  "Robust, coordinated and coherent action is needed to reverse this trend."
  We know what that means. It means more expenditure on intervention by the European Commission.

  733
  The third thing in the document hat takes my breath away is the idea that the Union's
  "value added lies in transnational and Europe-wide action. Here, national authorities are ill-equipped to take into account the full benefits or costs of their actions. Effectiveness requires large critical masses beyond the reach of national governments alone, or in networking efforts made at national level."
  In other words, we always know better than the member states.
  The document is quite extraordinary at every level. It includes this charming little comment:
  "It is a question of political direction, to be made on the basis of a clear vision of what we want to do. These choices will determine whether the European Union and its Member States are able to achieve in practice what European people expect."
  I wonder whether the European Commission really knows what European people actually expect of it.
  Mr. Hopkins: I strongly support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I suggest that the idea that the European Union knows best is certainly not true of its international aid, which is inefficient and misdirected, whereas the international aid given by our Government is much more efficient and better directed.
  Mr. Luff: Consensus is again the order of the day. I can only agree robustly with what the hon. Gentleman says. He is absolutely right, and that point gives the lie to the old argument that spending more is always automatically good. If we just repatriated our money that is spent by the European Union on humanitarian aid, and spent it ourselves, the poor of the developing world would be so much better off. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, which enables me to remove a whole section of my speech. I am grateful to him for that, because I am already beginning to talk for too long.
  Mr. David: To extend still further the consensus in the Chamber, may I commend the hon. Gentleman on his trenchant analysis of the European Commission? May I therefore take it that he will be supporting the draft European constitution, because one of its key elements is giving nation states more power over the Commission?
  Mr. Luff: I think that you might get a little impatient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I started to speak on the European constitution. I would be the first to acknowledge that there are some good things in the European constitution, but I still think that we do not need it and that there are good things about other routes.
  The document comments on other things that we need. It says:
  "European citizenship must serve to guarantee concrete rights and duties, in particular, freedom, justice and security, and ensure access to basic public services at European level. The benefits of membership for citizens now extend beyond market freedoms, and these issues must be prioritised."
  In other words, the European Commission has to start to get its hands on the delivery of health, education and all the other fields that we thought were the preserve of national Governments.
  734
  There is also a plea for Europe to be a
  "strong global player. No one can question the importance of the role that Europe has to play in the world, starting from its responsibility vis-à-vis its neighbours…Be it development assistance"—
  which the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) was just talking about—
  "trade policy, foreign and security policy or external aspects of other policies, the expectations for Europe are growing."
  Well, the European Commission might not hold that view quite so clearly if it studied the results of the European Parliament elections from all across Europe. This document is based on an extraordinarily outdated concept of what Europe is all about.
  I could spend hours dissecting the document, because it is extraordinary. I shall have to be selective, but I shall not miss out the section on the three priorities for the next financial perspectives. This point, one of the most important in the whole document, is tucked away. The section begins:
  "The Internal Market must be completed".
  That is absolutely right—there is no higher priority for the European Union than that, and we have not achieved it yet. Although it is years since we thought that we had achieved it, we still have not. The great thing about achieving the internal market is that it would hardly cost a penny. It would not require any increased expenditure. It is the single most important thing that we could do to make the European Union more effective for its members, and it would not cost a penny. There would be no need to increase expenditure from 1.24 per cent. of GNI—no need at all. We would not have to spend any money. The document then goes on about European citizenship and being a global partner as the other two priorities. I just disagree with that, and I think that my constituents, too, would disagree pretty strongly.
  I turn to the question of improving the quality of education and training in the Union. Here it is in black and white:
  "In view of these declining indicators"—
  that is, the performance of education systems throughout Europe—
  "there is an urgent need to speed up the pace of reform and modernisation of Europe's education and training systems."
  That is a bid by the European Commission to get into spending directly on education.
  We then come to
  "A social policy agenda: Helping European society to anticipate and manage change".
  I shall need your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a word that I am going to use to describe the following paragraph:
  "The Union needs to adapt, trigger and absorb change. By dynamically addressing challenges related to rapid change in international competitive conditions, the Social Policy Agenda is the Union's roadmap for policy and action in the employment and social sphere, as part of the overall Lisbon Strategy. Through the combination of legislation, the open method of coordination and social dialogue, and EU budget support, the agenda is instrumental in modernising the European social model."
  I think that there is a technical term for that, and I doubt whether it is parliamentary: it is bullshit. Such comments are extraordinary and this document is full of them.

  735
  Here is another such comment:
  "The EU level is also the most appropriate place to successfully promote social dialogue, as foreseen by the Treaty."
  I disagree, whatever "social dialogue" is. That said, I can guess what it means and I do not like it one little bit. Indeed, here is what I thought it meant:
  "The EU level is also the most appropriate place to successfully enhance"—
  another split infinitive, but never mind—
  "the quality of industrial relations and promote social dialogue as foreseen by the Treaty."
  Aha! They are getting their hands on something else.
  Fascinatingly, about a third of the budget—the common agricultural policy—merits only a page of this document. Of course, there is no mention at all of the really malign impact of that policy: the trade-distorting subsidies that do so much harm to the developing world.
  I love this one:
  "Freedom, Security and Justice are core values which constitute key components of the European model of society."
  Motherhood and apple pie in spades, but here is an interesting comment:
  "Through the integration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitutional Treaty the Union will have a legal obligation to ensure that fundamental rights are not just respected, but actively promoted as well."
  Is that a consequence of the document, which was compared to a children's comic by one Minister? We are invited to believe that the charter is now a major driver for increased expenditure by the European Union.
  Mr. David Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has adopted a rather sarcastic tone in respect of some issues, but does he not agree that funding a European social fund, for example, does much to promote equal opportunities within the UK? Is that not a positive thing?
  Mr. Luff: There are some good things that the European Union can do better than member states, and it should concentrate on those. It should not be making this extraordinary bid for a wide-ranging increase in its competences and spending programmes.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) said that I was being sarcastic, but I shall really lay on the sarcasm with this one. Another goal is to
  "Increase the rate of European films distributed outside their country of origin from the current 11 per cent. of the market to 20 per cent. in 2013, double the number of cinemas programming European films by 2010 and training 35,000 audiovisual professionals by 2013".
  Are they going to double the audiences going to see European films? I doubt that very much. In fact, I would rather that they doubled the number of cinemas showing Bollywood films, because that is the market currently growing in the UK.
  This is one of the most extraordinary and alarming documents that I have ever read. I was going to quote from the section on European aid, but I shall not do so in view of the comments of the hon. Member for Luton, North. The prediction of what will happen if the EU keeps at 1 per cent. of gross national income I regard as
  736
  both ludicrous and sometimes beneficial. For example, one of the first things that the document states is that efforts in terms of external aid will be reduced. Excellent. If that is the cost of keeping to 1 per cent., the poor of the world will be able to cheer, as we deny the European Commission the extraordinary ambition that it demonstrates in this very frightening document.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate, which is almost a love-in involving Members of all three main parties. Although I do not want to upset Members too much, I want to go slightly further than those who hinted at certain things but perhaps dared not say them. To a lesser extent, this debate has taken place in European Standing Committee B, of which I am a member, over the past seven years, so I have spoken on such matters a few times before. I therefore apologise if I repeat comments that others have already heard.
  The Government talk about rigorously reassessing the EU budgetary arrangements and I entirely agree. Indeed, rigorous assessment is perhaps an understatement, in that fundamental reform would be more appropriate. I have always supported enlargement because I believed that it would promote and provoke a proper reassessment of what the European Union is about and should be about, and that it would make for sensible reforms. That is indeed what is happening now.
  In my view, the budget has always been deeply flawed, primarily because of the common agricultural policy and its effects. The CAP has a perverse effect on fiscal transfers between member states, with richer nations benefiting and poorer nations being net contributors. Denmark, for example, which is one of the richest countries, has been a big net beneficiary of the CAP. That was really unnecessary. Ireland, at one time a less prosperous nation—now much more prosperous, I am glad to say—has sometimes benefitted to the tune of 5 per cent. of its gross domestic product because of fiscal transfers from the EU. That is the equivalent of more than £50 billion in Britain. Imagine the EU giving us a net £50 billion every year—it would certainly make our economy fly along. I am pleased that Ireland has benefited. The CAP and related budget arrangements are perverse, and it is time we had some fundamental reform. I think that that really means the abolition of the CAP.
  There seems to be a consensus that we should repatriate or renationalise structural or regional funding to the member states. I agree, but in doing so, no region in Britain should lose out in any way. Every penny should be replaced by national funding. Replacing European funding With national funding, however, amounts to a net increase in Government spending and the only way of overcoming that would be to get rid of the perverse effects of the CAP, as I mentioned. If, in future, there are to be transfers between member states through EU arrangements, they should be based on the relative prosperity of the different nations so that richer nations contribute and the poorer nations receive net gains. That could be done on the simple basis of prosperity by standard amounts being paid in and paid out accordingly in a planned and calculated way.
  That will not happen if we have the CAP, which I understand is to be gradually introduced for the new member states. I believe that the CAP should be

  737
  abolished and repatriated, as I said, and that we should look again into how we subsidise agriculture—if we subsidise it at all. I think that there is a case for some selective subsidies, but they should be chosen at member state level. I am sure that we would want Welsh hill farmers, for example, to be protected. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) agrees with that. Livestock farming is very beneficial for the environment, even in prosperous rural areas, but I do not believe that big subsidies should be made for agribusiness producers of wheat and sugar beet. We need to think very carefully before we subsidise those producers. I believe that we should reduce their level of subsidy, but it should be done at the national level.
  In dealing with trade in agricultural products, we should resort more to negotiation with fellow member states and, indeed, across the world through the World Trade Organisation. Again, that can be done only if we abolish the CAP, which is outdated and was always a mistake. I was writing papers about how wrong the CAP was 30 years ago, and everything that has happened since has confirmed my view. We are now reaching a point where the whole world agrees that the CAP is nonsense and should be got rid of.
  I was going to mention the EU aid budget, but I intervened on that point earlier. If we abolish the CAP, repatriate structural and regional spending, and repatriate the aid budget, what is left? Not very much, I would suggest. If that happens, the whole EU would become a very different animal. If we want an EU that is going to work and be agreeable and acceptable to all, it should be based on international social justice. That is what I suggested earlier in my speech, when I said that the budget should be geared more towards helping the poorer nations by the relatively greater contributions of the richer nations.
  That would be a beneficial result of enlargement. It would bring Europe together and help the poorer nations to reach our living standards. Internally, of course, every nation would have its own regional policy spending and budgets in accordance with its own needs and political decisions. I entirely agree with hon. Members who have spoken about areas in receipt of some sort of regional aid that our Government should compensate them for every penny—indeed, every euro—that they might lose from the reform of the European budget.
  I have not said very much, because other hon. Members have already said what needs saying. However, I am very pleased that the Government are challenging what the Commission says, which is profoundly wrong. If the Government follow the suggestions made by me and other hon. Members we will have a much more sensible Europe, and one that is much more popular with all its citizens.
  6.30 pm
  Adam Price: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), whom I thank once again for his support for beleaguered Welsh hill farmers.
  I shall concentrate on the third cohesion report and on regional policy. At a time when trust and confidence in politics and the EU is collapsing, I want to say some
  738
  good things about the Government—and about the European Commission, which has been castigated and caricatured by hon. Members of both left and right this afternoon.
  I shall begin with some positive remarks about the Government. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, the debate is in part about the Government's domestic regional policy, which it is fair to say has acquired a higher profile over the past few years. For the first time, the Government are genuinely trying to address the regional economic disparities in the UK.
  The Government are asking some of the right questions, although I do not know whether they have yet come up with the right answers. They have set themselves the ambitious goal of closing the GDP growth gap between the regions and nations of the UK. The policy levers do not exist at present to enable them to achieve that goal, but an interesting debate is going on in the Government. There is different mood music in the respective Departments of the Paymaster General and the Minister for Industry and the Regions. The divide may not be as great as that between the US State Department and the Pentagon over Iraq but, from afar, the slight divergence of emphasis and opinion is interesting to watch.
  I do not want to suggest that either the Treasury or the Department of Trade and Industry are anything other than new Labour. However, the Treasury is possibly more neo-Keynesian in respect of regional policy, whereas the DTI is more neo-liberal or old-fashioned Thatcherite. The Treasury can therefore talk about an active industrial policy—I think that the Paymaster General used those words earlier—yet the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been trying to bury industrial policy over the past few years.
  That is a slight digression, but it is relevant to the Government's proposals for repatriating regional economic policy. We look forward to seeing more detail on the Government's proposals for state aid. In the past, the Government have tried to roll back the state—at least in terms of state aid—across Europe, but now it is part of the package that the Government see a new role for state aid in their revived and rejuvenated regional policy.
  European regional policy is one of the few European policies for which there is some hard evidence that it works. The third cohesion report presents the relevant data, which show that there is convergence among the original 15 EU member states. For example, between 1994 and 2001, the average annual GDP growth in those countries' objective 1 regions was 3 per cent., compared with an average of 2.5 per cent. across the EU. That is a strong performance over an eight-year period, and it suggests that European regional economic policy has worked.
  However, the addendum that I want to add is that the policy has not worked so well that, all of a sudden, we need to get rid of it. The policy has worked especially well in the cohesion countries. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) knows, those countries have access not only to the structural fund but to the cohesion fund as well. That fund is available only to member states that come below 90 per cent. of the EU average. There is an argument, to which I subscribe, that a

  739
  significant volume of funds has been transferred—along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Luton, North—in an active policy of spatial redistribution across the EU, which has delivered an average annual GDP growth of 9 per cent. in the cohesion countries, especially Ireland, in the period to which I refer. European regional policy has been a success, and we have heard examples from Cornwall and elsewhere of successes in the UK. That is a justification for the level of increase in the budget for the structural funds—although I will not be drawn into saying that about the other funds. The data show that the policy works and that we should expand the budget, not only for the enlargement countries, but for those parts of western Europe that still have significant regional economic problems.
  The Government have acknowledged the problems in the UK; the question now is which is the best mechanism to address them. Should we revert to a domestic regional policy or maintain the structural funds system for the UK regions? The European Scrutiny Committee rightly asked how we could measure the differential impact between the Government's proposals and the Commission's proposal. The Government have said that it is impossible to give accurate figures because of the imponderables that remain to be determined. I can make out the outlines of the Government's logic; the problem is that the proposals—from both the Commission and the Government—have been expressed in terms of a proportion of the existing levels of funds. In that case, it is possible to compare because we know the existing level of funding in those regions and the Government and the Commission propose different proportions for the transitional arrangements.
  The Commission has produced a new category—the statistical effect category—to compensate regions in the UK for the effects of enlargement. If a region would have qualified for objective 1 funding after 2006 had enlargement not happened, it will be in that category. It will include west Wales and the valleys, where GDP per capita has fallen, relative to the original EU 15, since the determination of the last budget. Those regions have not improved economically, only relatively as a result of enlargement. The Commission proposes that those regions should have a cushion of up to 85 per cent. of the funding that they currently receive.
  Mr. David Stewart: Is it the position of the hon. Gentleman's party that the UK should pay more than 1 per cent. of gross national income? Does he appreciate that, as a net contributor, we are paying twice?
  Adam Price: I support the Commission's proposal to increase the level of funding for regional policy, but I cannot remember the exact figures. The hon. Gentleman is right, because the proposal is contingent on the Commission's proposals as a whole in the financial perspective. I support the case made by Commissioner Barnier to increase the regional budget, and that is clearly contingent on increases in the budget as a whole.
  I want to find out about the impact of the different proposals. The Commission said that there would be transitional funding of up to 85 per cent., but the Government said that it would be 50 per cent., based on
  740
  the current arrangements agreed at the Berlin summit in 1999. We know from the comments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly what the current EU funding is for west Wales and the valleys—£1.3 billion over the programme period—so, in a rough calculation, the Commission's proposals would give us, after 2007, a bit less than £1 billion while the Government's proposals would give us £650 million. That is a major difference. We would be losing out to the tune of about £350 million or £400 million.
  Mr. David: I hear the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making, but what the European Commission is saying is hypothetical, because there is no budget.
  Adam Price: I do not understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Whatever the budget figures, the Commission is saying that its guarantee will be equal to 85 per cent. of transitional funding, whereas the Government's guarantee is 50 per cent. There is a simple solution: why do not the Government tell us that they will guarantee a transitional funding cushion of 85 per cent. because they believe that objective 1 regions need that level of funding? As those regions have seen no improvement in then economic position relative to the EU 15 and are losing out due to enlargement, why do not the Government tell us that 85 per cent. is a reasonable level of transitional support? There is no reason for their not making that commitment under their proposals.
  How would the Government channel the funds, especially in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Another dimension that the hon. Member for Caerphilly has been assiduous in raising is how the proposals relate to the Barnett formula. As some hon. Members will be aware, the match funding component in Wales was, in the jargon, Barnett-plus: it was additional to the moneys provided through the Welsh block, generated through the Barnett formula. It was over and above the moneys automatically given to Wales through increases in the comparable budgets in England.
  If one factors into the equation the Barnett-plus element, the Government's proposals are even worse for Wales. The response that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave the hon. Member for Caerphilly in Committee was clear: deviation from the Barnett formula would not be continued under the Government's proposals. That could mean an additional loss of about £200 million to Wales.
  Mr. David: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He was referring to the minutes of the Select Committee, but he should also acknowledge that, in response to my point the Secretary of State said that it was not really her portfolio.
  Adam Price: Perhaps I should be generous to the Secretary of State as she is not in the Chamber. We can forgive her for not being an expert in the arcane workings of the Barnett formula, but the issue is fundamental so I urge her to get souped up fairly quickly. There are several problems about using the Barnett formula in this context, one of which is a matter of principle. If one uses the Barnett formula to decide

  741
  levels of regional development funding, there is no mechanism for varying the level between the nations of the UK based on their economic performance.
  The Barnett formula is an automatic mechanism that responds purely and simply to increases in relevant budgets in England. For example, if the Welsh economic position were to deteriorate further, there would be no ready mechanism—certainly, the Barnett formula would not provide one—to reflect that fact in additional funding for Wales, whereas European regional aid responds to clearly understood, published, hard-and-fast criteria. That is a problem, as is the fact that no mechanism would be provided directly for Barnett-plus additional funding, so I urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to consider that issue.
  Ms Atherton: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the people of Cornwall should contribute to the Welsh Barnett formula when the GDP of Wales is higher than Cornwall's?
  Adam Price: I entirely sympathise with the hon. Lady: I want to scrap the Barnett formula It should have been scrapped 20 years ago; it should have lasted for only a year. It does not deliver to my nation, to her nation or to many of England's regions. It should be scrapped and replaced by a needs-based formula, irrespective of the Government's final proposals on regional economic policy.
  Finally, I return to the guarantee. The hon. Member for Caerphilly also pressed the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how she could bind a future Conservative Government. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) did not feel minded to give way to me, because I would have asked him whether he would agree to sign up to the Government's seven-year guarantee. That is a serious issue. Under European regional aid, when the criteria and eligibility rules are determined, we know that we have security of funding for seven years. We do not have that same sense of security under domestic policy. There is always the possibility that the Government will change to a party that has never supported regional policy.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that he trusted the British Government more to know the local economic needs of our communities. He may trust this British Government, but would he trust a Conservative British Government? We know from our bitter experience—do we not?—that in the 1990s, when the Conservative party was dismantling the tools of domestic regional economic policy, there was only one game in town for many of our communities: European regional aid, and we were thankful for it. If it had not been for that aid, the devastation wrought by the Conservative Government under Mrs. Thatcher would have been even worse. What future security would we have if we renationalised domestic regional policy and a right-wing Conservative Government were returned at some point in the future? That is an honest question, and Labour Members need to address it—perhaps the Minister will do so in her closing remarks.
  Mr. David: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he has referred to me several times. I said that I trust this Government, and I did not trust the last
  742
  Government, but I confirm to some extent the point that he makes about the long-term commitment. I hope that the Government are able to negotiate a long-term commitment to their policies, so that we can match the long-term perspective that the Commission is presenting.
  Adam Price: That gives rise to the question, "How can we frame that long-term commitment?" No Government can bind a future Government in terms of economic policy or anything else, because of the sovereignty of this place. I have more faith in a European Union that has demonstrated social solidarity across the EU in the past. I believe that it should be helped to continue to demonstrate that policy of solidarity in the future.
  6.50 pm
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): We have had an engaging and wide-ranging debate. As many Members have commented, a major bout of consensus has broken out, which I largely welcome given that it is a consensus around the Government's motion. For the avoidance of doubt, I clarify that we have accepted the Opposition amendment, and that does no more than strengthen the consensus.
  Mr. Prisk: There was a hint of uncertainty, so I am very grateful to the Minister for confirming that the Government have accepted the official Opposition's amendment.
  Jacqui Smith: I am glad that there is not only consensus but a common understanding.
  I thank the Select Committee on European Scrutiny for its important report and for giving us the opportunity to debate the issue today. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luffy, was right to declare it to be a significant and important debate for the future of the EU and for our approach to regional policy. The hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) focused at least part of their contributions on the important and significant issue of regional policy. Having focused our criticisms on the EU's approach to regional policy, it is important to put on record the Government's extremely strong and passionate commitment to a strong regional policy. It is at the heart of our efforts to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment, ensuring that economic prosperity reaches every part of the country and the nations of the UK.
  For too long, too many nations and regions of the UK have been allowed to fall behind; for too long, there have been huge differences in prosperity within the regions; and for too long, too many people have been left out, with their talents and ability to contribute to the prosperity of the UK wasted. We have rejected the failed policies of the past and developed a new framework for regional development, so that every nation and region of the UK can perform to its full potential.
  The determination to tackle regional disparities is reflected in our public service agreement target—a target shared by the Department of Trade and Industry,

  743
  the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasury—to reduce the persistent gap in growth rates between the English regions. To do that, we have significantly increased spending on regional policy across the UK, focusing resources on the drivers of productivity, such as skills, enterprise, infrastructure and the development of new technology, which were identified by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General in her opening remarks.
  We have gone further than that, because regional policy will be effective only if it genuinely responds to local needs. That is why we have devolved power to Scotland and Wales, ensuring that decisions are taken democratically and by elected representatives. That is why we are legislating so that the English regions can choose to elect their own regional assemblies, and why we have established regional development agencies to act as a catalyst for regional regeneration while strengthening the role of local authorities in encouraging regional growth. We can therefore now boast of a dynamic UK regional policy, with—and this is important in the context of concerns that hon. Members have expressed about their regions—three quarters of public spending on regional development coming from domestic sources. Only a quarter comes from structural funds.
  EU regional policy remains important to us, which explains our determination to push for effective reform in the forthcoming negotiations. I shall return to several issues surrounding the reform in a minute. The context for the reform of EU regional policy is the overall reform that is needed to the EC budget as a whole. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General spelled out in her opening remarks, we are pushing for a reform of the budget that will deliver a fair deal for UK and EU tax payers, and I think that many hon. Members welcome that objective. One of our key priorities will be to keep within a limit of EC budget spending of 1 per cent. of EU gross national income.
  We will also take opportunities to reform further the common agricultural policy within the spending limits agreed. The hon. Member for Twickenham asked for more detail about our approach on sugar. It builds on the significant progress that we have made as an advocate for the reform of the common agricultural policy, and we are determined to press on with that. On the expenditure side of the equation, the UK is pressing for a radical reform of the sugar regime to provide a market-based simplified approach that will be in line with our broader trade and development objectives. On the revenue side, the own resources decision lays down four sources of Community revenue, including sugar levies. Any change to sugar levies as a result of reform that was not offset by savings elsewhere would be offset by adjusting other sources to meet the Union's budgetary requirements.
  We want to focus spending on a smaller number of EU initiatives with demonstrable added value, and hon. Members made good contributions to the discussion on that today. I strongly agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), who used his not inconsiderable experience of Europe to highlight some
  744
  of the areas in which proposals put forward by the Commission would probably not add value. He also highlighted areas in which more value might be added. Although the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire adopted a more sceptical approach towards Europe than usual, he also said that too many proposals fail to demonstrate clearly either the effective use of resources or added value through European spending.
  Our final objective within the overall budget reform is to strengthen support for the external objectives of the EU and the UK while retaining the flexibility to cope with evolving needs and crises. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) talked about the Lisbon agenda and emphasised the need to continue with economic reform. Economic reform is one of the UK's priorities for Europe and, as other hon. Members pointed out, it does not always necessitate large amounts of spending. We want member states and the Community to make more progress on labour market reform, enterprise and innovation, and external trade openness. The prospects for progress are boosted by a run of presidencies held by countries that are in favour of reform: Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and ourselves. We will certainly work carefully with those countries during that run of presidencies. The mid-term review of the Lisbon agenda gives us the opportunity to ensure that we focus our efforts on delivering economic reform. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, such reform is important so that we achieve our objective of economic growth, development and regeneration throughout the whole UK.
  Mr. Prisk: The Paymaster General and, indeed, the Financial Secretary are on record as saying that the EU budget should ensure sound financial management and budget discipline. Given that for nine years the Commission's accounts have not been audited, and there is no statement of assurance, how will the Government achieve their policies? What specific plans do they have to apply pressure so that we can have a budget that we can trust?
  Jacqui Smith: Measures to increase the effectiveness of EU spending and the quality of EU finances through better financial management and the tackling of fraud and waste have continued to improve since 2003. In particular, we welcome the Commission's proposal to link administration expenditure with operational expenditure, as that will create a better activity-based approach to expenditure, although costs must not increase at the expense of policy delivery. We therefore share the hon. Gentleman's objectives of ensuring that spending is effective and that financial measures are in place to make sure that that is the case.
  Mr. Prisk: We would certainly want to continue the consensual approach that has characterised our debate by trying to ensure that the accounts matter. I fully accept that it is difficult to turn words into practical action, but without genuine leverage I am doubtful, as are many members of the public whom we represent, whether, after seven years of asking the Commission to change its approach, progress has been made. Why does

  745
  the Minister believe that her policies will make any difference this year, and does she believe that next year's budget will be audited?
  Jacqui Smith: Progress has already been made in Commissioner Kinnock's proposals, which I outlined earlier. Of course, it is a difficult challenge, but a programme of reform is in place and we are beginning to see progress.
  Mr. Luff: In her dialogue with other EU member states, how much support has the Minister noticed for the ambitious programme set out in the document that I discussed in my speech? On page 27 of "Building our common future", for example, the EU talks about an attempt to
  "saddle the Union with a set of goals and then deny it the resources required".
  Does the Minister believe that there is an attempt to saddle the EU with a set of goals, or is the Commission wishing those goals on itself?
  Jacqui Smith: To answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there is considerable support, as represented by the letter to President Prodi from our Prime Minister and the Prime Ministers of France, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands—the majority of net contributors to the EU budget, who share the objective of achieving EU goals while focusing on a budgetary limit of 1 per cent of gross national income. We may not share all the reform objectives of those member states, but they are a strong group, determined to limit EU spending.
  Mr. David Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that it is important that state aid rules are applied consistently across Europe?
  Jacqui Smith: Yes, I do. Several hon. Members have touched on state aid, and we need consistent state aid rules across Europe because excessive state aid, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General pointed out, prevents us from having a level playing field and can distort competition. However, that must be linked to the flexibility needed to enable us to focus regional and other spending on initiatives that will drive up productivity in our regions. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) mentioned the struggle to get clearance for regional venture capital funding. What we need in the system is sufficient flexibility to be able to focus on such serious contributions to tackling market failure and addressing regional development needs. We also need a system that ensures a level playing field, for the good of our business and consumers across the whole of Europe.
  On our EU regional policy objectives, I have set the budget context within which we are pressing for a radical reform of EU regional policy in order to focus the EU's finite resources on key priorities, while also providing nations and regions with the flexibility to deliver projects that genuinely reflect local needs. Many hon. Members press the case for their constituencies with me as a Minister, but there are few, if any, who are more able advocates of their constituency than my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. She
  746
  was right to emphasise the need for creativity in the way in which we think about the development of projects and spending.
  If the Government's proposals for the reform of structural funds were implemented, we would want to build on the strengths of existing objective 1 programmes in aspects such as multi-annual programming, partnerships and sharing of best practice. We would also want to build on our current devolved and decentralised arrangements so that our nations and regions have the flexibility, as my hon. Friend suggested, to be creative and to deliver innovative projects that reflect local needs.
  As is apparent from the debate today, we have serious concerns about some of the Commission's proposals. Its approach is dependent on an unaffordable expansion in the EU budget, promising money to everyone from a pot that does not exist. Not only are we promised jam tomorrow, but we are promised it from a jam pot that has not even been cast yet. That creates some of the difficulties underlying the questions posed by hon. Members about the comparisons between UK and EU proposals, some of which I shall deal with in a moment in relation to the guarantee.
  The Commission's proposals fail to focus on the poorest member states or to ensure that EU funding adds value in comparison with national measures. Under the UK's proposals, member states would agree to high-level objectives for regional policy. We still believe there is a role for the European Council to set the objectives for regional policy. We are not saying that Europe does not have a role with respect to regional policy, but the limited financial resources should be focused on the poorest members, where EU funding is likely to have the greatest added value and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) pointed out, is also likely to have value for the UK by promoting economic development and getting to the core of what cohesion and structural funding should be about—that is, enabling us to develop growth in the poorest EU member states, where it is most needed.
  The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr seemed to suggest that we did not support that approach. It is precisely in order to ensure such cohesion that we want to focus support on the poorest member states. The scatter approach proposed by the Commission in the third cohesion report leads to the position where, despite the economic discrepancies between the older and the newer member states, the resources are divided 50:50, with 50 per cent. of the resources continuing to go to the richer member states. In our reform we must ensure that resources are better focused.
  None of our proposals would mean a reduction in our support for regional development. On the contrary, we have guaranteed that if our proposals were adopted, we would increase domestic regional spending in order to pursue our ambitious programmes for economic regeneration. We spelled out in the details of our guarantee how we could use that to avoid some of the cliff edges in support that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne and others highlighted as a concern.

  747
  The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford asked what would happen to the guarantee if the reform proposals were not implemented in full. The Government would be able to offer their guarantee to the UK regions if their proposals for structural funds reform were implemented in full within a budget of 1 per cent. of EU gross national income. An expansion in the EU budget would increase UK contributions, bearing in mind that we spend €1.6 for every €1 that we get back. In those circumstances, we would have to assess the budgetary implications for the UK and the level of domestic regional funding that we would be able to provide.
  Mr. Prisk: The Minister is trying to provide a degree of clarity. She said that total spending could be maintained if the UK's proposals were not fully accepted, but what is the spatial dimension? In other words, what does it mean in reality? Does she mean that objective 1 areas in, for example, the Camborne and Falmouth area—I say it that way around for personal reasons—will be maintained or that the overall pot will be maintained? All hon. Members would find it helpful if she clarified that.
  Jacqui Smith: It will be important to consider the way in which we deliver those resources. This guarantee is unprecedented. It provides some certainty in relation to the cliff-edge issue and our continued commitment to regional policy. It also goes some way towards answering the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr, who asked what would happen in the event of a Conservative Government. The nature and methodology of the guarantee, as well as the fact that previous Governments have maintained guarantees from one to another, would make it pretty hard, even for a Conservative Government imposing the cuts proposed by the Conservative party, to go back on it. I am sure that having pushed me so hard today, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford would not dare to do so were he to find himself in a ministerial position.
  Hon. Members questioned the negotiation process. It is fair to say that the UK has focused minds on the need for radical reform. Indeed, the Commission has already adopted key aspects of our approach. We welcome its proposals for the Council to set the strategic orientation of EU regional policy and its commitment to develop more flexible mechanisms for the delivery of projects—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly argued, we need to align regional policy with regional and national priorities and to get away from the stifling effects of Commission bureaucracy on structural funds projects.
  748
  We are at an early stage in the reform process, but we have a considerable amount of support for our proposals. We have strong support from the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark. Germany, France and Austria, which agree on the need for a smaller structural and cohesion funds budget and a better focus on new member states. Furthermore, the new member states have joined us in questioning the generous funding that would go to richer member states—including Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic—under the Commission's proposals. Although the negotiations have some way to go, there is a strong view, first, that the Commission's proposals do not deliver what is needed; and secondly, that the radical proposals put forward by the UK require further consideration. I assure hon. Members that we will not only take the tough approach the is required, but build on the support that we have received to ensure that we make the necessary progress.
  This debate has enabled us to clarify the Government's objectives as we take forward negotiations on the future of Europe's budget and regional policy.
  Unlike some others in the past week, we can appreciate and will argue for the benefits of our membership of the EU for our jobs, trade, prosperity and security. However, that will not be achieved by an unrealistic budget expansion when we rightly expect fiscal discipline in member states. It will be achieved by focusing EU spending where it can demonstrably make a difference and provide genuine solidarity and economic growth and by ensuring that the UK Government can further fund our commitment to strong economic growth and regeneration in the regions and countries of the UK.
  We shall continue to argue for that reform package, confident that it is in the interests of the UK and the EU. I urge hon. Members to support the motion, as amended.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Union documents No. 6232/04, Commission Communication: Building our common future: Policy challenges and Budgetary means of the Enlarged Union 2007–2013, and No. COM(04) 107, Commission Communication: "Third report on economic and social cohesion"; supports the Government's efforts to refocus allocations within a budget of 1 per cent. of EU Gross National Income in support of the European Union's goals, with structural funding focused on the poorest member states; and in particular, supports the Government's view that the Commission's overall proposals are unrealistic and unacceptable, that its structural funds proposals are inconsistent with the United Kingdom's objectives for reform, and that the future European Union Budget should be reprioritised and refocused in line with the principles of subsidiarity and spending that adds value at the European Union level and calls on the Government to set out its principles and plans for those objectives and how it will achieve them.

  Child Support Agency
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick]
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Eric Joyce: I am aware that we are holding the second debate on the subject today and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has had the joy of dealing with a long Adjournment debate about it this afternoon. Sadly, I was unable to attend and I therefore apologise in advance if I cover some of the same points that were raised in the longer debate in Westminster Hall.
  The Department for Work and Pensions employs around 1,500 workers at the Child Support Agency office at Callendar business park in the centre of my constituency. The office deals with all CSA cases in Scotland and the north of England. In addition, the Department employs another 300 or more workers in jobcentres and other offices across the Falkirk and Stirling areas. Some of the workers in Stirling, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), also work for the CSA and serve my constituency as well as hers and other parts of central Scotland.
  I would like to raise the subject of staffing levels at the CSA in Falkirk, about which there is considerable concern locally. The issue has been raised with the Under-Secretary by several trade unions, including by the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I hope that my hon. Friend can give some indication of what will happen in the near and middle-distance future.
  Before I go into detail about figures, I want to say a few things about the importance of this strategic Department for Work and Pensions asset—the CSA—to my constituency and the surrounding areas, and, of course, to everyone in Scotland and the north of England who is affected by the CSA's work.
  The role of the CSA is perhaps best laid out for members of the public in the helpful question and answer section on the CSA website. It explains the services provided by the CSA in an easily understandable format, describes some of the technical terms and, importantly, provides the public and potential clients with an understanding of the intent and underlying objectives of the agency The website sets out how calculations are currently made, essentially applying three rates of 15 per cent., 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. of a net weekly income of more than £200 of the non-resident parent's income, depending on the number of children involved.
  The website is helpful and clear and provides good case examples. In any one week, doubtless in common with all Members of Parliament, I receive several new contacts from clients of the CSA or people who are not clients but who seek advice on whether to approach the agency.
  In my experience, clients of the CSA fall into three groups. First, there are those, mainly but not exclusively men, who are required to pay a given amount, calculated by the CSA, to their former partners to help with the upkeep of their children until the children are 18.
  750
  Secondly, there are those, mainly but not exclusively women, who receive such payments. Constituents are often accompanied by new partners and perhaps new dependants. That illustrates the potential complexity of the chains created by people moving naturally into new relationships when earlier ones have come to an end. The relationships can be complex. Members of the first group have come to see me, bringing their new partners, and it has become clear to me that the new partners belong in the second group but were perhaps not aware of that. I have suggested that they approach the agency.
  In general, people in the first group—mainly men and their new families—contact me because they feel that the level of payment that they are required to make is too high, that there have been historical errors in their case or that certain factors are not being properly taken into account by the CSA. Those in the second group contact me because they feel that they are not receiving enough money, that there is an historical debt, or that some factors are not properly being taken into account.
  For about a year, a growing number of people have begun to form a third group. It comprises those in the first group who accept—albeit sometimes reluctantly—that they are paying the right amount under the old system, but believe, sometimes incorrectly, that they would be paying less under the new one. This group—which is technically a sub-group, I suppose—relates to the nub of the staffing issue that I want to raise tonight. I shall expand on that in a moment, but first I want to give the Minister the impression of the CSA that I have gained through my experience over the last two or three years. I say "two or three years" because I know that the situation was considerably more complex and difficult before I arrived in the House, and I understand from my more senior colleagues that things are much better now than they were heretofore.
  It is patently clear to me that the staff at the CSA are highly professional, extremely courteous and fully aware that they are dealing with people at a very difficult time in their lives. They are also aware, however, that from time to time clients may be less than accurate in their dealings with them, and also that the well-being of the children who should be in receipt of funds in such cases sometimes depends on the tenacity of CSA staff.
  As the Minister knows, virtually all clients of the CSA have most, if not all, of their contact with the agency by telephone. I have toured the facility, which resembles—indeed, in some ways, is—a large call centre. That is potentially a highly efficient model and my constituents report that, on the whole, the agency has slickly designed systems for dealing with people on matters of detail and fact. To be fair, they also report that, owing to what appears to be a high staff turnover—I have no details of how high it actually is—they sometimes have to go through the same loop on the telephone several times. That can be frustrating for constituents who feel that their lives are on hold until their cases have been sorted out. Perceptions are important in this regard. If people feel that they are not being treated sensitively at such a difficult time, they can become upset. That in turn is reflected back on the CSA workers, whose jobs can therefore be stressful, thus adding to what I understand anecdotally to be a modestly high staff turnover.
  The caseworkers at the CSA are not highly paid, yet, as I have witnessed, they are most certainly committed and professional. Errors are sometimes made, of course,

  751
  and miscommunications can happen on that imperfect medium, the telephone. It can sometimes be difficult to clear up difficulties on the phone, and it is often when clients have reached the end of their tether that they come to me for assistance and advice.
  The CSA has an excellent parliamentary unit that accepts and deals speedily with inquiries from MPs on behalf of their constituents. It is often useful to arrange a face-to-face meeting between a constituent and a senior caseworker in my office. I have found those face-to-face meetings a revelation, in that the officer who attends the meeting, knowing that they may be about to meet an unhappy client—or an unhappy client plus family—without fail arrives with an impressive command of the facts of the case and armed with an exemplary direct but diplomatic manner.
  I am not sure why, but Ms Cath McLaughlin is more often than not the officer who attends those meetings and she has my gratitude, and that of many of my constituents. She is one of the most impressive public servants whom I have met in my constituency in my time as a Member of Parliament. I was chatting to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whose constituency borders mine, just before this debate and he has precisely the same impression of the agency and its officers as I do.
  I find that while constituents may not always walk away from the face-to-face meeting ecstatic, they virtually always leave with greater understanding, and more often than not, with the satisfaction of having had their concerns taken seriously and sympathetically, with a human face rather than a voice at the end of a telephone. I appreciate that in most cases the telephone system works, and that human contact is labour-intensive, but that personal service epitomises the human face of an organisation that provides an enormously valuable service to society at large.
  I mentioned the third sub-group of CSA clients earlier. All essentially have the same complaint. The details at the website questions and answers section that I mentioned earlier pertain only to new claimants and those who have been in the system since the rules changed in April last year. Those who were in the system prior to that are still dealt with under the old rules, which are more opaque and complex, and more specific in many ways. The challenge of making things simpler is that they will be less specific for specific cases. The new system seems unquestionably a marked improvement, but as the Minister knows, the migration of old clients to the new system is behind schedule, owing to difficulties with putting the new system in place.
  The complaint of the third group of people is that they know of others who are in exactly their circumstances but who pay a very different amount owing to having come into the system since changeover and therefore being considered under the new rules. Owing to the simplicity of the new rules, such people are often, in my view, likely to be correct, because the calculation can be done as a percentage of their income. I accept, of course, that there will be those who know that they would be paying more under the new rules and who are therefore less likely to seek my assistance. It is not ideal that two systems should be operating at the same time for far
  752
  longer than Ministers anticipated originally. It is important to recognise, however, that that is essentially the fault of the contractor, as I understand it, and that a penalty element is now built into the contract, which will apply until the Department is satisfied that the situation has been properly rectified.
  Crucially, it seems to me and many of my parliamentary colleagues that the assumptions made by staffing planners projecting likely efficiencies, which arise as a result of the computing system, may well not be valid. That is the nub of my speech tonight. Of course, organisations must make themselves as efficient as possible and have a duty to do so. In this case, however, possibly significant staff reductions are juxtaposed with what seems to be a systemic problem, which is of particular note.
  At this point, it is important to mention the political and managerial assumptions and imperatives behind the new system at the CSA. Those are politically relevant and relevant to the contact that I have with trade unions and constituents. The Government's goal is to deliver world-class public services through sustained investment and outcome-focused reforms to ensure that taxpayers receive the value for money that they expect and to which they are entitled. That means that the Government are committed to placing public sector efficiency and effectiveness at the top of the agenda. The Government's 2004 Budget set a target of a 2.5 per cent. reduction in public administration costs each year over the three years of the 2004 spending review. That will be in conjunction with a 2.5 per cent. per annum increase in current spending and a public sector net investment rise of GDP to 2.25 per cent. by 2007–08 to address the historic under-investment in the UK's infrastructure while remaining consistent with the Treasury's sustainable investment rule.
  The Treasury and the Government as a whole are committed to delivering high-quality public services and the Treasury website gives ready access to the public of a document with exactly that title, "Delivering high quality public services". which introduces the crucial Gershon report on efficiency in the public services. Paragraph 6.7 states:
  "achieving greater efficiency in the public sector will enable the government to deliver high and continuously improving standards within the public service by releasing extra resources for front line services. This means moving resources, as a result of more efficient procurement and streamlined back-office functions"—
  such as those at the CSA in Falkirk—
  "away from administration and closer to public service customers. The greater scale of the efficiencies that can be achieved within the public sector, the lower the increase in total expenditure that is required to achieve further improvements in the performance of key public services. Efficiency gains, therefore, also enable the Government to fulfil its responsibility to deliver value for money to taxpayers."
  Paragraph 6.8 states that efficiency in the public sector involves making the best use of the significant investment in information and communications technology, which is precisely what is being put in place at the CSA. It also involves work-force reform and the sharing of best practice agreed for the spending review period. Other investments designed to modernise and enhance the delivery will build on that. The pursuit of efficiency also includes reducing bureaucracy, which both cuts headquarters administration costs—including

  753
  those of organisations such as the CSA—and frees the time of front-line professionals so that they can respond better to the needs of their customers.
  The Lyons review—a parallel process also aimed at achieving the best outcome for taxpayers and service users, and conducted for the Treasury by Sir Michael Lyons—is intended to enable Departments to lower costs and provide a benefit to regional economies by moving significant elements of large Departments located in London. As a central Scotland Member, I would naturally like my constituency to benefit from such movement. Who knows whether it will, but I suggest that the various large Departments consider relocating to Scotland.
  The general Lyons principles seem to have considerable merit. Moreover, as a Labour MP, I am committed to the importance of bringing about ever-higher standards of social justice through continuous improvement of our vital public services.
  The local branch chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union has given me some figures, in good faith, to which I should like the Minister to respond. They may well be accurate; who knows? I am sure that in any case the Minister has access to absolutely accurate figures. I am informed that the Department aims to reduce the local work force of 1,500 by around 30 per cent. over the coming three years. Naturally, local workers and the PCS fear that that will be done before the new system is fully embedded and cause greater stress among the workers who are left. It has also been suggested to me that the CSA centre in Falkirk could close altogether. It is said that the building has structural problems and may not stand up to the alterations required for modernisation. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the situation.
  In summary, let me ask the Minister three questions. First, can he assure me that there will be no precipitate reduction in the work force at the CSA in Falkirk, certainly until the new system has been embedded in the CSA? Secondly, can he give me some assurance that there are no plans to close the Falkirk office in the near future? Thirdly, can he indicate the likely levels of change in staffing at Falkirk over the next year?
  7.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on a subject that is so important to the lives of his constituents—CSA staff, and the parents and children whom the agency exists to serve. I am delighted to be responding to my second Adjournment debate on the CSA in one day.
  Let me begin by emphasising that my ministerial colleagues and I are committed to the improvement of public services across Government, and specifically to the aim of creating an efficient, effective child support service. Modernisation of public services is vital to ensuring that our constituents receive the services to which they are entitled, and that taxpayers' money is properly spent. As one of the largest Departments, the Department for Work and Pensions is significant in the drive for efficiency and quality, as is the CSA itself.
  The child support reform programme aims to create a child support system that is simple transparent and easy for parents to understand. As my hon. Friend knows,
  754
  the new child support scheme was introduced in March 2003. A vital component of the reform programme is the new information technology system, which is essential to the delivery of the scheme.
  In introducing such sweeping and major reform to an organisation, we have made it a priority to maintain a good level of service for clients and to ensure minimal disruption. We did not want to make the mistakes from which the agency suffered when it was set up in 1993, so we decided to introduce the new scheme for new clients only in the first instance. Only when we could be satisfied that the new scheme was working well, and were confident that the system could cope with the large number of cases—more than a million—that would have to be transferred, would we decide when old scheme cases would migrate and be converted. I believe that that incremental approach was the most sensible and appropriate, even though I understand the frustration of those who want to see the new, simpler and fairer system in place immediately.
  Although in the majority of cases liabilities will change under the new scheme, new liabilities will in any case be phased in via a series of steps to allow parents to adjust to the financial changes. It is worth remembering that if one parent sees an advantage in moving to the new scheme, the other probably will not. We are keen that all clients should benefit from the new reforms, but it would be irresponsible to move old scheme cases to the new scheme until we are sure that the IT can cope properly.
  Inevitably, as part of the efficiencies that modernisation brings, it was always planned that the number of staff would reduce as the reforms were implemented. The agency has been planning that for some time. I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware of the unexpected difficulties that the agency has encountered with the new IT system, and I can confirm that payments have in fact been withheld from our IT contractor, EDS—Electronic Data Systems—of between 15 and 20 per cent., to take account of that non-delivery. Those problems have impacted on some clients, and I want to take the opportunity, for the second time today, to apologise for that.
  We must ensure that disruption for clients is kept to a minimum. Inevitably, some clients will have complained about the service that they have received, and the agency acknowledges that in some cases, the service that it has provided is not of an acceptable standard. I know that the agency places great emphasis on ensuring that complaints are properly dealt with, and during the past year it has improved the way in which it handles complaints, including accepting and registering complaints by telephone to make the process quicker and easier for clients. That has inevitably led to an increase in the overall number of complaints logged, although the number of complaints in relation to the old scheme has actually decreased.
  It is not yet possible to set time scales for when all cases will be converted on to the new scheme, although I wish that I could do that. We will not do that until the IT system is working effectively—to do anything else would be irresponsible, and do a disservice to our clients and constituents. Where the new IT does work well, the feedback from staff and clients has been very positive: they say that the system is much quicker and simpler.

  755
  Performance has improved and continues to do so, and there are plans for improving the system to prepare for the migration of old scheme cases.
  The delays that the child support reform programme has encountered have meant that plans for staff reductions in the agency have been revised, but the fact remains that the new scheme will not only improve the quality of the service but release resources through greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. The agency is currently undergoing a review of the business to ensure that the required reductions in the number of staff will not impact adversely on the service to clients, or prevent the successful implementation of the rest of the reform programme. That will ensure that greater efficiencies in working practices are identified and implemented.
  Doing business by telephone and electronic means is, as my hon. Friend acknowledges, quicker and more efficient, and the agency is making great progress in developing the business in that way. However, I accept and appreciate my hon. Friend's comments on the importance of face-to-face contact between CSA staff and clients. I should like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for his generous comments about the professionalism and commitment of CSA staff, with which I fully agree, and particularly his comments about Cath McLaughlin and her colleagues.
  Times of major change are understandably unsettling for some staff, and the agency is managing a number of support initiatives for managers and staff throughout the period. Consultation with the trade unions is, of course, ongoing. My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that there are currently no plans to reduce staffing levels in Falkirk, West by 500 staff, and I can give him that assurance. The current plan does include a reduction in staff of 94 by March 2005, a plan that has been discussed with the trade unions, which constitutes not a 30 per cent. but a 9 per cent. reduction in staff.
  756
  As part of the DWP, the agency will work with the other businesses to plan and manage reductions in staff in an integrated and joined-up way, in order to benefit the wider Department and the people whom we serve. The Department will manage these reductions through natural wastage, and I can confirm to my hon. Friend that staff turnover at the Falkirk centre is about 13 per cent., which is about average for the agency throughout the country as a whole. We will also seek to minimise compulsory severances. My hon. Friend also sought assurance that there are no plans to close the Falkirk centre, and again, I can give him that assurance. He will agree with me that the public deserve to receive quality services, and that taxpayers deserve to get value for money.
  The vision for my Department is that it should become a leaner, more focused and efficient organisation, delivering first-class services to clients; the Child Support Agency inevitably has its part to play in this. Major reform is not simple or easy, but I have every confidence that, ultimately, the agency can deliver it successfully.
  I would like to take this opportunity again to thank the agency staff in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere. They work in difficult circumstances, dealing with clients at an often very emotional and sensitive time in their lives. It is because of the hard work of such staff that the implementation of the reforms will be successful, and that a reduction in staff numbers will not have an adverse impact. I should underline that where we have to make such reductions, we will do so whenever possible through turnover and voluntary severance.
  The Government's aim remains to have an efficient and effective child support service that benefits parents and, ultimately, children. After all, they are our No. 1 concern.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Manufacturing Industry (Devon)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Richard Younger-Ross: I do not intend my speech to be one of doom and gloom. My purpose in asking for this slightly longer debate is to give hon. Members from Devon an opportunity to explain why Devon needs extra resources and why manufacturing is as important to Devon as it is to other parts of the country. It is slightly disappointing that the Conservative Benches are somewhat empty, given that Conservative Members have an interest in matters pertaining to manufacturing. They are certainly quite good at making comments to that effect in the local press, and it is a shame that their comments are not reflected by their presence in the Chamber.
Manufacturing in the United Kingdom has suffered over recent years, and we all know that it declined during the 18 years of the Conservative Administration. We are also well aware of the fact that it has declined under the present Labour Administration. Indeed, colleagues in my party's Department of Trade and Industry team have researched the decline in UK manufacturing and found that more than 750,000 jobs have been lost nationwide.
Manufacturing does not employ is many people in Devon as in other parts of the country, so it is not as crucial to the Devon economy in that sense. However, it is vital that what manufacturing there is should thrive and that it should be well watered an d well fed so that it may flourish and bloom.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has likened manufacturing job losses in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) to the sinking of the Titanic. Although there is, in fact, no titanic manufacturing industry in Devon, the boat is under construction and on the slipway. The job losses that we have suffered, particularly in south Devon, have been a blow to the construction of Mat manufacturing base. I hope that the debate will point to ways in which we can construct and float that manufacturing ship so that manufacturing in Devon and the south-west prospers.
Some 93 per cent. of businesses in Devon employ fewer than 50 people, and 75 per cent. employ fewer than 10, so the majority of businesses are very small indeed. The Devon economy grew by 15 per cent. between 1995 and 1998—the last period for which I have the figures—and GDP per capita increased to £9,636. That is still considerably lower than he UK's GDP per capita of £12,548 and indicates that, f or various reasons, there has been a lack of investment in the south-west and particularly Devon.
Given those figures, it seems surprising that unemployment is considerably lower than the national average. In fact, it is not surprising, because
138WH
employment levels are higher, and 28 per cent. of those in employment work part-time—3 per cent. higher than the national average. The breakdown of the employment figures by sector shows that the hotel and catering trade employs 9 per cent. of people. Agriculture employs 24,000 people, or 30 per cent. of all employees in the region. The wholesale and retail sector employs 20 per cent.; health and social care employs 14 per cent.; public administration employs 8.5 per cent.; and manufacturing employs 13 per cent. That is the scale of it. However, as I have already pointed out, pay levels in Devon are far lower than in most of the rest of the country. Gross weekly pay in Devon is on average £360.20; and in the region, it is £408.50. The UK average is £444.30.
Most employment in Devon is low paid. The importance of manufacturing to Devon is that it pays higher wages for skilled and semi-skilled workers. With other sectors such as finance and construction, manufacturing is in many ways an economic driver to the economy of Devon and the south-west.
That economic driver has recently been facing difficulties. The biggest is the problem facing Nortel, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay; should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he will speak on that at greater length. However, a number of businesses in my constituency have suffered job losses. Centrax manufactures components for jet engines. The company was set up by Richard Barr, who once worked with Whittle, the man who developed the original jet engine. Centrax is an efficient company; it does not go out and buy big plant but adapts it or manufactures its own.
The company diversified into making combined heat and power units; the unit is basically a jet engine used to convert gas into electricity. However, it has been struggling recently, partly as a result of worldwide problems in the aerospace industry but also as a result of the difficulties faced by the CHP sector. Those difficulties are a direct result of Government policy, and I shall return to that subject.
A number of food manufacturing companies are based in my constituency—at least, they were. We have slightly fewer now. Devon Desserts appeared to be a successful company.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: It has deserted Devon.
Richard Younger-Ross: Yes, it has. The company employed some 400 people, making sweets, trifles—I have just started a diet; it's agony—and lots of other things that I am no longer allowed to eat. Sadly, that company was not successful enough; for various reasons, it over-extended itself and went under, and another company, Uniq Foods, bought one of its two sites. We were full of hope. Uniq Foods started by employing only 50 people, but there was a promise that it would grow and expand. Sure enough, it was as good as its word; it did grow and expand. It grew and expanded—and it went. We heard a couple of weeks ago that it had decided to close its factory in Newton Abbot, with the loss of 120 jobs. Not only that, but it closed another factory at Evercreech, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for

139WH
Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The company is looking to sell off another factory and is rationalising its operations to work from one base. That was another bitter blow. We would have liked the company to have relocated to Newton Abbot, but that was not an option, because there was not sufficient land to expand.
About a week later, another company closed. It was called West Country Clothing and used to be known as Invertere. It was a well established business. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay may refer to the matter later, but before the debate he was telling me that as a schoolboy he had a friend who was part owner of the business and who was the son of the owner. My hon. Friend visited the factory not that long ago—
Mr. Sanders: Thirty years ago.
Richard Younger-Ross: Yes; it was a well established business. It marketed clothes abroad, particularly top of-the-range clothes, and made some fine products. Its complaint was about the lack of Government support for the export trade.
Another company called Voodoo Dolls and Headworx, which was next door to West Country Clothing, made surf wear. It has to be said that I am not familiar with those products; my surfing days, if I ever had any, are long past. However, it was a small business that appeared to be doing well and employed 25 people who have now been made redundant.
One of the bitterest blows to my constituency was the case of a company called Aircraft Materials. If I recall correctly, the company had been established since the 1940s. Again, it was a long-established business and it was doing well. There was no reason for it to move from the Brunel estate in Newton Abbot. The company moved because it was enticed to do so by a grant from the Welsh Assembly for the establishment of a new factory in Wales.
I asked the Secretary of State for Wales questions on the matter at the time of the move, and I did not get a particularly clear or good answer to explain why we were using taxpayers' money—from whatever part of the country—to relocate businesses from one part of the country to another. That is a barking mad policy, if I may use the expression. It seems a total waste of taxpayers' money and has worked much to the detriment of people in my constituency.
However, I do not intend to paint a picture of doom and gloom. There are a number of success stories, and I give credit to the Government for that. The south-west manufacturing advisory service has done a great deal of work to help encourage businesses to grow and flourish. I will give a couple of examples of successful businesses, because I do not want the gentlemen from the press to go away and say, "MP paints picture of doom and gloom for manufacturing". It is quite possible to prosper, but the Government could do a lot more to construct more ribs on the ship and make it more seaworthy.
One such successful company is Turton Quality Foods Ltd., which makes sausages. Having received advice from SWMAS, the marketing director, Charles Baughan, said in a letter to SWMAS:
140WH
"The MD and I are committed to developing team working. We have achieved a 15 per cent. improvement in productivity over the last 3 weeks (since your visit) with more to come … With the improvement we should be able to demonstrate what could have happened in order to gain more commitment for the bonus scheme."
Mr. John Randall: I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman in his flow. For my benefit, as not one of the brightest sparks, will he tell me what the initials SWMAS stand for?
Richard Younger-Ross: I referred to it just before; it is the south-west manufacturing advisory service, set up by the Department of Trade and Industry, which has a Devon and Cornwall action team. We do not often praise the DTI here, but I shall do so on this occasion on account of the work that it has undertaken. I shall also praise a business that started in Teignmouth—the House of Marble. It began as a small marble manufacturer, then moved to the old pottery site in Bovey Tracey. That is where Devon's manufacturing used to take place—it is where the clay was, and where Wemyss ware and some other extremely collectible pieces were made until pay disputes and strikes in the 1950s led to the closure of the factory and the ending, for a time, of china manufacture in Devon. It was cheaper to take clay to the goal than coal to the clay.
The business went to the old pottery and now makes clayware—as does a company down the road, Cardew Design—and a lot of glassware. It has expanded its marble business but also makes a lot of fine glass, and its workshop, where people can watch the glass being blown, provides a good tourist attraction. The product is sold in Harrods. New York stores and around the world—proof that me can make products in Devon and succeed. My purpose is not to spread doom and gloom but to ask the Government what can be done.
If we were to ask most of the businesses what they would like to see done to help manufacturing business in Devon, communications would top their lists. We have inadequate road and rail structures and too few airports. Consider the roads: the Kingskerswell bypass, which has been planned for more years than I can remember—well over 30—is still on the drawing board. It should have been built in the 1960s; it should certainly have been built in the 1970s; it could have been built in the 1980s, and probably would have been built in the 1990s—except that the then Conservative Government decided to deregulate the road and to leave it to the county council to find the funding for it. The Government were convinced that it would be built instantly thanks to the private finance initiative. That has not happened; Kingskerswell bypass is still on hold. The county council is trying to progress it—it has gone to planning—and the earliest that we can expect any road to be constructed is about 2010–11. That is seven years away. Somebody leaving school today will be in his mid-20s before we see an influx of extra businesses in Torquay if we rely purely on the road.
Businesses in the south-west are waiting for the dualling of the A303. Most of that has been slow to come, and the planning and design have been protracted. Can the Minister tell us what the Government intend to do about that road? I have concerns about the Blackdown hills, but they are surmountable; something can be done.

141WH
As for rail links, the Government will say that things are getting better. It is true that recent developments have included improved journey times. However, the rail journey from Paddington to Exeter is still quite a long one—two and a quarter hours, at best. The average journey is two and a half hours. The trouble is that beyond Exeter the journey slows down completely.
Another trouble is that there is only one line—the Paddington line. The Waterloo line is a stopping service, much liked by those who want cheap day tickets to London, as they can travel at low cost. However, it is not very good for business use. The upgrading of that line has been long promised, but is slow in coming. Perhaps the Minister will be able—if not in response to this debate, then later, or in writing—to tell us what proposals there are for upgrading the rail links.
I know that the Government are considering airports at the moment. I also know that the owners of Exeter airport have just made an application for a £20 million passenger terminal. There is a prospect of growth at Exeter airport. If Devon is to prosper—and, I would argue, if Cornwall is to prosper—Exeter is the airport that it must be logical to expand. It is the one that should be a hub for the south-west.
I know that hon. Members for Bristol constituencies would probably argue that we should expand the airport there, but there are capacity limits. There are no particular capacity limits for Exeter. There is an opportunity for us to grasp for the expansion of Exeter airport, which is supported by MPs across Devon, including the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—[Interruption.] I am corrected from a sedentary position because I spoke of MPs across Devon. There are MPs for constituencies peripheral to Plymouth who may dissent. I want to get that correct, so that they do not have a go at me later. Members for most parts of Devon would support the idea of making Exeter a hub airport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay is particularly concerned about the exporting of jobs to China. His constituency has suffered particularly, and I am sure that he will want to discuss that matter, as do I. We all believe in fair and free trade; I hope that we all believe in the global economy and its benefit, by and large, to western Europe and Britain. However, the benefit is lost if competition is not fair. If we are exporting jobs, we should make sure that those concerned are trading on a fair and equitable basis with the UK.
A particularly poignant instance of what I mean is one that we have covered before—food manufacture. Perhaps I may briefly allude to the agriculture sector. Places such as Thailand can produce chickens more cheaply than we can in the UK. However, if we import chickens, we need to ensure that their production meets the same health and welfare standards as we impose on our farmers' production.
Similar principles should also apply to manufacturing industry. To take another great Devon business, carpet making, as an example, the export of all carpet jobs to factories using bonded child labour in India would be wrong, and would cause a great hue and cry. That aspect of matters needs to be examined, and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay will almost certainly discuss it.
142WH
On exporting and exporting jobs, there is a question mark over how much support the Government give to businesses trying to work abroad. I know that the DTI does a tremendous amount of work for the very large companies, but I must question how much assistance is given to small businesses, such as West Country Clothing, which employs only 40 people and is trying to export.
I referred to Centrax, which makes combined heat and power units in Newton Abbot and could be expanded if it were helped. It is an exceptionally high-quality business and does an exceptionally good job, but it is being strangled by Government bureaucracy and intransigence. It has not had an order for a CHP unit for four years, which is surprising as CHP is a win-win commodity. It is good for the environment, for the UK's security of supply and for companies. The 2000 target for CHP was 5,000 MW, which I am told is still to be reached. Indeed, the Government committed themselves to CHP and made a commitment to it in their 1997 manifesto. They said:
"We are committed to an energy policy designed to promote cleaner, more efficient use and production, including a new and strong drive to develop … combined heat and power."
That has not happened.
In 2002, CHP capacity fell. All the major CHP developers have now left the market. Only a year ago, the energy paper re-committed the Government to 10 GW of CHP power by 2010. That target was never going to be reached. Not that long ago, the Government accepted that they had failed, and reduced the target to 8.5 GW. Whether that target is reached will depend greatly on the development of the ConocoPhillips Immingham CHP plant on Humberside. The company has said that the plant will come on line, but not under the current market conditions.
Another successful business in my constituency is British Ceramic Tiles, which makes all sorts of tiles. It competes with Spain and other countries, and has a very large, modern and mechanised factory. It was considering CHP and at one point had bought a CHP unit, but did not use it because it was not cost-effective. One must ask why. It all comes down to NETA—the new electricity trading arrangements. I strongly argue that the DTI and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should stop fighting each other over who is in charge of energy policy. They need to work out a coherent policy that will put CHP back on track so that we can achieve the 10 GW target by 2010. Believe it or not, NETA will become BETTA—the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements. If NETA can get BETTA, I hope that it will be better for the CHP industry. We need to ensure that there is an obligation on the purchase of CHP because that is the one way to develop it.
There are a lot of good aspects to the south-west. In the 1950s, North Carolina had agricultural areas in decline. People used to visit mainly for tourism, but the triangle between Raleigh and the universities has since been transformed into a highly efficient and profitable manufacturing and industrial base. The Raleigh triangle has attracted companies such as IBM, a multinational that everyone knows.
There is a possibility that we could do something similar in the south-west. There is no reason why our universities should not work together or why they

143WH
should not receive help and prompting from the Government to do so. There is no reason why Plymouth to Exeter should not be a magic line for industry or why a British company comparable to IBM should not be situated in the south-west. The south-west has the advantages of lifestyle and highly skilled people. The south-west has the capacity to develop.
10.1 am
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I think that I am probably a little more "doom and gloom" than my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross). I thought that NETA was a Bulgarian footballer, but I will keep that quiet or Chelsea will sign him.
The question for the south-west economy is what an earth has happened to tourism. Tourism has been for many years our main industry and it remains vital, but the tourism of my childhood, and probably that of other hon. Members, was different from that of today. The number of tourists visiting the south-west is not dissimilar to the number visiting in tourism's heyday, in the 1960s and 1970s. However, people are now more likely to visit the south-west for a short break or second holiday than to use up their entire two-week annual holiday.
Whereas in days gone by a small guesthouse could support a family for 52 weeks of the year, one would not now find a small guesthouse proprietor depending on their business for their livelihood. Such people now have to go out and work to make a living, because they do not make enough money from tourism. The ownership of businesses that derive benefits from tourism has also been transformed. National pub chains—Yates's and Wetherspoon—and even national hotel chains are now involved. We used to have a lot of self-catering visitors who would come into town and go to the local butcher, green grocer or baker. Nowadays they arrive and stock up for their stay in Sainsbury's or Safeway.
In all those examples the money spent leaves the town, rather than circulating there as it used to. For the same number of tourists, less of the money that tourism brings remains in the local economy. The Government need to recognise that crucial point, which is not peculiar to the south-west. Hon. Members representing constituencies in such towns as Blackpool, Scarborough, Brighton, Bournemouth and Eastbourne will all say the same thing about changes to the tourism industry. Although important. the industry is less important in terms of wealth in such constituencies.
In that context, there have been moves over the past 30 years, in all seaside resort economies and tourism areas, to diversify. The Government have been successful to some degree. Farm tourism, national museums, such as Tate St. Ives or the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth, and big developments, such as the Eden project in Cornwall, are examples of successful investment in tourism and attractions. The main problem for local authorities has been to diversify their economies so that they are not over-dependent on tourism.
In the 1960s, thanks to regional selective assistance, Standard Telephones and Cables relocated from north Somerset to Paignton, which is in my constituency. For
144WH
the past 30 years, there have always been between 600 and 1,000 people employed on that site—originally in the capacitor industry and, more recently, in fibre electronics. It has been taken over by ITT Industries and Nortel Networks, and is now part of Bookham Technology. When it was part of Nortel, between 1999 and 2001, the number of employees on the site rose to 5,200. That caused some problems for the tourism industry because the existence of those all-year-round, reasonably paid manufacturing jobs meant that, for the first time, there was a labour market shortage in tourism in winter, which was unheard of in the south-west.
As we know, the market for optoelectronic products caught a cold and Nortel racked up massive debts and made many thousands of people around the world redundant, including up to 4,000 in my constituency. That was a devastating blow. Constituents often ask me, "Why is it that you hear about Corus, the steelmakers in Wales, having 1,000 redundancies—t is top of the national news—but we can lose nearly 4,000 manufacturing jobs and it hardly registers anywhere?" There is a problem with getting people at the centre of government and the media to focus on the real problems, particultarly job losses, in the far south-west and in the Torbay and south Devon area.
When there are jobs losses of that scale, what else can people do? We have some light manufacturing, food processing, transport and communications, but they are on a small scale. The size of the problem is demonstrated when one considers the labour market review for the south-west region, which shows that in all the economic areas designated the Government in terms of travel to work, the Torbay area has the highest numbers of economically inactive people of working age, and of people in part-time work. That has become the pattern: people are holding down more than one part-time job or, if they are in full-time employment, there are fewer full-time jobs than in other areas.
The implication of that is that people's incomes tend to be lower. In studies of income per household, Torbay is at the bottom the list for England. We think of Cornwall as being, the low-wage economy, but the objective 1 projects and investment there have lifted their incomes. It is now south Devon, particularly Torbay, that has the lowest wage economy in the country, yet those wages are not low enough to keep another 600 manufacturing jobs from being transferred to China. We have a weak economic base, and we need to discuss how we can build on that.
According to the business community, throughout the south-west there is an exodus of jobs to foreign parts—mainly to China, but to India as well. Some of those jobs are technical, high-tech, skilled jobs. Our skills base is obviously not to blame. The relevant factor must be the amount of money, and other costs. Perhaps the biggest factor of all is something to which the business community has been drawing attention for more than 30 year;—the poor transport system. That affects existing businesses and curbs inward investment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge mentioned the infamous Kingskerswell bypass. There have been plans since the 1950s to bypass the village of Kingskerswell. The latest development is that the county council is working up a plan. This highlights something that is a problem for Torbay, although I do not mean any critic ism of Devon county council.

145WH
The road is nearly all within Devon county council's area of responsibility. Less than a tenth of the road length is within the Torbay unitary authority area. However, the beneficiary of the road is Torbay, not Devon. For Devon to put the scheme at the top of its list is politically quite remarkable. Often in the past the problem has been the Devon attitude that "that is a Torbay problem", when solving it would really benefit both Devon and Torbay. It will be Torbay that receives a benefit in inward investment, but, as to the environment, the people of Kingskerswell will be the beneficiaries.
Richard Younger-Ross: I agree, in the context of the manufacturing base, that industry in Torquay will benefit, but I want to correct my hon. Friend. There is a benefit to Kingskerswell from the bypass, but also many businesses in Torquay and Torbay employ people from my constituency. When Nortel closed, there were people in Teignmouth and as far along as the edge of Exeter who lost their jobs. The impact is not narrow, but is felt across the whole of south Devon.
Mr. Sanders: My hon. Friend is obviously correct. Another interesting point can be made about the Nortel redundancies, concerning the impact on the unemployment rate. Ministers have told me, "We know that you have lost all those jobs. but look at the unemployment rate; unemployment in your constituency has hardly increased it all." What has actually happened is that people have found jobs outside the area, putting futher pressure on the road.
Traffic flows are out in the morning and back into Torbay in the evening. People have taken jobs further away, in Exeter—which is booming, thankfully—if they can get there. The only way, effectively, to get there is by car, because the rail links are not adequate. Some people go further afield. That is not very good as a matter of environmental sustainability.
Another aspect of the matter is that people who previously had full-time jobs are now finding part-time jobs, or short-time, seasonal contract work more in keeping with the traditional seaside economy that we desperately want to move away from. Of course, that work is lower paid. Some people who left a window frame manufacturer in the area to work at Nortel, when it recruited, were offered their jobs back when Nortel made them redundant, at a lower wage and with less in the way of benefits. Some people exploited the situation and the people who work in the area—my constituents and those of other hon. Members.
Transport links are crucial. We have been waiting so long for the bypass that people wonder whether it will ever be built. Two things are happening: jobs are being exported from my constituency, because of the bypass issue, and there is a barrier to inward investment and to tourists. The sooner the matter can be settled—the sooner that the Government grasp the nettle, tell us, "Yes, this is a special case and you really need to get this done", and help to push it through, getting the bureaucracy out of the way so that work can begin the better.
Another issue on which I hope the Government can respond positively is the objective 2 programme. They have talked about local areas having more flexibility to
146WH
influence the programme, and the recently set up Torbay development agency is keen for there to be more local flexibility so that the money that is available can be used to deal with what has become a fairly dire economic situation in south Devon.
There is another aspect to the issue, however, because the local development agency and the other bodies that are trying to access Government and European grants need technical assistance. That is true across the board. Compared with other parts of the south-west, we receive nothing like a fair share of national lottery funds. Often, that is down to knowledge—the technical ability to know that a fund is available and how to put together an appropriate bid. That is true of the local council and probably of the technical development agency. I say that not to criticise them but simply to suggest that the Government could help to even up the competition by giving us extra help to help ourselves.
My conclusion is that people view south Devon as a bit of a cream tea economy, but that is not true. For a while, it was the leading optoelectronics centre in Europe, and the products that were being made in my constituency helped to roll out the internet and broadband around the world. Indeed, 70 per cent. of all internet traffic in North America is carried along products that were made in my constituency. Clearly, we have technical ability and skills of the very highest, most contemporary level, but it is low wages that have the greatest impact on my constituents. Unless we have many firms such as Nortel competing in the labour market, wages will remain among the lowest in the country, and we are not prepared to put up with that.
People should invest in south Devon. It has one of the most beautiful environments in the world, and Torbay has the world's most beautiful harbour. We have the moorland of Dartmoor. We also have the South Hams, and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) is forever telling us that his constituency has been described as the most beautiful in England. I am sure that he is right. I am also sure that my constituency is the second most beautiful and that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge has the third most beautiful. South Devon has the most beautiful, diverse environment. We have a fantastic skills base, and that is reflected in past investment. We also have quality of life, but creams teas and nice views do not make up for high rents, high house prices, high council taxes, poor public services, almost non-existent transport links and the fact that, because of our lower incomes, we must count our pennies before buying the goods and services that everybody else enjoys. The single biggest issue before us is how to lift our incomes. To do that, we must have inward investment, but we cannot get it without better transport links. So, I say to the Government: come on and help us out.
10.19 am
Nick Harvey: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on taking the opportunity to air such an important issue. I reinforce many of the points that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) have made.
It is clear that the manufacturing sector has had a much more difficult few years than the economy as a whole. In fact the strong overall performance of the

147WH
United Kingdom economy has masked the difficulties experienced by the manufacturing sector. That is even more true in the remoter parts of the south-west. Our manufacturing sector tends to include a relatively large number of small operators, all of whom are struggling with the difficulty of being a long way from their natural market; and they have to contend with many of the communication difficulties that have already been referred to.
As a good number of manufacturers in Devon and Cornwall supply niche markets, often in Europe, they have had to struggle with the uncompetitive exchange rate in recent years. However, from last week's election results one would not think that that was necessarily widely understood in the south-west.
The point has to be made that manufacturing is of particular importance in Devon. The perception of our economy is that it is based on tourism and agriculture—the cream tea economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay called it. There is a lot of truth in that, but the existence of a manufacturing sector—a vibrant, successful and healthy sector at that—is an essential ingredient in Devon's economy. When it begins to suffer, as it has in recent years, it will not be long before it has a profound effect on the economy as a whole.
We have had an historic dependency on agriculture and tourism, both of which are now in a period of rapid change. The changes that are coming about in the way in which agriculture is supported will, broadly speaking, be an improvement on existing arrangements; nevertheless, one can see that in a relatively short number of years the volume of economic activity is likely significantly to decline.
The changes in the tourism industry were well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. He was right in what he said. It is certainly true that a good number of people continue to come to Devon, but the time for which they stay and the amount of money that they spend is not what it was in previous decades.
If we are not to become a huge dormitory—somewhere for people to retire, which is pushing up our house prices—it is essential that we have a hotbed of viable economic activity capable of sustaining our local economy, and of sustaining proper communities with a good spread of ages and generations.
Devon wages rates are extraordinarily low, but visitors to the county do not understand it. With Cornwall making great strides, it will not be long before wages in Devon are the lowest in the country. The Government increasingly take the view that more local government expenditure should be raised locally. In principle, I do not have a problem with that, but the fact that we are such a poor area means that our local tax base is thin, and that will create more problems. It is essential that we do whatever we can to underpin the manufacturing that we have, and to try to bring more into the area.
Both my hon. Friends referred to the problems in their constituencies in south Devon. My constituency is in north Devon, and it has many of the same problems—but they are slightly worse, because we are that bit further off the beaten track. In the past two or three years, there has been a string of closures and
148WH
redundancies in the manufacturing sector in north Devon. Thomson IBL, an American-owned engineering company, closed down and left. Selkirk, another company in a niche market, also closed down. It produces industrial chimney flues, many of which are sold to Germany and Spain. Thankfully, another company stepped in and rescued some of the operation. Clarks Shoes is an example of jobs going to south-east Asia, with whose wage levels we cannot compete.
North Devon has had a very successful pharmaceutical industry. Alpharma, previously Cox Pharmaceuticals, is the largest generic pharmaceutical manufacturer in the country. Wrafton Laboratories is one of the largest pharmaceutical manufacturers. In the past couple of weeks,it has had a large number of layoffs. That is before one even mentions the difficulties faced by the Appledore shipyard, which is based in Torridge in a west Devon constituency but provides employment for people throughout the north of the county and into north Cornwall.
Leaderflush Shapland has particular difficulties. When I was elected 10 or 12 years ago, it was the largest employer in north Devon. It employed about 800 people and produced high quality, heavy-duty doors for use in public buildings, hospitals, schools and other such buildings. Now, only about 240 jobs are left. Its parent company, which is based in Nottingham, is committed to keeping those jobs in north Devon but has a serious financial decision to take. It has a valuable site in the middle of Barnstable and wants to move to a new small site on the outskirts. What happens to the site that it owns is crucial to the future of Barnstaple and north Devon. The major planning application, which would facilitate the whole project, keep 240 jobs in Barnstaple and provide most of the 500 badly needed new homes, has been sitting on the desk of the Deputy Prime Minister for six months awaiting a decision, despite the fact that such applications are supposed to be decided in three months.
It is a very regrettable feature of our British political system that such decisions must go to Whitehall at all. It would be far better for these things to be decided more locally. I implore the Minister to ask the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to decide this major planning issue quickly, whatever the decision may be. If it does not, we will certainly lose those jobs, and that crucial site will probably be disposed of to the highest bidder, with no guarantee as to what a new buyer might want to do with it.
Any manufacturing operations in north Devon tend outpost of larger manufacturing the furthest away from base camp and the most vulnerable when a parent company faces pressures and has to consider where to make cuts and closure. We do our best to try to bring in new companies. We can offer a good quality of life. In recent decades, however, we have not had anything like the sorts of grants of the 1960s to which my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay referred with which to lever them in. Almost all the manufacturing companies in north area in the late 1960s with the benefit of regionals development grants. There have been barely any significant imports of companies and jobs since.
We must continue the quest to bring in new companies. We know that we will not bring in vast manufactures, but we can reasonably hope to bring in

149WH
small niche-market players, particularly in the high-tech sector. We can try to add value to the food products that we already produce locally. In passing, I might say that if the Government are serious about moving civil service jobs out of London, I hope that they will not simply plant them in large regional towns, but will realise the good that could be achieved if they were to scratch a little further and consider places such as north Devon.
Mr. Sanders: Give us the Treasury.
Nick Harvey: That is an interesting idea.
Mr. SandersIn Princetown.
Nick Harvey: Yes, indeed.
I want to consider a few aspects of Government policy. In all honesty, I do not expect the Government to come up with lavish grant aid so that we can try to lever companies in. I do not know whether they will continue to sustain the relatively modest gram aid that they make available at the moment. However, they could certainly do a lot—on transport links, for example.
The A30 and A303 link has been debated and deliberated on for decades, and it is ludicrous that we have not reached a resolution. By the time that north Devon's link road, opened in the late 1980s, was built, it had scandalously been watered down to a single-track road instead of a dual carriageway. It has not fulfilled its potential.
Rail links are pretty dodgy. Even when improvements to First Great Western rail links are planned, they always seem to feature the route from London to Bristol and on into Wales, and do not address in any serious way the connections to Devon and Cornwall.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge referred to air links. Again, there has been a great deal of muddle and confusion. Plymouth airport cannot expand in any meaningful way. The only rational ind sensible option for the south-west is to expand Exeter airport.
In my view, we have also failed to make full use of the potential that sea links could bring. There is potential around the south-west coast for small, wharf-style developments to bring in and take out a great deal more raw material and products than we do at present.
I regret having to stand in the national Parliament and raise relatively parochial issues. Such matters ought to be able to be resolved far more locally. However, until we have a meaningful devolution of power and resources in this country, we have no choice other than to come to this House to raise such issues.
Last weekend, I was talking to a small business man in my constituency who has been operating for more than a decade. In anguish, he described to me the pain and agony that he has experienced in the past couple of years while trying to pursue modest sums of grant aid. His conclusion is that he wishes that he had never got involved in the first place. The time that he has wasted, the hoops that he has had to jump through, the sheer bureaucracy and red tape of it all has depressed him and has wasted time that he could have spent on his business.
That man came to ask me to try to convince the Government that rather than get rid of the red tape, which I do not think he imagined to be possible, they
150WH
should simply abolish the whole damn thing. He honestly thought that business would be better served if, rather than putting Government money into grants that have to be governed by all these excessive checks for reasons of probity, that money was spent on services such as Business Link and business support services. He found such services, by contrast, to be of the highest value. Business Link's timely advice and its signposting of people who could help him was worth much more than the grants would have been had he succeeded. Such schemes might be a better use of Government funds.
When the Government introduced the Regional Development Agencies Bill, I was the party spokesman responsible. I led my colleagues through the Lobby, in favour of regional development agencies, but I did so having expressed my fears that the RDAs might not be able to fulfil their potential. It seemed that they were being introduced in a half-hearted manner and with pitifully inadequate resources. Five or six years on, I am afraid that that seems to be the case. The RDAs are charged, as one of their key objectives, with trying to end regional disparities. However, the RDA for the south-west, a poor and remote area, has, I am told, one sixth of the budget of the RDA for the north-east, which also has to deal with some serious problems. RDAs do not have enough clout or resources, and, even in terms of the amounts that they are given, there are disparities between one area and another.
My overall message to the Government is that we are not here with a begging bowl expecting lavish handouts. However, the Government need to take serious note of the far south-west's difficulties and better target their resources and efforts. They need to listen to the business community of Devon and Cornwall about how best to help. I fear that if we do not act relatively fast, the opportunities offered by objective 1 in Cornwall and objective 2 in Devon may be lost. Looking at the shape of developments in the European Union, I do not think that we shall get those opportunities again. It is therefore essential that we get things right now and take advantage of that resource while we can.
10.36 am
Mr. John Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on obtaining this debate. I start by offering hon. Members, the Minister and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who has been unavoidably detained.
I feel rather like the Minister who, in the apocryphal story, turned over the second sheet of the speech that he or she was about to deliver and found that the civil servant, who had been less than pleased with the Minister, had written, "You're on your own now, mate." My sudden promotion to the Opposition Front Bench in a speaking role has allowed me at least not to come with a pre-prepared script. Instead, I can listen to what hon. Members have to say, which I have found extremely interesting. However, I must disappoint those in the Chamber, because, although I have been given incredible power to change my party's policy by speaking out, I shall avoid that and keep to the debate.
Before I came to the House or was even actively involved in politics, I was the director of a retail outlet employing about 35 people. I became involved when I

151WH
went to my then Member of Parliament, who would later be my predecessor, to complain that the Government were not doing enough for high streets and the retail industry. He suggested that it would be better to get on the inside than carp from the outside. I realised that many of the problems in manufacturing or in retail are not, of course, the fault of the Government. I therefore sympathise with the Minister because, although she must reply to this debate, there are no easy solutions, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) pointed out.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge said that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) had described job losses in the region as being rather like the sinking of the Titanic. I am afraid that the problems with manufacturing in Devon that we have heard about are the tip of an iceberg. What holds in Devon could be true in many other areas, although there may be different factors and different conditions. That is why I was particularly interested to hear about Devon. I have not been to that part of the world for some time—not since my twitching days—and hearing all the names rekindled my desire to visit it again Like the hon. Member for Teignbridge, I think that cream teas are out these days.
Of course there are problems. The hon. Members for Teignbridge and for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) mentioned small businesses. I still have a strong connection with my family retail business so I understand acutely the problems that they face. Everybody talks about over-regulation and red tape. It is true that Governments, regardless of complexion, are not that adept at removing them. Sometimes it seems that our job is to sit here and make regulations. It would be nice to say for a change, "There is nothing to do for a week or two; no more regulations. Go home and do some useful stuff in your constituency," but the endless roll of statutory instruments continues.
I sympathise a great deal with hon. Members from Devon when they talk about the perception of their region. Obviously, tourism goes hand in hand with the thought of Devon; it is a pleasant place to visit. However, even tourism echoes some of the problems experienced by manufacturing—because of its costs, it is not necessarily competitive with what might be found elsewhere. As a father with a young family, I know that it is often cheaper to go abroad, or so it seems. However, there are many advantages of taking a holiday in the UK and I would certainly advocate it. Similarly, I have seen manufacturers whom I have known for many years obliged to move out of the country because of costs.
That is particularly worrying for hon. Members in Devon, where there is already a low-pay economy—the workers in the agricultural sector, the retail sector and tourism are not well paid. I can understand that manufacture is very important. However, the very fact that the higher paid jobs are in that sector, so that elsewhere in the global economy its costs might be seen to be high, has contributed to the exodus abroad. Just as sad is the closure of businesses that have been there for a long time.
I can give a small advertisement for some of the products that are produced in Devon. Over the years, I have sold many of them, not least ceramics and carpets,
152WH
and I still do. Anybody looking at carpets would be well advised to look at the fine products that are produced all over the UK, particularly in the west country.
I was interested to hear the argument about airports and air transport. As a member of the Select Committee on Transport, I feel that it is best not to get involved in such matters without knowing a great deal about them. It is rather irritating when people lecture me about Heathrow, which is virtually in my back garden. Therefore, I can understand the points of view that have been expressed. It seems that Exeter is strongly favoured. I shall take a greater interest in it, and try not to be so parochial—if one can say that of a concern about Heathrow and the London airports.
Many of the situations that we have heard about, even down to lottery grants, are echoed in west London, or Middlesex as I prefer to say on a day like today, having left it this morning in the sunshine. In each area, people sometimes seem unable come up with the schemes that they want. Perhaps there is a role, somewhere, for someone to help with suggestions, as the big grants seem to be the ones that a pushed forward. My constituency suffers because we come under London. When all the grants seemed to go to London, people said, "You're really well off," but it is not really like that.
Those changes in manufacturing are echoed in tourism and agriculture. One problem facing the country is that we have to adapt, but that is not easy. My company was founded 110 years ago. In the early days, we were at the forefront of technology, being the first store in Uxbridge to install electricity, but things have changed a bit since then, and we are rather regarded as the Grace Bros. of the area now.
This important debate has increased my knowledge of the area and of the problems it faces. However, that is enough from me—I shall now sit down, as the Minister deserves as much time as possible.
10.46 am
The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on securing this important debate, which has been constructive and well informed. I also take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) to his well deserved place on the Opposition Front Bench.
I have listened carefully to hon. Members, particularly to their concerns about and aspirations for the future of manufacturing in Devon, both of which I share. I want to use the time available to respond to some of those points, and to spell out what the Government are doing to deal with some of those issues, both through their manufacturing strategy and with practical action on the ground locally.
I agree with hon. Members about the importance of manufacturing and about its significance, not only for Devon, but for the UK economy as a whole. It is an important bedrock of our economy, as it provides a sixth of our GDP, is vital for our trading position—being responsible for two thirds of our exports—and provides around 3.5 million jobs, and millions more through the supply chain. As hon. Members have said, those are often high-quality, highly paid jobs, which are

153WH
of particular importance in an area of low pay. The industry is also responsible for 75 per cent. of all business research and development, and is a key generator of productivity and innovation in the wider economy through the introduction of new products and processes. The Government are clear that if we are to continue as a leading economy, we must have a world-class manufacturing sector.
As hon. Members have observed, manufacturing has been through some tough times, many of which are due to global pressures, which are faced even by the relatively small, niche manufacturers that have been mentioned. We have been through a period of weak global demand, during which out put was flat, too many manufacturing firms closed and too many workers lost their jobs. On top of that we have increasing competition from lower-wage economies in the far east and eastern Europe.
Of course, those difficulties are not unique to the UK, and certainly not to Devon: our main competitors in the US, Germany and France face similar challenges. However, there is some reason for optimism, as business surveys in the UK show positive signs of improved confidence. The most recent CBI business survey shows manufacturing in a more positive light, with output expected to rise over the next three months. Just last week, the Office for National Statistics published figures showing a 0.9 per cent. increase in April on manufacturing output in March. That is the highest output since October 2003, and since May 2002 before that.
However, there are considerable challenges. Hon. Members have taken an admirably positive approach to the future of manufacturing, but they have also outlined issues relevant to job losses in their constituencies.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) in particular raised the issue of the Bookham job losses. I very much regret those and recognise what a blow they were, when it seemed, as the hon. Gentleman explained, that Paignton might experience a period of stability after Bookham bought the optoelectronics business from Nortel at the end of 2002. The downturn in the telecoms market is continuing to cause difficulties for telecoms equipment manufacturer, across the world. Bookham is clearly not immune to hose problems.
We understand that Bookham is keen to retain key research and development and specialised pilot production capability at Paignton. Although that will employ fewer people, the jobs will be at the high skills, high technology end, about which I want to talk more in a moment. Also, while the job losses are regrettable, their phasing over the next 12 to 15 months provides time for Jobcentre Plus to help with finding alternative employment.
In all significant cases of job losses, all the local agencies have worked, and will work, together to give the affected employees all the help that they need to find alternative jobs. Large-scale redundancy status, which Bookham has, provides immediate access to all Jobcentre Plus, job search and training programmes, supported by additional rapid resp ruse funding, where that is needed.
It is also worth pointing out that, notwithstanding hon. Members' concerns about job losses and pay levels in Devon, since 1997 there are 6.8 per cent. more people
154WH
in work in Devon. That is above the England average. Also, as hon. Members have recognised, there are although this does not compensate for the scale of the job losses—many manufacturing success stories. It is sometimes important for us, while recognising the challenges faced by our manufacturing industry, to acknowledge the high quality of much UK manufacturing.
Examples of such success stories include SIFAM Fibre Optics in Torquay—a management buy-out that employs 90 people and expects to take on up to 20 more because of its success. The company has won an international contract to supply components for an underwater link between France and Egypt, and another one to India. It has been supported by a DTI investment of £250,000 in its part of a consortium project examining the use of fibre optics in an aircraft.
Mr. Sanders: Will the Minister give way?
Jacqui Smith: I will, but the hon. Gentleman must not then complain if I do not cover all the points that he raised.
Mr. Sanders: The Minister is correct to highlight the case of SIFAM. However, SIFAM had a mass redundancy exercise at the same time as Nortel. There are big problems affecting former employees and their pension rights. The business is good and growing, and we hope that it will employ more people. However, the issue remains the same: overall, incomes are going down even if people are working more hours.
Jacqui Smith: That is why we need to focus on what we must to do provide the right environment for high value, high skill manufacturing, so that we can introduce new products and processes, create new markets and boost prosperity. That is why, two years ago, the Government's manufacturing strategy was produced, based on a new partnership with trade unions, businesses, other stakeholders, trade associations and regional development agencies. The focus is on the key challenges and practical steps for dealing with them.
It was clear to all involved in the strategy development that the way to ensure success was not to cut wages and compete on cost, but to compete on quality by investing in skills, innovation and the latest practices to achieve higher value products and faster and improved production processes. We have been making progress in all the priority areas set out in the strategy, and we will publish a report next month on what has been achieved and what more needs to be done.
One of the practical steps mentioned by the hon. Member for Teignbridge was the setting up of the Manufacturing Advisory Service. I can tell the hon. Member for Uxbridge that MAS provides practical hands-on help and advice to manufacturing and engineering companies throughout the country. In the south-west, the local office has received almost 1,500 inquiries, and has added value of more than £8 million a year to the region's economy. In Devon, it has contacted more than 200 manufacturing businesses, and 60 of them have benefited from MAS advice. Another 25 have

155WH
taken part in best practice implementation projects, with an annual cost saving of £104,000 per company. Those are very practical results.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge mentioned Turton Quality Foods. I could mention Algram, a plastics engineering firm based in Plymouth that has benefited from a dramatic reduction in machine set-up times, including a 66 per cent. reduction in change-over times on injection moulding machines. That practical, hands-on support for manufacturers is widely welcomed. The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of support for smaller companies in exporting. I recommend him to advise those companies to make full use of the range of UK trade and investment services, which can be accessed through international trade advisers at their business link.
I was pleased to hear from the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) about the business person who likes the local Business Link. That certainly resonates with national surveys, which show an increase in national satisfaction. The difficulty of accessing business support has been recognised by the Government. We have rationalised it nationally, and about 150 different business support products have been cut to a core of nine in order to overcome some of the difficulties outlined by the hon. Gentleman.
We have strengthened the role of regional development agencies. The hon. Member for North Devon was a little sceptical, but we have increased funding for the South West of England Regional Development Agency from £43 million in 1999–2000 to £108 million in this financial year; and we have given the RDAs more flexibility on how they spend it. That is why the South West RDA is able to help tackle the causes of manufacturing vulnerability in that area.
156WH
Several hon. Members raised the question of access to markets and communication. It is an important regional factor. The RDA is supporting investment at Exeter and Plymouth airports as part of the regional air transport strategy, in order to maintain and improve air services to the far south-west.
I also recognise the long-standing local support for a bypass at Kingskerswell, to improve access to Torbay. I think that hon. Members accept that a proposal for a bypass is a matter for the local authorities—in this case, for Devon county council and Torbay council. My colleagues in the Department for Transport look forward to receiving detailed proposals, as part of the local transport plan, for major scheme funding. Under the auspices of the local transport plan, considerable investment is being made in such schemes.
The RDA is also supporting investment in increased incubation and innovation activity to enhance and grow the advanced manufacturing base, which is important for developing an innovative, high-skills approach to manufacturing. Examples include the commitment to invest about £5 million in an expanded and improved innovation centre at Exeter university, innovation support services to businesses across the sub-region, and enhancing incubation space at Caddsdown industrial estate in Bideford The RDA is also considering a proposal from the Torbay development agency for a £4.3 million incubation and managed workspace development, some of which would be co-located with a new campus for South Devon college and adjacent to the Bookham Technology site and other employment land under development.
We have had a good debate. I hope that I have been able to outline some of the practical support being provided by the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now turn our attention to the food industry in west Wiltshire.

Food Industry (West Wiltshire)
11 am
Dr. Andrew Murrison: It is probably timely that this debate should follow one about the manufacturing industry in Devon. In commenting on the food industry in west Wiltshire, I shall also deal with the manufacturing base in the south-west.
The number of jobs in the food and beverage manufacturing sector has shrunk significantly since 1997. Between 1997 and 2002, 35,000 jobs were lost in the UK and more than 7,000 were lost in the south-west. Those losses are not necessarily reflected in Government employment figures, which show a robust employment market that is largely driven by jobs in the public sector. However, we should be worried about our shrinking manufacturing base, and that is particularly true of the south-west, with its heavy reliance on food production and processing.
I want to discuss three recent examples of food industry closures and job losses in my area. They are in slightly different sub-sectors, but they exemplify the general problems faced by many people in the sector in my area. The first example is the Nestlé plant at Staverton, which. we have been told, is relocating to France. The second is Westbury Dairies, which is an industry leader, with the most up-to-date processing plant in Europe. The firm faced the threat of closure last year when its owners went into receivership, but it was successfully redeveloped by a consortium of co-operatives and is now helping to stabilise the dairy producing industry nationwide. I believe that it is a success story.
The third example is the Pork Farm Bowyers factory in Trowbridge, which produces high-quality Melton Mowbray pies for retailers and high-street supermarket names. In this case, the problem is the European Union's protected food names scheme, which was designed to protect Europe's rich heritage of specialty foods, but which is in danger of being manipulated to divide commercial markets and force arbitrary rules on producers. There are severe problems with the scheme, and I hope that Ministers will use the Pork Farm Bowyers example and others in the it negotiations with Europe to secure an amendment to it. Otherwise, it is likely to damage the UK's competitiveness, fragment the internal market, offer customers poor value and—this may well happen in my are—damage jobs.
The closure of Nestlé's Staverton plant, which is to wind up production later this year, is a blow not only to the 150 workers who will have to move elsewhere but to the whole dairy industry. As the Transport and General Workers Union noted, the plant was viable and increasingly profitable. It produced value-added products, which are essential if the troubled dairy sector is to diversify and flourish.
The closure will exacerbate the UK's balance of trade deficit in the dairy sector, although it is extraordinary that this country should have a deficit in that sector. We export primary products of processed milk, but we import value-added products, such as cheese, yoghurts and chilled desserts. The market for value-added products is expanding, and they are becoming increasingly important to consumers as people globally become wealthier.
158WH
The relocation of the Nestlé plant to France will mean that its demand for up to 1 million litres of fresh cream, which was met by the UK dairy industry, will now be met by French farmers. The impact on local dairy farmers will be significant, but it will, thankfully, be offset by the restructuring of local dairy processing, which will reduce some of the worst effects of this and similar closures. That will allow farmers to negotiate a better price for their output.
Co-operatives are benefiting the dairy industry throughout the UK, which the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently recognised in its report on milk pricing in the UK. A good illustration of that is the successful acquisition of Westbury Dairies by a consortium of co-operatives, after United Milk, its original owner, went into receivership last year. That is an example of cooperatives working together to secure the future of a large concern, while assisting the community of producers as a whole. The factory at Westbury is one of the most up-to-date milk processing plants in Europe, with the ability to handle huge volumes of milk efficiently and profitably. In the hands of the three cooperatives, the plant has performed on budget for its first six months of trading and is achieving the original goal of stabilising the market and benefiting the hundreds of dairy farmers who are members of those cooperatives.
Ministers need to find ways to facilitate such structural innovation. The dairy industry is currently on a knife edge, and further regulation puts it at severe risk. The impetus for change and modernisation must, of course, come from the industry itself. The sector has recognised that and is generating changes by itself, but the general environment is heavily influenced by the Government, who must encourage diversification and processes that add value. It is noteworthy that the Department of Trade and Industry budget has increased significantly on most things, except innovation, on which spending has remained about what it was in 1998. I make no comment about the DTI's general spend, but it is interesting to note that, within that general spend, the spend on innovation has stagnated. That is a particular pity in the dairy sector.
The recent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on milk pricing was a good analysis of the state of the dairy industry and the problems of the past. The report more or less echoed what farmers and industry groups have said for some time, but it was short on solid recommendations for the future. It highlighted the fact that farmers are not told why the price that we pay for our milk is not seen in the farm-gate price. Cooperatives can help to overcome that lack of transparency, but the Government also have a part to play, by ensuring that initiatives such as the code of conduct agreement between supermarkets and producers are properly observed.
It is all very well to have land stewardship, and I am sure that the Minister is keen to encourage it as an alternative means of using the land and ensuring that farmers can support their businesses. However, as the National Farmers Union in my constituency recently put it to me, farmers are not park keepers. Farmers are principally in the business of producing food. We all want British farmers to make a profit from food production. The Government's job is to help them to do

159WH
so, by getting a fair deal for British agriculture in the EU and the World Trade Organisation, encouraging beneficial changes in the home market, managing regulation more efficiently and having effective disease control strategies. The record to date, however, is somewhat mixed.
Pork pies are produced in large numbers in Trowbridge, in my constituency. However, the Pork Farm Bowyers factory, which employs 700 people and has for decades been making high-quality meat and pastry products, including the celebrated Trowbridge Melton Mowbray pork pie, is under threat. The threat to the continued production of that excellent product emanates from the EU protected food names scheme, which was designed to safeguard speciality products from competition from cheap alternatives that are not governed by strict quality control measures. We would all say that that was a good thing. Consumers need to know that what they are buying under the guise of a quality mark, such as Melton Mowbray pork pies, is a good product. The irony is that the EU protected food name scheme does not necessarily deliver such protection. One of its headings is a geographical indicator that would allow products to be made pretty much in any way, provided that they were made within a certain radius of, in this case, the borough of Melton Mowbray. That does seem rather strange. Given the choice, most consumers prefer to know that a traditional product has been made in a traditional way rather than that it has been made within a certain radius of the place with which its name is associated.
There are many examples of protected names: Newcastle brown ale, Dorset blue cheese, Whitstable oysters and Shetland lamb. The list goes on and on. The scheme offers different degrees of protection for different products. It bases protection sometimes on the area of origin and sometimes on detailing the production process that needs to be met for the product to be recognised. I understand that the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association has decided that it needs the protection that the EU protected food name scheme gives to products described as Melton Mowbray pork pies. Its application has the endorsement of no less a figure than Mr. Jamie Oliver.
The application for Melton Mowbray to be a protected name for a type of pie indicates a new phase in the scheme. We are talking no longer about primary products but about recipe-based products. The new applications are not for basic foodstuffs that are sourced and processed in a defined region but for products that are heavily processed and heavily value-added. This is a new phase in the evolution of the use of the scheme. There would clearly be a case for protection if the quality and processes used in these products were specified with an eye to protecting artisans, in the borough of Melton Mowbray, for example. I am perfectly happy to accept that that was the intention of Ministers when they considered this application. In the Melton Mowbray case, however, it seems that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs may have been misled or may have mishandled the application by encouraging one part of the industry to advance its own proposals. The result is an application that may exclude other manufacturers unfairly.
160WH
It is worth pointing out that the chief beneficiary in this case will be one of the major competitors of Bowyers, the parent organisation of which is Northern Foods. That competitor produces the vast majority of pork pies in the area designated by the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association. The pies are produced on an industrial scale and not as an artisan-based baking industry. The result would be anti-competitive and the 700 jobs in my constituency would be threatened. People who buy Melton Mowbray pork pies tend to be the large high-street retailers, who will look for the Melton Mowbray descriptor because that is what the consumer wants. Clearly, if the application is accepted, consumers will look to the competitor of the firm based in my constituency to provide this product. It will not be the small producer, which the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association would like Ministers to believe is at the forefront of its thoughts, that will benefit, but the large industrial-scale manufacturer, which is a direct competitor of Bowyers in my constituency.
I support the idea of protecting producers of specialised foodstuffs against producers of inferior and cheaper products who use a name the reputation of which has been built up through centuries of refining techniques and using the best quality ingredients. However, the problem with the EU food name scheme is where it will all end. We already have applications from the makers of Cornish pasties and other food types that have a greater or lesser connection to a particular area. It will be a pity if small manufacturers such as bakers, restaurants and butchers cannot make their products in a traditional way merely because they do not happen to be within a stone's throw of, say, Melton Mowbray or the county of Cornwall. Most consumers will want to know that the product that they are buying is what they generally understand to be a Cornish pasty or a Melton Mowbray pork pie. That does not have a great deal to do with precisely where it was produced, but more with how it was produced and the ingredients used.
Lord Haskins, of course, takes a particular view. He has advised the Government on rural issues and has also been closely associated with Northern Foods, the parent company of Pork Farm Bowyers. However, I suppose that he can be relied on to be a critical friend of the Government. I have no doubt that the Minister will have read The Observer on 23 May, where Lord Haskins described the decision-making process of his friends in Government as a "complete cock-up". I hope that Ministers will bear that in mind, as well as the further thoughts of Lord Haskins, who went on to say that the Government
"really haven't thought this through. What will be next? Bakewell tarts, Cornish pasties or Cumberland sausages … These products have been made for generations outside their geographical area. There is no reason to change that now."
That puts it in a nutshell. The EU protected food name scheme may be well intentioned, but it is doubtful whether it is of great benefit to our domestic food production industry. It looks as though it may fragment the market, introduce anti-competitive practice, act against the interests of consumers and destroy jobs, not least in my constituency
11.16 am
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I congratulate the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on securing the debate and on the informed way in which he has introduced the subject.
When it comes to employment in rural areas, we have seen a greater increase in employment—a greater fall in unemployment—in rural areas. We have seen a fall in employment in some specific sectors, but improvements in the employment situation in rural areas have been good since 1997 and are running ahead of those in urban areas. Manufacturing now provides a greater proportion of employment in rural seas than in urban areas. As well as referring to sectors In general, the hon. Gentleman referred to some specific issues that the industry ought to deal with, as he rig illy acknowledged. I shall come in a moment to the Government's specific responsibilities—for example, our responsibilities for the milk industry and for the pork pie industry, as he specifically raised those issues.
First, I will say something about the regional food industry in general. The Government have acted decisively to support and encourage a flourishing regional food industry. Not only is the strategy for sustainable farming and food driving forward change, but its significance in the south-west is given tangible form in the delivery plan for the south-west produced jointly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' team in the Government office and the regional development agency, with a wide range of partner organisations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with that document—if not, I recommend it to him as it gives a tangible agenda for the way forward for the food industry in the south-west.
Our success in moving forward on common agricultural policy reform, to which the hon. Gentleman made a passing reference without the enthusiastic endorsement that one might expect, is also significant in reconnecting the food industry and farming with consumers. The key drivers behind our support for the sector are supporting the rural economy, helping producers add value to their products, increasing their returns from the market and increasing their competitiveness. In other words, we want to nurture a successful and productive industry.
Regional food producers create jobs and prosperity for the local work force, which is predominately rural. Research that we commissioned last year shows that sales turnover for the English quality regional food sector is in the region of£3.7 billion. More than 55,000 people are employed in the sector.
The sourcing of ingredients for regional food is predominantly local, which helps keep money in the local economy. Raising the profile of regional food helps to inform consumers about the origin and authenticity of food. The theme of reconnection informs what we are doing to encourage a flourishing regional and local food sector by creating the right conditions to help producers meet the growing demand from consumers for food and drink products with a clear regional provenance. The measures that we have established for doing that recognise the need to help our producers meet the growing demand and overcome
162WH
barriers to the market—such as distribution, the lack of processing facilities and, sometimes, issues relating to training.
What we are doing to support the sector falls into two categories: support for the sector as a whole and the more direct help that we can give through our various grant schemes to food and drink producers. One of the main ways in which we are supporting the sector as a whole is through Food from Britain, which is the lead support agency for the promotion of UK regional foods. To enable it to do that, we made available an additional £1 million pounds last year, for this year and the next. With that additional funding, Food from Britain is taking forward a programme of activities focusing on trade development, consumer awareness and business competitiveness.
In addition, regional development agencies are deploying their own resources according to the needs and priorities of their region. Production and supply of locally sourced food can be encouraged through food hubs and shared facilities as well as linking local producers with local retailers and tourist businesses. Help is also available under the England rural development programme grant schemes and the agriculture development scheme. Funding under those schemes has supported activities such as farmers' markets and other direct sales outlets, local branding initiatives and co-operative or collaborative groups to market produce.
Within the west Wiltshire area we have provided funding to help producers market their organic produce locally; supported the expansion of facilities at a maltsters; and provided a number of farmers with training grants aimed at helping them to improve standards. It is worth saying that the branding of regional food in the south-west has been a particular success story, not least because in the south-west regional branding has been made to fit well with the county and more local branding, in a way that many other regions of the country regard, I think, as an exemplar.
Our public sector food procurement initiative, which was launched last year, is designed to encourage public sector bodies to procure their food in a manner that promotes sustainable development and encourages more small and local farmers, producers and suppliers to compete to supply them with food. For a while there was a mythology that Europe somehow made local procurement difficult, but it does not. It requires it to happen on a proper, open and competitive basis, but the advantage of local production and procurement must be clear to all.
We want the buying power of the public sector in England—£1.8 billion on food and catering services—to help to deliver the principal aims of the Government's strategy for sustainable farming and food in England. The south-west is well represented in the area of public sector food procurement. A south-west public procurement group has been set up to co-ordinate the strategy, research and funding needed to increase the procurement of south-west local and regional food and drink into the south-west public sector.
The hon. Gentleman specifically referred to the milk industry. I understand why that was a priority for him in discussing his constituency. The milk industry has gone

163WH
through, and continues to go through, a difficult time. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognised that the industry must lead change to create a profitable future for itself. He also acknowledged the capacity of cooperative approaches to improve the quality of the return to farmers as the primary producers. However, he suggested that the Select Committee report was weaker on solutions than on identifying problems.
There is a difficulty, because there are problems with the farm-gate price of milk. The reasons are complex and include at different times, and in different combinations, exchange rates, the prices of world community markets and commodity markets, as well as domestic supply and demand. However, those factors do not completely account for the fact that farm gate prices in the UK remain among the lowest in the EU 15.
The report by KPMG on prices and profitability in the Great Britain dairy chain highlighted a number of factors that might explain why UK farm-gate prices compare unfavourably with the EU average, including the low value of the product mix and the low level of product innovation within the UK compared with some member states, as well as the structure of the UK dairy industry and dairy co-operatives. However, the Government have sought to help the industry through such complex issues. Most of the causes of low farm-gate prices identified in the KPMG report are for the industry to address, but the Government can and have taken action in line with their strategy for sustainable farming and food to facilitate that. For example, the Minister for Farming, Food and Sustainable Energy, Lord Whitty, has chaired meetings of the dairy supply chain forum, which has been considering collaborative solutions to improve supply chain efficiency as well as other issues.
The Government have made a grant of nearly £500,000 to enable the food chain centre to examine how to improve dairy supply chain efficiency and we have established English food and farming partnerships to encourage co-operation and collaboration across all agricultural sectors.
Price negotiations between producers and processors, or processors and supermarkets, are commercial matters, in which the Government cannot and should not get involved, so long as competition rules are respected. However, we are acting to support the industry and to help it in facilitating change which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, has to be led by the industry.
The hon. Gentleman referred to pork pies and regional food brands. The difficulty is that neither we nor the hon. Gentleman can say that it is a good thing to protect food names without there being in place a proper framework for the consideration of what should be approved and protected. There is such a framework, and there is always special pleading. That is common to both sides of the argument and between countries. For instance, a local delicacy can be seen as worthy of the strongest possible protection in one country, but as
164WH
merely another commodity in others. There are occasions when the debate seems to be not so much about pork pies as about pork barreling. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that we need a proper framework within which to consider such matters.
The application to register the Melton Mowbray pork pie as a protected food name has been put forward to the European Commission only after careful consideration of the arguments put forward by both the applicant group and the opposing parties. There will be further opportunities for both sides to be heard. Meanwhile, producers not covered by the application can continue to label their pies as Melton Mowbray pork pies. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the parent company, Bowyers, as Northern Foods, applied for permission to seek judicial review on our decision to forward the Melton Mowbray pork pie application for protected geographical indication status to the European Commission. Permission has been granted to argue the case and the hearing takes place next month. It would be inappropriate to say more in advance of that. However, there is a process, and I underline the fact that both sides will have further opportunities to argue their perspective on the case.
Taking the food industry more generally, the food chain beyond the farm gate faces challenges requiring separate consideration. Our commitment is to work with all sectors of the food industry to develop a comprehensive food industry sustainable strategy to provide strategic direction and to set priorities. The idea of a sustainable sector is important—the sector needs to supply what the public wants, and to supply intelligently into the regional retail trade, tourist establishments and the catering industry. A broad-based working group chaired by Lord Whitty and comprising the food industry, consumer, trade unions and bodies such as the National Consumer Council and the Sustainable Development Commission is developing a strategy to address sustainability issues affecting the whole food and drink industry, post farm gate—food manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers, and caterers.
The food and health action plan, led by the Department of Health, is linked to the wider consultation on public health through the document "Choosing Health?" announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 3 March. The aim is a healthier diet for everybody. It will include clear policy objectives on nutrition, setting out arrangements for co-ordination on nutrition work across Government and in other sectors, national, regional and local.
The reform of the CAP will provide the right conditions for a flourishing regional food industry that is competitive and sustainable and for a level playing field across Europe. That can only be good for the farming industry in this country.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Child Support Agency
2 pm
Mr. David Kidney: When I was elected to Parliament in 1997, I knew that the Child Support Agency was unpopular and inefficient. I used to be a solicitor in private practice, providing legal services to families, and I had heard about lots of problems with the CSA. Indeed, I successfully challenged it twice in my local magistrates court over orders to make deductions from earnings. None the less, I was totally unprepared for the avalanche of complaints that I received after 1997 as a Member of Parliament. I had heard that MPs' postbags were full of complaints about housing, planning and social security payments, but mine was full of complaints about the CSA.
I was therefore delighted when the Government said that they would review the law and the work of the CSA. Indeed, because of all the complaints is in my postbag, I played an active role in the review, and I tried to persuade Baroness Hollis that the whole system should be changed. I accepted the value of having an agency that made assessments and guaranteed collection, but I felt that justice would be better served by introducing an independent element so that people who did not like an assessment could appeal to a magistrates court, present their personal circumstances and receive an independent adjudication on the right amount that they should pay. If members of the public had believed that they had been given a fair hearing, we would have had far fewer problems persuading them to cough up after an assessment.
However, I was not successful in my representations. The new system was an improvement, and the philosophy was fine. The system for making calculations and assessments was much simpler and freed up lots of officer time so that the CSA could concentrate on enforcement issues. There were also some new powers for the CSA. I was happy to stand by to see whether all of that would work, and I have to say that there were fewer complaints in my postbag for a couple of years after the new arrangements came into effect.
However, the day came when a constituent called Leah Wheatley contacted me. She said, "Are you aware that there are enormous problems with the Child Support Agency, which affect lots of your constituents?" I said, "None of my constituents has contacted me about that, so, no, I'm not aware of it." She said, "Well, would you like to meet some?" So, at the end of one of my regular advice surgeries in March, I met Leah Wheatley and anybody she cared to bring with her. I thought that there would be a handful of people, but the room was full. There were parents with care, who explained why they needed the money but were not getting it, and there were people who felt that the assessments against them were unfair for other reasons. My advice surgery was crowded with people, and I made random notes of the words and phrases that they used to describe how they felt. They said that they were "drained", "tired" and "fed up with eating cheap food". They said, "Non-payers are laughing". After spending an hour telling me their problems, they reached the conclusion that the policies were wrong and that the organisation of the CSA was not good enough.
166WH
Just to ensure that people understand the personal agonies involved, let me mention one person from the meeting who came to see me privately at my next advice surgery. She showed me a little picture that her daughter had drawn on a yellow post-it. At the top was a smiling face, with the words "Daddy's food—yum". Underneath, it said, "Mummy's food—yuk", and there was a glum-looking face. I felt utter desolation at the thought that a family was going through that experience, with every day grinding on in the same way. The woman saw what I was thinking and hastened to say, "But I'm a good mother. I'm a good cook, and I know how to prepare food, but I just don't have the money. Sometimes, it has to be beans on toast." I shall explain later why the food on father's dinner table was so much better.
I want to say a big thank you to the chief executive of the CSA, Doug Smith. I asked him to come to Stafford to face that same group of people and to listen to their complaints and answer their questions. He agreed to do so, and he came in May. The room was bigger, but, again, it was full. More people were attending, so the story had spread. Everyone spoke about a problem with the CSA, so they were not spectators who were there for the sport.
The cases described at that meeting included that of a woman who had pressed the Child Support Agency for 11 years to get a payment, because the person who should have paid had been changing their address; a woman who had been waiting for a payment since 1996; a woman who had received just £250 in four years; and a person who said, "I've been badgering the CSA with my MP's help"—that is, me—"but the CSA keeps changing the staff around." That comment about the staff got a big cheer. Everyone gave me their details. I personally wrote to Doug Smith about every case and he has answered every letter. Some of the letters are full of apologies and explanations of what went wrong, and in some cases payments are to be made for redress.
Given the amount of public money that we are paying out in redress to parents who get a bad service, the system is not good enough. I learned from a parliamentary answer on 7 June—unique identification number 174600—that, up to the end of March 2003, £17,651,000 had been paid in redress payments to people who had received bad service from the CSA. That is on top of the CSA's running costs of £400-odd million. That is our taxpayers' money, and 1 object to it being paid in addition to the costs of running the service in order to compensate people who have not received the child support to which they are entitled. The most costly year so far has been 1998–99, when £4,351,000 was paid.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to leave off his list the estimated cost to date of £456 million for the new IT system.
Mr. Kidney: Indeed; I have heard that there is a lot of grief about that. I shall discuss the computer system in a minute, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
This is about the welfare of children. Payments are required so that children can receive food, clothes and a warm home. People ought to focus on the benefits to children—I would include among such people the

167WH
parents who do not pay the money that they should pay. It is their responsibility to pay the money to their children. It is sad that there is no provision in child support legislation equivalent to that in the Children Act 1989 about the welfare of the child being the paramount consideration.
At the angry meetings that I described, I met a father who had fallen out with the CSA because there is no such consideration. Darren Phillips paid child support for his daughter for several years, but contrary to what he had been told, she was not with her mother. His daughter was in the care of the local authority, because the mother had done such a bad job. He asked at the meeting why he should have to pay for his daughter to be abused. I have a particular beef with the Minister about that case, because Darren Phillips objected to the fact that he was apparently in arrears with his child support for the time in which his daughter was not with the mother. He objected to paying the arrears and asked me to ask the CSA whether they could be written off. Happily, his daughter now lives with him, there are caring grandparents and everything is fine, but he frets over and over about the arrears.
I asked whether the payments could be written off and the CSA sent me a letter, which was dated 7 May but faxed on 13 May, in which Hannah Ford wrote:
"I have looked into Mr Darren Phillips case and the arrears that were outstanding on his account have now been cleared. A letter confirming this will be sent to Mr Phillips within the next couple of days."
We were successful—the CSA told me that the payments had been written off. However, on 21 May I was faxed another letter from Hannah Ford, who wrote:
"I must apologise, but it appears that I was given the incorrect information. Unfortunately we cannot clear any of the outstanding arrears off Mr Phillips account."
I do not wish to sound pompous, but I am a Member of Parliament and I expect a Government agency to tell me the correct information in writing. A telephone call could perhaps be misinterpreted, but I received a letter that I relied on. I wrote to my constituent to tell him that his arrears had been written off and he received a letter from the CSA saying the same thing. A week later, however, he received another letter that said, "Oh no, your arrears haven't been written off." If the Minister has any power over the CSA, I should like him to say that those arrears do not have to be paid. I want Mr. Phillips to be able to concentrate on the welfare of his daughter.
Most parents who have given up living with the other parent and sharing the responsibility for bringing up their children should pay child support. However, under our system, many parents pay nothing. Under what we now call the old system, a nil assessment was possible. Under the new system there is supposed to be a minimum payment of £5. However, in answer to another question I have found that last year, under the new system, 12,000 parents paid nil.
There are exemptions for people in full-time education, in hospital or in care homes, who do not have to pay anything. First, I question whether that is right. If it is right, I question whether there are too many exemptions. Finally, if there are 12,000 exemptions in
168WH
one year, I question whether they are being properly applied. I ask the Minister to give close attention to whether the number of exemptions should be reduced. For the woman who showed me the little picture and could not afford food for her daughter, the £5 would be of some help if she got it regularly. I want people to get that money.
I said that I would return to the beans on toast case. That woman receives no money from her husband. He has left her and gone to live with a woman who has a very high income. He has given up a well paid job to become a full-time student. He has a nil assessment because he is in full-time education. Yet there is a massive disparity of living standards between the home in which he lives and the one in which his daughter is being brought up.
The child's mother asks me how it can be right that that man can divest himself of his entire income and yet have a good standard of living, while she gets nothing. My view is that in such a case it should be possible to deem an income equivalent to the one that has been deliberately given up, or, exceptionally, to consider the household income instead of the individual's income. I hope that the Minister will attend to a possible change in the law.
Other people who are assessed to pay child support deliberately give up their job to avoid the deduction from earnings that is the best and most reliable enforcement action that can be taken. I find that a ridiculously easy way to stop paying child support. Such a person can pop up somewhere else in another job. Until someone alerts the CSA to the fact that that has happened, it does not even look into the case again. If no one tells it, it never does so. If it does look into the case, there is another assessment, another demand and another deduction from earnings order. By that time, the person has given up the latest job too, without ever paying anything.
Mr. David Drew: I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that there is a particular problem concerning people who have been in the armed forces. For all sorts of reasons, the Ministry of Defence has not been the most helpful organisation in the matter of chasing errant fathers or mothers. However, my worry latterly is that when people leave the armed forces the CSA still seems to be incapable of chasing them up. Has my hon. Friend had similar experiences?
Mr. Kidney: My experience of the armed forces goes back to when I was a solicitor, and I found the Army quite co-operative and helpful. My experience is different from that of my hon. Friend.
As to people who give up their job deliberately so as not to have to pay the money, surely a tagging arrangement is possible, so that when they pop up in the system again the old order must be paid until a new assessment is made. We would then have them, whenever they turned up in the system. That is important in showing that we mean business and that people must pay.
The same goes for people who have several part-time jobs, none of which, when assessed by the CSA, exceeds the protected earnings level, so that a deduction from earnings order cannot be made on any. One of the

169WH
women at my meeting explained that she was affected by that rule and had received no money since 1996 because of it. She said that surely the totality of the father's income should be taken into account and that he should be paying child support. We need to consider, exceptionally, taking the aggregate amount earned by people with several jobs, rather than working on the basis of an individual employment income.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the logical conclusion of his examples is not to have a Child Support Agency at all, and that the appropriate body to do the job that he describes would be the Inland Revenue?
Mr. Kidney: I knew that by the end of my speech we would hear the Liberal Democrat position on the Inland Revenue. I find it very difficult to argue against, so I am not going to do so. In a moment, I shall discuss those parents who have said that that it should be the arrangement. I am perfectly honest about that, but, as I said at the beginning, the Child Support Agency has a role to play.
Many people have complained to me that enforcement action is poor. All the letters that I received from Doug Smith apologised for every instance of poor performance. I want to ask the Minister a specific question to see whether he can provide an example of things getting better. When we changed the law, a new enforcement power allowed somebody to be disqualified from holding a driving licence. That was the ultimate penalty for not paying child support. How many people have so far been disqualified from holding a driving licence? The Minister should let us see whether the system is working better now.
Under the old system, some of the assessments were too high. The reason for that was ghat people thought that if they ignored the paperwork from the Child Support Agency the problem would go away. It did not, and they received a larger assessment than they would have had had they co-operated with the system. They then received demands for huge amounts of money that they simply could not afford, and they ignored those. That became a problem, because we had paper figures of tens of thousands of pounds in arrears, which were never the right amount and would never be paid. That takes me back to my first point: even the people on the receiving end of an assessment must feel that the system is fair and that they are paying their fair share. That is what we need to achieve in future.
Will the Minister assure us that when a parent fails to supply information the interim payments under the new system are reasonable? I think that the default payments are £40, £50, and £60. Does he think that the new system is working and ensuring that people make payments? For all parents and children involved, the interim payment is so important. It is no good saying that the arrears will be collected eventually; it is now that the money is needed and now that the food is wanted on the table.
A specific point was also raised, and I see that a court case involving somebody named Kehoe also touched on it. Under regulation 9A of the Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure) Regulations
170WH
1992, the person who is entitled to receive the payment of child support does not have an automatic right to know why the paying parent has stopped paying. They do not have to be told whether there has been a change of circumstances or what the change of circumstances is. That is supposed to be because of data protection. I find that a massive insult to the people who are best able to tell the Child Support Agency whether what it is being told is correct and accurate. Those who are entitled to the money are entitled to information when the money dries up, and they are entitled to know why it has dried up. Will the Minister amend regulation 9A?
I was asked about the new EDS—Electronic Data Systems—computer system. What is the situation? We have all received answers to letters and to parliamentary questions, and even seen statements from the Secretary of State, about the continuing difficulties in getting the new system to work, because the IT is not working properly in tandem with it. The last I heard, the Department was still withholding payments from EDS every month, but it has agreed an increase in the overall contract price if EDS gets the system to work eventually. Will the system ever work, or is my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) right that we should scrap the whole thing and start again?
My constituents need to know whether there is light at the end of the tunnel and whether they will start receiving money. In the meantime—as I have been told in some of the letters from Doug Smith—people are having manually to work out the amounts of money payable and the payments that are due, and to pass them through the system. That led to a story in the Financial Times on 24 April, which ran:
"Child Support Agency officials are using pocket calculators to work out an overload of maintenance payments despite a new 400 million computer system".
That is obviously a ridiculous situation.
The House of Commons Library standard note SP/ 2898 of 28 April 2004 tells us that the CSA is receiving more requests for payments from new customers under the new system than the number of old requests that it can complete on the system. The backlog is growing month after month as people wait longer and longer for an assessment and, therefore, for money. Surely we will get to grips with that with the new computer system and the new law, and make sure that people start to receive the money to which they are entitled. The last I heard was that since the new system started in March 2003, 83 per cent. of assessments were accurate. The target is 90 per cent. Are we going to get that right any time soon?
The big question that hundreds of thousands of parents around the country ask all the time is when will the old cases be migrated on to the new system. I am beginning to feel confident enough to ask the Minister whether it will be this side of the general election? We have waited so long that I am beginning to wonder whether we will always be waiting. It is causing people huge concern. Some cases are on the new system, and some from the old system are transferred because they are linked to cases on the new system. Yet others cases are still on the old system, and there are sometimes great disparities—sometimes less is payable, sometimes more—between the amounts payable under the old and the new systems.
Mr. Drew: My hon. Friend is being generous with his time, as usual.

171 WH
A number of my constituents have found that, once they are on the new computer system, it works well only as long as the case is "fairly standard," but that if there are any problems and data are incorrectly entered, it is difficult to redeem that. That needs careful attention. There is nothing more frustrating than to find that the new system is just as bad as the old one. What is my hon. Friend's comment on that?
Mr. Kidney: That is part of the dispute with EDS about the way in which the system works. The involvement of a Member of Parliament or the independent case examiner should not be needed to get an individual's record straight on the computer system. People should by right have the correct information recorded about them, which I believe is the law of the land.
Hon. Members will remember that I mentioned the loud cheer at the meeting at people not being able to talk to the same member of staff twice. Why cannot we have decent customer handling at the CSA so that people can get answers to their questions? I was amazed by stories about the length of time that parents have spent in a day chasing people in different departments at the CSA merely trying to get an answer to which they are entitled. Some of those parents are busy and are desperate about having no money for their children. By the end of the day, they hardly have the energy or emotional strength to keep going, yet they have to keep going or they will fall by the wayside.
I also found at my meeting that few people knew about the independent case examiner, or that there is somebody to appeal to for help if everything goes wrong. I hope that we can review the information that the CSA gives in order to ensure that the independent case examiner becomes better known and friendlier to people with problems.
Two big messages came out of the meeting with Doug Smith. The first was that interim assessments and minimum payments are needed, so that parents quickly start to receive some money. The second was that payments should be collected through tax codings. Of course, there is an argument, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raised in his intervention, that once we have gone that far down the road, why should not the Inland Revenue do the whole job. I will leave that argument to the Minister. People asked that at least the money should be collected through tax codings, so that instead of individual deductions from earnings, the amount that they owed would be stated on income tax records and collected. That could work as well for self-employed people as it could through PAYE under the same Inland Revenue systems.
The old system has been discredited, but people on the old system cannot get on to the new one. Even if they did, they would find that it is not working properly. That is not a very good story to tell, is it? Perhaps today will be the day that the Minister fights back and starts to rehabilitate the CSA, helping the 1 million people who currently interface with it.
I shall conclude by reading from an e-mail that I received from a woman following the meeting with Doug Smith. It is a page long, so I will not ask hon.
172WH
Members to listen to it all, although all her comments are constructive. I shall quote just two paragraphs. First, she said:
"I sadly came away from the meeting with the belief that it will be all but impossible for it the CSA to collect regular maintenance for our son or even recover the debt as it stands currently and there were other parents at that meeting who will not doubt suffer the same."
That is a bleak assessment. Secondly, she said:
"It seems, unfortunately, that no matter how good the intentions and no matter how strong the legislation, some absent parents will still manage to 'disappear' or 'use the system to their advantage' and their children will continue to suffer. However I remain optimistic than changes can be made to reduce that number."
Given what happened at the meeting, what I have just said and what she said earlier in her message, why on earth should she be optimistic? I can say that she was impressed by Doug Smith's obvious sincerity. Modest though I am, I should add that she was also impressed by the fact that an MP was taking an interest in the case and was evidently working hard on it.
None the less, it is time that the Minister was on our side and promised to have regard to people's intense concerns for their children, to their distress at not being able to look after them as well as they would like, and to the welfare of those children as they grow up to become citizens of this country. The Minister must promise to change the way in which the CSA works and to change the law, so that payments can be properly enforced. We will then be able to tell that woman, "You were right to be optimistic."
2.26 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: When I got back into the House in 1997, after a five-year enforced absence on the orders of the electorate, I found that one of the great changes that had taken place since 1992 was in the number of people who came to my surgery to complain about the Child Support Agency. That was a new phenomenon.
In the 1997 election, the Labour party, understandably, batted heavily on the assertion that the CSA was not working and a Labour Government would reform it. During the subsequent Parliament, quite a lot of time was spent developing new child support legislation, which was introduced in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. People were told that the Act would introduce a simpler system, which would be fairer and easier to enforce and which would contain elements of justice that were lacking under the old system. Those of my constituents who were affected were very pleased at that prospect.
This timely debate—I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing it—gives us an opportunity to tell the Government, "You've been in office for more than seven years, and it's four years since the Act was put on the statute book, but you've let people down." The Labour party has indeed let people down in this respect. The Government are seeking new ways to interfere in our lives—consider, for example, the debate about obesity—but why can they not just put far more resources into putting right the things that they promised to put right? The CSA is one of those things, and the Government have manifestly failed to put it right.

173WH
I shall not regale the Chamber with all my constituency cases. I do not believe chat it is the job of Members of Parliament to act as a back-up system when there is administrative failure in government. Too many of us have spent too much time on the phone to the CSA on behalf of constituents dealing with cases that should have been resolved ages ago through the administrative system. There is a real problem of enforcement. In many of my constituency cases, it is obvious that the father has been living at a given address for years, but the CSA enforcement team says that it is impossible to take action against him because he does not live there. I shall not go into the details of such cases, but they make the system look absolutely mad.
This Sunday is father's day, and I shall confine my remarks to the people who are on the old system, who were promised that they would be able to migrate to the new system and who are significantly worse off as a result of not being able to do so. Most, but not all, are fathers. Last Saturday, one such person came to my advice centre. He was very concerned about Fathers 4 Justice, but the example of injustice that he gave was that because he is not able to move on to the new system, he is paying about £100 a month more in maintenance payments for his child than he would if he was on the new system. Why should he and tens of thousands of others suffer as a result of the Government's maladministration? The system was set up under the orders of Parliament. If the computer system does not work, that does not absolve the Government of their responsibility to deal with the administration of the system—if need be, by clerical means.
People paying more than £100 a month extra have had no indication of when they will be able to get relief and equity by going on to the new system. I challenge the Minister to tell us when the new system will be able to accommodate the old cases. If he cannot do that, can he tell us why he regards it as fair and reasonable that people who still have to pay under the old system are obliged to pay more than £100 more than they would under the new system? Will he accept that those people are continuing to suffer financial loss as a result of his Department's maladministration?
The Library briefing to which the hon. Member for Stafford referred suggests that the Government have the power to get compensation from the providers of the IT infrastructure, but they have not exercised that power. Why, as a result of such manifest failure, should hapless parents—in most cases fathers who are on the old system—suffer while a very large company that has a Government contract is able to get away with failure because the Government do not bother to enforce their rights under the contract?
If the old cases cannot be brought onto the new system under the computer arrangements, why can they not be dealt with clerically under the new system? Why can calculations not be done for the old cases on the basis of the new rules? Surely that would be equitable. At the moment, claimants who would be better off under the new system than under the old can opt out of the old system. They can have a three-month gap, then apply again under the new system, which entitles them to enhanced benefits. However, those who have to pay more under the old system are not similarly able to opt out and to reapply under the new system. An extra element of injustice has been introduced.
174WH
I hope that the Minister can come up with a proper answer to my questions today. I have no quarrel with the CSA staff, who seem to be under enormous pressure because of the system's manifest failure to deliver. However, I hope that the Minister will come clean about when he expects the old cases to be transferred to the new system, or when he intends to deal with them on the basis of the rules that apply to the new system, so that what Parliament intended to happen when we passed the legislation in 2000 does happen.
2.34 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on having secured this timely debate and on his speech. He said little that I could not confirm from my experience as an MP, but as a fellow solicitor I stand in awe of him for having achieved the magnificent feat of having two assessments overturned by the courts. In all my years as a solicitor, I never received an explanation of an assessment that I could understand, let alone challenge.
Mr. Russell Brown: That is Scottish law.
Mr. Carmichael: As the hon. Gentleman says, Scottish law is that much more complex. That is why we look to Scots lawyers to administer it.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) were interesting. He seemed to think that the Child Support Agency had failed as a result of Government failings, but that the system had been set up under the orders of Parliament. It was set up under the orders of a Conservative Government who, of course, held a majority in Parliament. When discussing the CSA, it behoves all parties to approach the subject with a little humility because we all broadly agreed on its creation. I suspect that the subject was not given enough parliamentary scrutiny, which may be a lesson for us all.
The CSA is one of the most remarkable Government achievements of the late 20th century. As I said earlier, I was previously a solicitor before coming to this place; and prior to the creation of the CSA, aliment for children was determined by the courts. In all my years of sitting in sheriff courts and the High Court in Scotland, and the days spent waiting for things not to happen in the Court of Session, I would never have believed it possible to create a system that could make our legal system look efficient. Such is the achievement of the CSA.
The CSA has also started to have an effect on my constituency casework, because of the way in which family cases are being handled by the courts. In a couple of recent constituency cases—people have come to me in relation to family actions in the local sheriff court— significant orders have been made for aliment of the spouse. That jars with me because, given the circumstances, the orders were probably inappropriate. I suspect that many sheriff—sand doubtless judges elsewhere—are sufficiently acquainted with the difficulties associated with the CSA and, as a result, still make orders for aliment for the spouse because it is appropriate—they know that the family would not be able to obtain the money in any other way. That is a

175WH
distortion of the system, because the order of the court is then subject to appeal; the action becomes much more protracted and much more bitter, as appeal follows appeal.
Mr. Drew: Increasingly, the problem with the separation of the courts is that parents, particularly fathers, see the lack of access arrangements as the only result of the operation of the CSA. The clear break between financial support and arrangements for care is a sad indictment of what has gone wrong. It is something that we would all support, but the waters are becoming ever more muddied. That makes the bitterness between the warring parties worse.
Mr. Carmichael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is right; what he says accords with my understanding. Occasionally, one has to say, "Just because you are paying support for your children, it does not buy you any automatic rights in relation to them." However, the delays and inefficiency of the system tend to lead to the attitude outlined by the hon. Gentleman becoming more prevalent. If one looks at it from the families' viewpoint, the system is now militating against the family and making things that much more difficult. At the end of the day, we all know that it is the children who suffer most in such situations.
Others have spoken of the problems associated with the computer systems commissioned by the CSA. It does not seem to get any easier to deal with them. I had an interesting insight last Friday when a constituent came to my office in Kirkwall. She said that she was having a problem with the CSA and asked whether I could intervene on her behalf. She explained that the CSA had twice told her on the telephone that she was due a certain amount of money, and that it would be paid into her bank on a certain day. Each time, she made the journey of some 12 miles from her house into Kirkwall; she lives in a part of Orkney that, like many other parts of Orkney, is not well served by public transport. She went to her bank to find that the money had not been paid in and phoned the agency, which said that it had put a stop on it.
My constituent came to see me after that had happened twice. I phoned the MPs' helpline. As ever when one phones the helpline, I received a very good response from a very helpful individual who was clearly well trained and who understood the system. She explained that no more money was due to my constituent, but that the information shown on the screen for the case workers in question was inaccurate or, at best, misleading. That was why my constituent kept being given duff advice and why the agency kept setting up payments, telling her about them and then cancelling them.
To be honest, I did not quite understand why the computer system could not record accurate information, but an explanation was offered. I asked why a note was not put on the system to explain that the information was incorrect. I was told that that would be a very good idea but that unfortunately the system did not have a notepad. Surely that is the most fundamental point of an information technology system, and exactly the sort of point that should be addressed when IT
176WH
systems are commissioned. It lends weight to my view that the CSA is a system under siege and that it has become so dysfunctional that it not only fails in its duty to the children and the families for which it was created, but it fails its employees. If the employees, the people at the sharp end, had been properly consulted, a notepad would have been attached to the new system because a notepad was attached 10 the old one.
The question of the migration of cases from the old system to the new one also continues regularly to present itself at my constituency surgeries. When the new system was introduced, I explained to my constituents that new cases would be entered on to it automatically but that existing cases would take time to migrate. My constituents are eminently reasonable people, and they did not quarrel with that. It is, however, increasingly difficult to tell then that they must still wait for their cases to migrate from the old system to the new one, particularly when there will be a significant cost saving to the individual concerned in several of the cases that present themselves at constituency surgeries.
Notwithstanding my remarks about not wanting to be partisan and wanting to approach the matter with humility, the fact that the Minister could not even say what date the Department for Work and Pensions had set for the migration of cases when I asked him about this during questions to the Department last week is frankly not good enough. That would have been acceptable a year ago, but we have had more than a year of the new system, and not even to be able to set the date for the migration of all cases to the new system suggests, as others have said, that this system will simply never be made to work. That is particularly ironic as the system was sold to Parliament as being so much simpler.
As I said, I was impressed with the hon. Member for Stafford, particularly when he said that he could not argue with the Liberal Democrat case for the abolition of the CSA and the transfer of its functions to the Inland Revenue. I do not I pretend that that will be a panacea. We are all aware that the Inland Revenue's dealings with information technology have not been straightforward either. That has been another substantial source of business at my constituency surgeries in the past. Nevertheless, if the experience of our present arrangement suggests integrating the system—particularly the cases that are difficult to enforce—with other aspects of government, all the relevant functions already rest with the Inland Revenue. Transferring the other functions would lead to that great goal of us all—joined-up government
It might take a great deal of doing. If we could, in considering a better way of going about things, maintain some of the consensus that we had on the need for a child support agency in the first place, we might be able to iron out problems rather than waiting for them to arise.
2.46 pm
Paul Holmes: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing the debate, and echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael); I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman uttered about the failings of the Child Support Agency system, and especially his recognition of the logic of the Liberal Democrat position on the way to reform it.

177WH
I agree also with more or less every thing that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said. The catalogue of points raised by the three hon. Members who have spoken so far is too familiar to anyone who takes an interest in the issue, and to every Member of Parliament whose constituency surgery has queues of such cases month after month.
The hon. Member for Stafford listed the horrendous problems and backlogs at the CSA with which we are all familiar. He described how Doug Smith of the CSA is very good at responding to cases that are raise, as are many of the staff. He also pointed out the problems over compensation payments, which now amount to a staggering £16.6 million over five years. Last year the figure was £2.5 million—five times the 1995 figure. Things in general are getting much worse, and my constituency casework file suggests that a fair bit of that money is coming to people in Chesterfield.
There is confusion at the CSA. Contradictory letters arrive, sometimes on the same day, but certainly within days of each other, giving different figures for payments, different addresses, the wrong address on one letter and the correct address two days later. Problems were outlined in tracking parents who repeatedly pop up in one job and disappear again. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about problems with the armed forces. Sometimes they close ranks in response to requests to release information and help parents and the CSA to track down those who might be required to make payments.
Other problems were highlighted, such as the question of when cases will be transferred from the old to the new system. By and large most people will benefit from the change, although of course there will be some losers when cases are transferred.
It has been pointed out how good the CSA staff are when they deal with queries through the MPs' hotline. When I or my staff in Chesterfield contact the hotline we get excellent responses and quick solutions, sometimes to cases that have dragged on for years. That poses a big question. If the people at the end of the hotline can respond so quickly, effectively and efficiently that my Chesterfield files are full of thank you letters and cards from people who write, "After I tried for years to solve this problem, you sorted it in no time"—it was not me, of course, but the hotline staff—why cannot the general CSA staff provide the same standard of service to people when they first make contact with them, without going through their MP?
Why are there such long delays? Why is there such a history of incorrect data, incorrect letters and lost paperwork? If lost paperwork can suddenly emerge from the bottom of a pile or from a distant filing cabinet; if it can suddenly be found, within a day—sometimes within hours—of an MP making contact, why can that same level of service not be offered to the general public who make use of the CSA? Is it because, in general, the service is understaffed? If so, the solution is simple: employ more people. Is it because the staff are not motivated or well trained or paid enough?
What are the reasons why the general level of service is so poor while the staff can respond so quickly and efficiently to MPs? Is it because of some of the flaws in the regulatory framework, which were highlighted by the hon. Member for Stafford, or is it because the CSA
178WH
is not proactive enough? It tends to take a passive approach, just sending out letters with no response when trying to chase up the parent who should be paying, but when an MP gets involved, it suddenly becomes much more pro-active. Why is it not like that all the time? Why does it not have simple casework-flagging systems on its IT system to flag up that there has been no response in a certain case and that something needs to be done about it?
Why do so many single parents—usually mothers, but not alway—shave to start acting as private detectives? I have spoken to parents who have been trying to track down their previous partner by going off to towns around Chesterfield to mark out where and in what sort of house they live and where they work. They are then told by the CSA that it does not know where their former partners live, whether they have a job or what their income is. Single parents are having to act as private detectives, doing the CSA's job because it seems to be passive in much of its approach. Despite that, if the CSA does not deliver the money that a parent needs, under the legal ruling referred to earlier they cannot appeal against the failure of the CSA and the Government to look after their interests and implement the Child Support Act 1991, which came into effect in 1993.
Is the failure due to understaffing, a lack of training or the pay and motivation of the staff'? Is it down to regulatory problems, an agency attitude of being passive rather than proactive, or the computer problems that we have heard so much about? Like many aspects of the Government's outsourcing of IT in the past few years, the computer system has been an absolute disaster. EDS was paid £450 million to deliver a system, which has failed miserably. It was supposed to be introduced in October 2001 but was actually introduced in March 2003, and it still does not work properly. Staff will often have to tell callers that the computers are down or use simple, cheap pocket calculators to fill the gaps in what is a £450 million IT system.
Why is that the case? Unfortunately, it fits in with too many examples. I serve on the Education and Skills Committee, and one of our first inquiries after the 2001 election was into the failures of the individual learning account scheme. There were failures on the Government side in drawing up the specifications, but the performance of Capita in that case, having been paid a lot of money to deliver an IT system that failed in almost every respect, was appalling.
When we ask the Government what penalty payments are applied to such companies for absolute failure to deliver the goods that they are well paid for, we tend to be told simply that commercial confidentiality means that they cannot say. That is not good enough. Huge sums of taxpayers' money have been spent on systems that fail to deliver. I understand that the Treasury may have decided not to outsource Government IT projects any more. I would welcome a comment from the Minister on that, because it certainly seems to be the lesson of so many Government experiments.
We have already heard comments and questions about when the old and new systems will be merged. About 75,000 parents are working on the old system, on which they do not get the £10 child maintenance premium. They could live next door—two yards away—to a similar lone parent, who receives that payment

179WH
because they are registered on the new system. That is not good enough, and there seems little logical explanation of why we cannot make that simple transfer, even if other areas of the switch to the new assessment system are too complicated for the computer to cope with initially.
Two different systems are working alongside each other, but neither works properly. Despite repeated questions in Parliament, including as recently as the seventh of this month, we have heard no hint or indication from the Minister about when the Government think that they can transfer people from the old to new system. The hon. Member for Stafford asked whether they were thinking about making the change after, rather than before, the next general election. So many parents throughout the country want to know why we cannot switch to the new system.
I want to leave the Minister as much time as possible in which to reply, so I conclude by summarising some of the questions that have been asked, and hope that he will address each one of them. What penalties are being imposed on EDS for its abysmal failure to deliver, at great cost, an IT system that actually works? When will the old cases be brought into the new system? Would the systems work better if more staff were employed? MPs' questions about cases that have waited a year or two to be sorted out can usually be dealt with in the same day. Are more staff needed to provide the clients out there with the same response that MPs receive? Do staff need to be trained better? We have heard about the constant rota of staff and the fact that one speaks to a different person every time one calls. Do people leave too quickly and if so, why? Do they leave because they are demoralised, because of the conditions under which they work or because of pay? What does the Minister think causes such staffing problems? When will we have a working computer system?
Finally, to return to the Liberal Democrats' welcome proposals on how to get out of the current mess, why do the Government refuse to consider transferring the functions of the CSA to the Inland Revenue? The CSA seems to have to spend so much time asking questions of the Inland Revenue, which has taken on that passive role. Until the CSA asks, "Do you know where this person is and how much they earn?", nothing happens. There is a big gap in the system. The system could be transferred to the Inland Revenue, which already has most the relevant information on tap. The Revenue knows where people live, where all the families with children are and how much people earn through the pay-as-you-earn system. Why do the Government refuse even to consider what appears to be a simple transfer of responsibility from one department to another?
2.54 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I also begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) not only on securing this debate, but on his dogged pursuit of his own Government over the CSA's failings.
I am sure that we have all had endless constituency cases that touch on the issues that have been raised. What has happened is a very sorry tale. The
180WH
introduction of a new formula that was supposed to import simplicity, speed and fairness has been badly undermined by sloppy planning, poor implementation and unreliable technology—on any view, an extraordinary catalogue of problems, delays and incompetence.
I should like to focus on two issues. First, investigation and enforcement—or the lack thereof—is, for many constituency Members, including me, the most frustrating aspect in many cases. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) said, the poor wife or ex-wife often has to take on the role of a private detective. Even when hard evidence is available, the CSA does not act upon it. That is a frequent theme in my surgeries. Secondly, there are problems with the IT system, which has fallout on real people. To put the matter in context, we should remember that the new formula was supposed to have been introduced for all new cases from April 2002, but finally went live a year later, in April 2003.
Rather memorably, in giving evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which I am a member, Mr. Doug Smith, who has featured a lot in this debate, said:
"There is a big differ( nce between a failed computer system and a computer system that has more teething problems than we expected."
If that is a distinction, it is probably lost on the constituent whom the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) described, for example, as well as on many more of our constituents.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) eloquently pointed out, between 800,000 and 900,000 cases are stuck on the old system for calculating child maintenance. That means that non-resident parents pay more than they might otherwise have to if they were assessed under the new rules. That is an ongoing unfairness, not least because the Government have apparently set their face against compensating such parents in the future. EDS, the company involved, plans to have CS2, as the system is known, in place and ready by October 2004. It is hoped that migration of the old cases can commence thereafter, and that we will hear from the Minister on the matter.
In November, in a debate in Westminster Hall, the self-same Minister declined to give a view on the timing of the transfer. We are now several months further down the road; we know that for some time, Mr. Smith and EDS have been working on a remediation plan, as it is called. A few days ago, in answer to a question, the Minister said:
"No. We have not set a date."[Official Report, 7 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 18.
I gently suggest that the time has come to do so. It might be five years, two years or even six months down the road, but in fairness to all hon. Members' constituents, they deserve to know the date, not least because the Government take the rather rigid view that until all the problems are sorted out they will not remove a single one of the 800,000 or 900,000 old cases. The Financial Times referred to the matter as
"one of the biggest failures to hit the public sector IT project in recent years.".
It stated that less than half the 321,522 applications submitted since March 2003 have been processed.

181WH
There have been ongoing and probably all-too-regular discussions with the contractors, EDS, and it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how far those discussions have gone, within the bounds of genuine commercial confidentiality. What is the position in terms of retentions from the contract and its overall cost?
The position is still pretty grim in respect not only of old cases, but of some new cases. Figures produced a little while ago, which may need updating, show that 384,000 parents with care were entitled to receive child maintenance, but 79,000 received no payment at all and 193,000 received less than they were entitled to. If one adds almost £3 billion in unpaid maintenance payments, one begins to see the extent of the problem.
One would have thought that part of the attraction of introducing a new computer system was that it would make things cheaper, but according to recent figures shown in Hansard, the average cost of processing an application has risen by £12.63, or more than 16 per cent.
In giving evidence to the Select Committee recently, the Secretary of State talked about the recovery programme that had been put in place. He said that the system was retrievable or, in other words, that it can be made to work properly instead of being scrapped. That caused some excitement in the Select Committee. When the Secretary of State was pressed as to whether he was seriously considering scrapping the project, he replied:
"If it could not be made to work properly you would not have an alternative, would you?"
We can all agree with that. We need to know where we are with the recovery plan.
The final irony is that the system is not working properly even in dealing with new claims. Some of the figures show that the CSA cleared only 47 per cent. of all new cases received since March 2003. By the end of the first year, about 153,000 cases had been cleared, leaving a backlog of 170,000. We have already heard that redress payments to dissatisfied clients have ballooned to more than £4 million in 1999, settling down to an average of £3 million or £2.5 millior ever since.
It beggars belief that so little enforcement action has been taken against people who make a life's work of evading payment for their responsibilities. The latest information is that in the first seven months of 2003, some 150 cases were referred to court for committal to prison or the removal of a driving licence. A total of five driving licences were removed and 45 parents were committed to prison. If we are to put the fear of God into persistent evaders, with whom we have become familiar since the CSA was established, that is not good enough.
In conclusion, I shall set out the serious questions that still need to be answered by the Minister. First, the latest estimate of the cost of the new system is £456 million. Is that still accurate or has it gone up again? Secondly, what is the current position for contractual penalties on EDS, such as retentions and any other penalties that may have been paid or may be payable in due course? Thirdly, has any further consideration been given to compensation for those affected by delays in migration of old cases? Fourthly, when will these old cases finally be migrated? That is the key question. As the hon. Member for Stafford said, it is not merely a case of being
182WH
able to tell constituents that there is light at the end of the tunnel; we need a rough idea of how long the tunnel is. Fifthly and finally, what is the future of the contract and of EDS; are Ministers still seriously considering scrapping the project all together?
3.6 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing a debate on a subject that is so important to the lives of so many children. He rightly said that it is all about the welfare of children. He also underlined the fact, which we must all keep in perspective, that parents have a responsibility to support their children. Whatever the successes or failings of the CSA, the House must send out the message that it is the responsibility of both parents to support their children. If they do not do so, we will take every possible measure to ensure that they do.
My hon. Friend began by pointing out the mess that the system that we inherited was in. In 1998, when we issued the Green Paper, "Children First: a new approach to child support", the taxpayer was supporting 1.8 million children. Seventy per cent. of lone mothers on income support were seeking to avoid a child maintenance application, and a third of all child support assessments took more than six months to make. Until then, the 1993 child support scheme had been modified through many small measures introduced at frequent intervals. As efforts were made to make the scheme more comprehensive, an already complex system became more opaque to hon. Members, their constituents and Child Support Agency staff themselves.
We believed that radical change was needed and some changes were introduced in January 2001. However, the bulk of the changes had to wait until the delivery of the new computer and integrated telephony systems. In the interim, there were performance improvements in the old child support scheme, but the step change needed to achieve the level of effectiveness that the public deserved could be delivered only through the introduction of a new scheme.
That new scheme started on 3 March 2003—both for applications for new cases where liability began on or after that date, and for old scheme cases linked to them. Since then, because of the well known problems with the computer system, the level of service that we have given to some agency clients has fallen well short of what they are entitled to receive. For that, I offer my unreserved apologies.
However, constituency MPs cannot always get a true picture of the situation. Matters can be complex when families break down. Constituents rarely come to tell us when things are going right and there is good news. However, each week, thousands of cases are cleared effectively under the new system. Almost 110,000 new scheme maintenance calculations have been made, some 41,000 non-resident parents have started to pay maintenance using the agency's collection service, and some 22,500 parents with care have started to get child maintenance premium income disregard in their benefit. That is a new measure that means that, for the first time, parents with care on benefit can see a real improvement

183WH
in their living standards as a result of payments made by non-resident parents. It also means that if they move in to work, those maintenance payments are completely ignored.
Because the new scheme is so much easier to understand, parents are better able to make their own arrangements without involving the agency. Indeed, the interactive calculator on the agency's internet site had more than 25,000 hits in March. Some hon. Members have said that it is a disgrace that people have to make their own maintenance calculations. However, the problem under the old system was that it could take a calculation involving up to 100 elements to determine what the payment should be. It was almost impossible for either parents with care or non-resident parents to work out what the maintenance should be. They had to wait for the agency to go through that process and, while they waited, the arrears built up.
The new child support scheme is starting to make a real contribution to our ambitious target of reducing child poverty. It has not yet gone far enough; it has certainly not gone as far as any of us in this Chamber should like to see it go, but we are moving steadily in the right direction. I will not pretend that my ministerial colleagues and I have not been disappointed with the progress so far. However, we are making progress and clients and staff have said that the new scheme works. When it works, it works well and they like the simplicity and transparency.
Many hon. Members have raised concerns about the payment of child support. The subject, rightly, continues to be of interest to many in this House, and I hope that that will continue. Under the old scheme, nonresident parents often failed to meet their legal obligations to pay the money that the agency had assessed that they should pay. One of the main reasons for the build-up of debt under that scheme was the fact that making the assessment took so long. However, in the five years up to March 2003, when the new scheme started, the agency increased collections by 43 per cent. to £175 million. The intention of the new scheme is to prevent debt from building up. That is one of the reasons why we want there to be a simple calculation mechanism that is not only easy for people to understand but makes it clear to those on both sides what their obligations are. Because of its transparency, it is more acceptable and is seen as fairer and more just to both sides.
However, we do not intend to focus solely on the calculations. We have to ensure that the money flows to the children. Obtaining compliance is part of the work of a large number of the agency staff. The culture is changing and, at all stages of a case, staff take action to ensure that non-resident parents accept their responsibility and comply with the maintenance calculation. Even before that point, staff encourage non-resident parents to make voluntary payments to the parent with care while they are waiting for a calculation to be made, thereby preventing debt from building up in the first place.
If we want a message to go out from this debate, it is that non-resident parents who seek wilfully to evade their responsibilities, not to the Government or to hon. Members or even to parents with care but to their
184WH
children, will not continue to get away with it. We have more powers and more professionally trained staff, and we are increasingly using those powers to ensure that people meet their obligations. We have to be realistic. Some parents will fail to pay—
Mr. Russell Brown: All this sounds fine, but I have a constituent who has gone to appeal and won her case on three occasions. It was deemed that her partner had diverted his income. Six years on she is still waiting: she has not received a single penny. This guy can buy properties costing £250,000 and have two or three holidays a year. That is unjust. Something as simple as removing his driving licence would make a world of difference.
Mr. Pond: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is quite unacceptable that in such circumstances certain individuals wilfully refuse to make the payments that their children need. The agency has the powers, and we are seeking much more prompt and effective action to deal with that That includes the withdrawal of driving licences, as my hon. Friend has said. Some 21 driving licences have been removed so far. That is not a huge number. There is also committal to prison. [Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh. They did not introduce any of those measures themselves when they had the opportunity to do so, but they giggle when we talk about the legislation that we have introduced.
Even though such measures are a last resort, we are determined to use them when non-resident parents will not make contributions. It is often the threat of a sanction that results in the payment of maintenance, but the agency does not shy away from taking action if the threat does not work. If there are cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) and others wish to bring to my attention or to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Hollis of Heigham, we will happily look at them to see whether anything further can be done to bring justice to the children concerned
Concern has been expressed about the self-employed. Since March 2004 the agency has increased the number of staff working on that group. In the year to March 2004 there was a 24 per cent. increase on the previous year in the number of cases referred to bailiffs. As I have said, in cases where the non-resident parent persists in wilful non-compliance, the courts can take away driving licences or commit a person to prison. We have to ensure that the courts also recognise the seriousness of the wilful non-compliance. I hope that increasingly they are doing so.
In 2003–04, 324 cases were referred to the courts for committal to prison or withdrawal of driving licences. Eight non-resident parents were served prison sentences. The aim is to get the money flowing to the children. From our point of view, it is a failure if we have to commit people to prison or take away their driving licences. We want to ensure that the children get the money that they deserve.
I am aware that hon. Members have particular concerns about self-employed non-resident parents. Theirs are the cases that regularly reach our postbags and make for media headlines. Recovery of money owed by self-employed people is notoriously difficult. It is not

185WH
just a problem for the Child Support Agency. Liberal Democrat Members suggest that we should simply pass the matter to the Inland Revenue, but it faces similar problems in collecting tax and national insurance contributions from such people. We are constantly considering whether we need to amend working practices to deal with child support avoidance and evasion. If it becomes clear that we need to change the regulations, we will consider that seriously too.
Mr. KidneyMy hon. Friend will recall that I said that I supported the philosophy of the simpler assessment process so that more staff can spend more of their time on enforcement issues. I welcome what he says. I am sure that we will come on to the computer system, which is getting in their way at the moment. Does he agree that, once we have seen an end to that problem, staff can be much more alert to collecting the interim payments—to enforcing payments, including those against the self-employed? Does he agree that powers such as charging orders and what are now called third-party orders—they used to be called garnishee orders when I was a lawyer—be used much more productively to ensure that even the self-employed pay up?
Mr. Pond: Yes. Increasingly, staff receive the necessary training and are encouraged to pursue such cases and to ensure that people pay to in advance of any action having to be taken.
Paul Holmes: The Minister says that the Inland Revenue would have the same problems as the CSA in collecting the money. However, will he comment on the fact that in the most recent year the inland Revenue has collected more than 91 per cent. of the taxes that are assessed as owed, whereas the CSA will probably write off a quarter of the £500 million that is currently outstanding? The CSA therefore hopes to collect 75 per cent. It has already written off £2 billion of uncollectible money.
Mr. Pond: Yes, it is true that the Inland Revenue has a very high success rate in collecting money that is owed to it. I pay tribute to its success In this instance, however, we are talking about a particular group of people—self-employed non-resident parents—with whom the Inland Revenue itself has some difficulty dealing. We must get things into perspective for both groups, because only 6 per cent. of non-resident parents are self-employed. They are particularly difficult to deal with, whether the Inland Revenue of the CSA is dealing with them.
I do not want the hon. Gentleman to run away with the idea that if we were suddenly to give all this work to the Inland Revenue or, indeed, to the courts, as his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr.Carmichael) suggested—[Interruption.] I apologise; I have misquoted the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful for the Minister's acceptance that he has misquoted me. I merely said that the current system had been administered in a way that makes the courts look efficient. Does not he accept, however, that the beauty of giving the work to the Inland Revenue is that it already has the information in
186WH
its remit, so it is readily accessible to it? That is the difference between the Inland Revenue and the current system.
Mr. Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for two things. First, he has clarified the fact that there seems to have been a policy change. My understanding was that he was very much in favour of the idea of returning to the complexities of the old court system. Perhaps the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Holmes) would like to join him in that. If that is not the case, I would certainly welcome it. We can get that out of the way. [Interruption.] That is fine; he has clarified his position, and I am pleased to know that. Secondly, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has given me the opportunity to make it clear that we will pursue the proper payments from that group and others through all the measures that are available to us.
Hon. Members rightly asked when old scheme cases will be transferred to the new system. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) reminded the Chamber that I stood in this very position back in November and was asked the same question. I will give him the same answer: the new scheme is more straightforward than the old one, but that does not mean that we have a simple IT system. Complexities arise in several areas, which result in the need for detailed IT solutions. For instance, for the first time we have an interface with Jobcentre Plus and its old IT systems, which enable data to be shared more easily between the two organisations. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the Inland Revenue has this information. We increasingly have the ability to share that information between different institutions, but that means that we have a complex system to deal with.
We have acknowledged that there have been problems in getting all this to work properly. The IT contractor—Electronic Data Systems—is working closely with the CSA to bring the performance of the system into line with expectations. The agency now has an IT recovery plan from EDS; work to stabilise the system has begun this year, which has already brought about improvements. I can tell hon. Members, in response to their questions, that we are withholding 15 to 20 per cent. of the payments to EDS, to take account of non-delivery under the contract.
I cannot say when cases from the old scheme will be transferred to the new one. We are keen that all parents who deal with the agency should be able to benefit from the reforms, but it would be irresponsible for us to move cases across to the new scheme before we are satisfied that the IT is able to cope and is working well.
Mr. Carmichael: If the Minister will not set a date for migrating the old cases to the new system, will he at least set a date beyond which it will be considered that further delay will lead to palpable unfairness, for which people will be compensated?
Mr. Pond: We want everyone to move to a system that we believe to be simpler and more just, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find that for every non-resident parent or parent with care who wants to move across to the new system, there will be an equivalent non-resident

187WH
parent or parent with care who would rather stay where they were. Inevitably, there will be swings and roundabouts.
Mr. Waterson: I am, of course, disappointed that the Minister has failed to set a date. However, can he at least confirm whether Ministers are still committed to the EDS contract, or is the Department still discussing scrapping it altogether?
Mr. Pond: We are working closely with EDS—we want this system to work. We want to ensure that the new system and the advantages that it brings reach as many parents with care and non-resident parents as possible. Frankly, the best and quickest way of doing that is to ensure that the system that we now have will work. EDS and the CSA are working on the recovery programme.
Mr. Kidney rose—Mr. Kidney rose—
Mr. Chope rose—Mr. Chope rose—
Mr. Pond: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.
Mr. Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The important thing is not who benefits or loses from the transfer, but the gains that will be achieved by the CSA staff in doing their job better. If my hon. Friend cannot set a date for when the migration will take place, can he tell me whether the Department has set a date by which EDS must prove whether the system works?
Mr. Pond: I think that the system is moving towards a position where it is working, but we all know that it is
188WH
not working well enough. We need to ensure that we work day by day and week by week to make it work properly. If I were to set arbitrary time scales, that would not help the children, parents with care and nonresident parents wt o need to see that the system works properly.
Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Pond: I will not give way again. Hon. Members will agree that I have been fairly generous in doing so; that has inevitably meant that I have had to answer many of the questions raised in the debate in my responses to their interventions.
As hon. Members will know, transitional arrangements will apply to cases once they have been converted to the new scheme. That will allow parents to plan their arrangements and to adjust to the changes in their finances. Until cases move on to the new scheme, their old scheme liability remains payable.
Once again, I apologise to those parents with care and non-resident parents who have not received the standard of service that they have the right to expect. I have said that my noble Friend Baroness Hollis and I take an active interest in ensuring action in problem cases. Along with the agency's chief executive, we are happy to look at cases that hon. Members feel are unresolved.
I shall have to respond in writing to hon. Members on some of the specific points raised in the debate. However, I want to end my remarks by responding to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. He asked me, as the Minister, to show that I was on the side of hon. Members in the debate. I tell him that not only am I on the side of hon. Members but, more importantly, I am on the side of those children who need the support of a reformed child support system, which we are determined to deliver.

Ehlers Danlos Disease
3.30 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the subject of Ehlers Danlos disease. For reasons that will become obvious, I would have been even more grateful to have secured the debate six months ago when I first started applying for it.
About nine months ago, a young woman attended my advice surgery in Ormskirk. She was in considerable distress, and informed me that she suffered from Ehlers Danlos syndrome. I had never heard of it. It turns out that the syndrome is caused by a genetic defect in collagen, the body's connective tissue. EDS is characterised by skin extensibility, joint hypermobility and tissue fragility. I am told that that condition allowed some individuals to become contortionists—perhaps it still does. It may be the only useful thing to come out of it.
The syndrome is classified into six major types, each of which runs true in particular families. EDS can affect males and females of all races and all ethnic backgrounds. The prognosis depends upon the specific type. In type IV, for example, life expectancy can be shortened owing to the rupture of vessels and organs in the body. For women with EDS who have types 1, II or IV, pregnancy can be life-threatening.
EDS can result in easy splitting of the skin. Gaping scars can be created by even minor blows or buffets. The skin can fold, which can be dramatic. It can mean tumours and spheroids under the skin, which victims have described as like having ball bearings under the skin. Some suffer the dislocation of joints and unstable joints, including congenital hip dislocation. It can lead to chronic joint and limb pain. Ruptures and varicose veins become more common. It car also lead to gum disease, gastro-intestinal diverticuli premature aging and bladder conditions; and the external scarring involved can be so severe as to load to permanent disfigurement. At its worst, and depending on the type, it can give rise to continuous, excruciating pain.
My constituent had been diagnosed as suffering from type IV. As I said, that can result in the life-threatening rupture of vessels and organs. Expertise on the syndrome seems pretty scarce in the NHS. I shall come to an exception to that criticism shortly. My constituent had been referred to the dermatology unit at Leigh. There, she had simply been handed photocopy of the relevant pages of a medical text book. She took them home to read. She read them with horror. Under the entry for type IV, she found the following:
"The lifespan of patients with EDS IV is generally shorter than that of their unaffected siblings; the mean age of death is in the early 30s for women".
My constituent was 29. It is not hard to imagine the psychological shock. She was shattered and utterly demoralised. Having thus far been able to hold down a responsible job, she found it impossible with the idea in her mind that within a few months she could be dead.
It is not my purpose today to hang out the Leigh unit to dry. The incident—being handed such documents to read—has properly been tackled by Brian Strett, the chairman of the Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh trust, following my complaints. I have no further complaint
190WH
about that. I do not think that a patient will receive such a response there again. I have related the incident only to exemplify the paucity of attention and resource committed to EDS.
The syndrome is quite rare. It is estimated that about one person in 5,000 might have a variant of EDS. Some people's symptoms are no doubt mild. However, one in 5,000 means that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, my hon. Friend the Minister and every other Member of Parliament probably have between 12 and 15 constituents who suffer from the condition.
There is an EDS support group. Its fund raising manager is a very active lady, Mrs. Rae Mould, who lives in Rufforth in north Yorkshire. She sent me some helpful briefings. They point out, for example, that the syndrome can sometimes go undetected because it often has no outward symptoms. At other times, the bruising that can very easily occur in people with the condition can be and has been misinterpreted as the result of self-harm or even physical abuse. That is particularly important in relation to children who suffer from the condition. There can also be chronic joint or limb pain that shows nothing on X-rays or in similar examinations.
My constituent was able to inform me, because she had done some research of her own, that there was someone in the NHS who offered clinical advice on and diagnosis of EDS. That person is Professor Michael Pope, who works out of Chelsea and Westminster hospital and works part of the time in Cardiff. I contacted Mike Pope, who was good enough to find a slot for my constituent, so that he could meet her and diagnose her problems. That is not an easy matter for a man whose expertise is in huge national demand. The situation is that if he can fit in the people who are referred to him, they have to travel to London, which is not always easy. Nevertheless, he found a slot for my constituent and she visited him.
The one bright aspect in this sorry tale is that, after examining my constituent, Professor Pope was able to tell her that her condition was not the life-threatening type IV, as she previously thought. I met her some weeks later, by sheer accident, in her workplace, which is the Co-op bank in Skelmersdale. The change in her demeanour was wonderful, as we would expect of someone who had been given a reprieve from a death sentence. That was one of those encounters that make being an MP worth while—we do not have enough of them, perhaps. Incidentally, I should refer on the record to the outstanding support that has been given to her by the Co-op bank and, in particular, her immediate supervisor.
Even more inspiring was a meeting that I subsequently had with Professor Pope. He is a remarkable man, typical of everything that is best about the NHS. For a long period, he has refused to do any work on this matter in the private sector. He described to me how, over the years, the funding made available to his unit, which was diagnosing and researching this problem, had been steadily eroded. He described how between 1976 and 1985 his group, working in the then clinical research centre, led the field in Europe in research on connective tissue genetics. I will quote him directly, because I could not possibly summarise the achievements that he set out:

191WH
"Amongst our discoveries were the first collagen type I and II errors in osteogenesis imperfecta and various EDS subtypes … and the first collagen V mutation on EDS I and II and also the first British collagen type VII and collagen type II mutations in epidermolysis bullosa dystrophica and the Stickler Syndrome."
There was a lot of Latin in that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which you would be much more able to pronounce than I am.
For a time, the Medical Research Council's decent funding meant that sufferers were referred to Professor Pope for clinical classification, genetic counselling and molecular diagnosis. At the time, that was pretty satisfactory by all accounts. After the closure of the clinical research centre, the group was transferred to Cambridge in 1995, to Cardiff in 1997 and to London in 2001. Each move was accompanied by diminished resources and progressive contraction, which led inexorably to the skeleton service that he is now able to conduct. He also ran the Institute of Medical Genetics in Cardiff. I understand that the referrals from health authorities across the country cost about £600 each.
In late 2000, the MRC withdrew its support. A self-fulfilling process goes on, where funding is reduced and reduced, so the operation is reduced, and eventually the MRC says that it cannot fund the operation because it is too small and cannot carry out sufficient work. Professor Pope's unit, if I can call it that, is left to scrape along, with funding raised voluntarily by the EDS support group supporting a small budget each year from Chelsea and Westminster.
It is now pretty impossible to secure direct funding from the NHS or from research sources to assist in such work. The laboratory facilities, the cell culture collection and the records archive are now all in danger of disintegrating—indeed, they might already have done so. Professor Pope has been operating in the area of EDS more or less pro bono.
The most alarming fact is that Professor Pope's scheduled retirement date is next month. Who is going to do the work that Professor Pope did, which made such a difference to my constituent's lives and to so many others? After July, there might be no centre of expertise to assist British citizens suffering from this highly complex condition, which is difficult to diagnose precisely and involves lifelong disabilities and even early death. That is clearly not acceptable.
I know that various colleagues in Parliament have raised their worries on the subject in letters, in parliamentary questions, and in an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a constituent—a teenage girl—whose case he has pursued, as has my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has raised the issue in the House, as has the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). Having looked at the matter from the outside, I believe that there is clearly a need for a centralised UK service, preserving and building on the service offered by Professor Pope and his colleagues. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that the Department will take the matter seriously, will seek the means to fund the service and set it on a solid foundation, and will do so quickly before it is totally lost.
192WH
My description has only skated over the surface of the problem. I clearly have no clinical expertise, as is probably obvious, and the NHS funding systems amaze me. I recommend the Minister to take an early opportunity to meet Professor Pope to get the benefit of his detailed knowledge and to assist him and his successors—be there any—in providing properly for constituents whose conditions are hard enough to bear without the added burden of not knowing where or when to seek help, or for how long that help will be on hand.
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) on securing this adjournment debate; I hear that he has been battling away to secure one for a long time. I know that he has a particular interest in the disease and has asked about it before, so I welcome this opportunity to respond to him.
I join my hon. Friend in recognising how distressing the condition is for patients, their carers and families. Sufferers can experience a wide range of problems and disabilities. I pay tribute to work done to help patients and families by voluntary organisations such as the Ehlers Danlos Syndrome support group, which helps to fund research into the condition. It is important to raise public awareness of less well-known diseases such as EDS, and I hope I that this debate will help to achieve that.
The provision of treatment for EDS patients is part of the responsibility of primary care trusts and other local stakeholders. They are charged with making arrangements for the health care of their local populations because they are closest to the people that they serve and best placed to respond sensitively to their needs. People with Ehlers Danlos Syndrome also have access to a range of specialists depending on the individual diagnoses. Those specialists include orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists, cardiologists, vascular surgeons, neurosurgeons, dermatologists and clinical geneticists.
I was distressed to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend's constituent. That cannot have been the best way to learn about the consequences of a possible condition, and I am glad to hear that he has successfully pursued and resolved the issue locally with the trust chair.
Important work is also being done for EDS patients by the connective tissues genetics group at the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, under the leadership of Professor Pope, of whom my hon. Friend has spoken so warmly. He and his team provide specialised multidisciplinary clinical genetic diagnosis care and laboratory analysis for paediatric and adult patients from families with a spectrum of inherited defects of connective tissue, including EDS. Patients are referred from regional genetic units or from other regional or local sub-specialists.
Since the 1970s, the unit has achieved a national and international reputation for effective comprehensive clinical and diagnostic management of patients with inherited defects of connective tissue. The team is also active in teaching and has pioneered research at the

193WH
leading edge of clinical practice. I say to my hon. Friend that there are two separate—perhaps not unconnected—issues. There is a difference between the future funding of the service for patients and the question of research.
I shall not go into the details of the condition because my hon. Friend has already described in detail some of the many consequences of having EDS and its different facets. There is no effective cure for it, although the condition can be managed and simple precautionary measures can greatly lessen the chances of accidental trauma, scarring and bruising. It is important to recognise that there are balances and difficult issues, certainly for children, in making those balances.
I understand why patients with genetic diseases, including EDS, and their families are calling for greater research effort to be applied in this area. The Government are committed to investing money in genetic research, which offers enormous potential to improve our health and health care. Increasing understanding of genetics will bring more accurate diagnoses, more personalised prediction of risk and more targeted and effective use of existing drugs. It will also provide new gene-based drugs and therapies, as well as prevention and treatment regimes tailored according to a person's individual genetic profile. EDS is one of a number of conditions, and we believe that there are about 750,000 patients nationally with incurable single gene disorders, which are particularly difficult.
Gene therapy offers hope for many people for whom there is currently none. It is to address, that point that the Department is supporting gene therapy research into single gene disorders. As with any medical research, it is not possible to predict accurately when treatments might become available or which approaches will ultimately prove effective. That is the nature of research, but I share the hopes of the many parents, carers and patients that gene therapy will become a viable treatment for inherited disorders such as EDS.
Hon. Members will recall that we announced £30 million to develop specialised genetic services in April 2001, and we have made further funding available for this important area. In June 2003, our White Paper, "Our inheritance, our future—realising the potential of genetics in the NHS", set out the Government's commitment to developing genetics knowledge, skills and provision in the NHS by investing more than £50 million over the next three years. As well as that, the Medical Research Council spent £59.2 million on genetics, molecular structure and dynamics research in 2001–02.
The funding emphasis is translational, which means bringing the benefits of research into the clinic. Our vision is for the NHS to lead the world in taking maximum advantage of the safe, effective and ethical application of the new genetic knowledge and technologies for all patients as soon as they become available. In time, we should be able to assess the risk that an individual has of developing disease, not only for single gene disorders such as EDS and cystic fibrosis but for our country's biggest killers—cancer and coronary heart disease—as well as conditions such as diabetes that limit people's lives.
The potential is immense. Although genetics will never mean a disease-free existence, greater understanding of it is one of our best allies in the war
194WH
against disease and long-term conditions. I hope that, over time, the research will provide a breakthrough in the understanding and treatment of genetic diseases such as EDS.
My hon. Friend made some comments about the role of the MRC, and I am aware that the council is not currently funding research into EDS, although it funds a number of research projects into connective tissue and collagen physiology. The MRC welcomes high-quality applications for support into any aspect of human health, and they are judged in open competition with other demands on funding.
As I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates, the MRC is an independent body that receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology. It is a long-standing and important principle of successive Governments that they do not prescribe to the individual research councils the detail of how they should distribute resources between competing priorities. That is something that researchers and research users best decide.
Mr. Pickthall: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying about the general efforts of the Government and NHS in genetic research. I welcome and applaud that work. However, in this specific case, we have a unit that does both diagnostic and research work, and as far as I can ascertain, it is the only place in the country where patients such as my constituent can ascertain the nature of the disorder and get expert advice. Such facilities do not exist elsewhere, and the unit is about to collapse. That is the centre of my concern.
Miss Johnson: That is why I made a distinction between research, on which the research funding bodies make the decisions, and the question of provision for patients, which is primarily a matter for PCTs. For something as specialised as EDS, the arrangements normally involve one or several centres. I understand that work goes on at other places in the country; we do not have the details here, but centres obviously provide services to EDS patients, including one in my hon. Friend's area. Other provisions are certainly made for patients.
I understand that an unsuccessful bid was made to the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group in 2003. The question of centralised specialist provision might be considered, but I cannot comment on that. I suggest that my hon. Friend pursues the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). He deals with such matters on a day-to-day basis, especially the question of specialist commissioning in relation to the provision of service.
I have made it clear that the MRC considers bids on a competitive basis; it considers the ability to compete. Research excellence and its importance to health will continue to be the primary considerations in its funding decisions, in which the Government have never been directly involved. We need to bear in mind that its funding decisions on research bids are made largely on scientific opportunity and the likelihood of scientific development.
In connection with EDS being a long-term medical condition, my hon. Friend did not mention the work on long-term conditions being done by the national service

195WH
framework. It will focus on services for people with neurological conditions because that is an area of real need. We know that services in many areas are still patchy, with some long waiting lists and other inequalities. It cannot cover all long-term conditions, or the entire disability agenda, but we need to be realistic and pragmatic in our response. However, we think that when the national service framework comes out, it will include models of care, and that it will show how users and carers can be supported with information that can be taken up by other medical specialties—information that might be relevant in particular cases. There may also be benefits for everyone on issues such as access to rehabilitation, equipment, adaptations and other support.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we are sympathetic to the needs of patients with EDS. We believe that initiatives such as the genetic strategy and the national service framework will make life better for patients with EDS, and their families and their carers.
On the question of commissioning arrangements and the way in which primary care trusts provide services for patients with that range of conditions, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to find time in his diary to meet my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire to discuss whether we should consider having such services across the country and how they should be provided and funded. I cannot make any commitment on his behalf, but it is a discussion worth having.
3.59 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
On resuming—

Community Transport Schemes
4.15 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: I look upon community transport as the one bright star in the transport firmament. To oversimplify ever so slightly, the roads are in gridlock, the trains do not run on time and buses are expensive, but at least there is community transport. That has been the one great encouragement in the past few years in transport for my constituents. I welcome the seed corn, pump-priming money that the Government have contributed towards helping my constituents to benefit from new and improved community transport schemes.
Four schemes serve the South Gloucestershire unitary authority, two of which are prominent in my constituency—Vale Link community transport, which serves Thornbury and the Severn Vale, with Yate, Sodbury and District community transport, serving the Yate area and surrounding villages.
I pay tribute to the paid staff of those organisations, and to the many volunteers who make them something very special. They are the people who will take someone to the eye hospital for an appointment at 6 o'clock in the morning. They are the people that a person should get in touch with in a transport crisis over getting to a new college course on Monday, when the council has rung on Friday to say that it will not pay for transport. They are the people who help in an emergency or on a regular week in, week out, basis. They enable many of my elderly or disabled constituents, or those who are young with families, or who live in far-flung villages, to feel that they are part of the community They deserve enormous credit.
I—like, I am sure, the Minister—want these community transport schemes to have a long-term, viable, sustainable future, rather than, as has happened so far after the initial flush of funding, to lurch annually from financial crisis to financial crisis. For example, Vale Link community transport has in two consecutive years issued redundancy notices to staff. That was the only way in which it could cover itself, because it was not sure that the money would be available on 1 April or 6 April to keep it going. That is unsettling for staff who sometimes leave because they cannot live with such uncertainty, and for the passengers.
To give a flavour of the value attached to the services—I shall not quote great screeds although I have many letters—I shall refer to a letter I received earlier in the year. The lady tells me:
"I am writing on behalf of myself and other elderly, sick and disabled people … I lave been told that the Vale Link … are under threat of being withdrawn owing to lack of funds … I have Parkinson's Disease and rheumatoid arthritis, and although I bought this bungalow because it was on a good little local bus route, I am not fit enough to use it. I am only able to cope here alone with the help of the Dial a Ride."
That is the difference that the service makes to that lady. She lists all the things that she does with its help—the essentials such as visits to the doctor and the

197WH
hospital, but also to her poetry group once a month. The issue is partly one of access to essential public services, and partly one of taking part in community life. The lady writes:
"I would be housebound without the help of this service."
I also mentioned Yate, Sodbury and District community transport, and I have a letter about that from a lady who writes:
"I am nearly 80. I use it for shopping. I cannot carry heavy loads. Also, they have days out which I enjoy … It is used also by schools, youth and varied groups, and it will be a great loss to all who use it."
She mentions social visits, going to medical centres, and so on. I have shoals of such letters, as I am sure the Minister can imagine, from grateful constituents who appreciate the fact that community transport schemes have been started, often with substantial Government pump priming, but who want the Government to ensure that community transport has a long-term, viable and sustainable future.
When I have raised the matter in written questions, the response, as I am sure the Minister is aware, has generally been that the Government got the schemes going, and that they are thereafter for local authorities. That argument is fine as far as it goes. If the ongoing revenue funding—not for buying buses but for keeping the thing going—had also been transferred to local authorities, on a scale that would keep them going, that would be great. However, I think that the Minister would accept that that has not happened.
There are ways in which central Government help local authorities and community transport groups, and I shall mention a couple of them, but they are not up to the scale of the problem, given the transport pressures on local authorities. To put the matter in context, commercial bus companies are under increasing financial and competitive pressure to concentrate on the money-making urban main routes; that leaves councils to fill the vacuum of rural and connecting services to the main routes. We expect councils to run more of such services, while also expecting them to pay to keep community transport going, and the money will not stretch to allow them to do all those things. There is a danger that we are telling councils, "If you want to keep community transport going, you will have to take off th( rural bus service you have been subsidising." I appreciate that councils must prioritise and that local people should determine local priorities, but the money must be there to make that possible.
If community transport is to be long term and sustainable, what can the Government do? Is it just a matter of saying that it is up to local authorities? The Government support the rural bus challenge with predominantly capital funding to get it going, but South Gloucestershire's most recent bid was turned down. Some bids from other authorities were granted not just capital funding but continuation funding for up to seven years. A lot of effort goes into the bids, and not all can succeed, but there is an inconsistency in that sometimes people are told that they cannot bid for continuation funding. Yet some of the successful
198WH
bids have the words "continuation funding" in the title. It makes one wonder if those who know how to play the game get a better result. People feel slightly aggrieved about that.
I recognise that the grants cannot go on forever. My local authority is starting to say that it cannot go on bidding for money for another bus if it does not know whether it has the long-term revenue funding to back it. That is the nub of my concern.
There have been welcome changes: community transport can now access the bus service operators' grant, for example, and the money is going directly to community transport. I welcome the Government's change of policy in that respect, but how will the services get long-term sustainability? I group my responses into two areas: the first is not so much about the Government getting out of the way, but about freeing up innovative local authorities and community transport groups to do new things and to find new sustainable long-term funding.
The Government need to recognise the potential of community transport to provide services that link in to the commercial bus routes. Bus companies increasingly say, "If you can get to the main road, we will run a fast, reliable, commercial bus service down the main road, the bus lane or the quality bus corridor." However, it is possible to have community transport such as a community bus service that runs on fixed routes, with some variation—perhaps a demand-responsive element—to link to that network. Potentially, it is possible, but there are all sorts of barriers.
For example, I believe there is a rule that where a community transport service wants to feed into the main network, it cannot use a paid driver. I can understand why, 15 to 20 years ago, there may have been such rules, because we did not want subsidised services to compete with commercial services, but in rural areas now it is nonsense to think that anyone wants to run such services. It is not a case of public money crowding out private services; they just ain't there.
That being so, could we lift some of the section 22 restrictions, which state that a paid driver cannot be used? Volunteer drivers can be used for individual journeys, but they would not be willing to do an eight-hour day, five or six clays a week. Paid staff are needed, and rules need to be relaxed to allow services to operate without the bureaucracy. I understand that section 19 rules say that it is all right to have a driver as long as he is a member of the group; some communities have therefore had to sign up everyone in the parish to be a member of the community transport group so that one of them can drive the bus. I think the Minister would agree that that sort of bureaucracy blocks creativeness. What I propose would not result in unfair competition with the commercial sector but it would enable community transport to provide new and better services and access for people in rural areas, without the bureaucracy, giving them sustainable, long-term security.
The Government need to make it clear that the rural bus grant, which they give to local authorities every year, can be used explicitly for community transport schemes, as there are often rules and regulations about

199WH
what the money can be used for. There might even be a presumption, or openness to a presumption, that the first port of call for the rural bus grant money should not be to pay commercial providers to run a few extra buses on infrequent services on, say, a Sunday, only to find that the public do not use that service and that it is then taken off because we are simply paying people to run empty buses. The money should be used explicitly for community transport. Would not it be better to use the money to provide a service that better matches demand?
The Government could also consider local transport plans. I understand that the next round of plans will include the key themes of social exclusion and accessibility. Community transport has the potential to meet some of those demands. If there is a transport problem in a rural area, the answer may not be a capital project, or a new road, bus stop or junction, but a revenue solution to make that rural area accessible by paying for a community bus service. That could be an explicit part of what a local transport plan should contain. If the Government gave a positive signal that they were looking for those sorts of ideas, we would go a long way.
There is an issue with how far local authorities can afford to take up the slack where Government funding has ceased. That issue was raised in this Chamber nearly a year ago by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) in a sort of all-party debate on transport, to which the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) responded, in which the same issues and questions were raised. For example: how do we convert something good into something long term and sustainable?
Another problem is that of tapering Government support. Clearly, people knew when they made a bid for the money that it would not last for ever, but there was a rush of applications, and many things started at the same time that are now running out of money at more or less the same time, and the funding to take up the strain is not there. My local community transport group says that charities and trusts are pretty good at stumping up money for capital items. With a fair wind, it can get the money for a bus, but it cannot get the ongoing funding for a driver. That is what central and local government is about: the ongoing security of services.
One message that I have received is that the people who run community transport, and those who use it, want certainty, security, stability and predictability. They want to know that services will not be affected come February or March, when we have the annual panic and crisis, when money is borrowed or a few thousand pounds are found from another budget. They want to know that the services have the long-term stability that they have a right to expect.
My key messages to the Minister are as follows. First, one of thanks to the Government for helping to get things going. Secondly, I request that some of the bureaucracy, such as regulations, and limitations on
200WH
community transport, is removed in order to address long-term funding needs creatively. Some local authorities are saying, "Well, we can't find this sort of long-term funding. We can't find ways of getting money to community transport, so we are not really going to engage with this agenda." South Gloucestershire unitary council is not taking that approach. It wants to be creative with local community transport schemes and to find ways to use them as service providers for social services and education, so that it can get core revenue streams going into them. It also wants to mesh in with the rest of the network, use paid drivers in rural areas—where that is the answer—and to use community transport schemes as part of a local transport plan, as an alternative to capital projects.
There are many ideas floating around, and we need to know that the Government will not say, "We never intended that to do this," or, "You can't do that because of this regulation," but will let a thousand flowers bloom, so to speak, let local community transport groups be creative and give them the longterm, sustainable future that my constituents and, I think, the Minister, would like to see.
4.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this debate and providing the Chamber with another opportunity to discuss the important role of community transport and how it is funded.
I want to pick up on the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, as I did not recognise the transport system that he described. He said that roads were gridlocked. I accept that there are occasions when they are extremely busy, but it is nonsensical to suggest that they are permanently at gridlock. Although the Liberal Democrats nationally support congestion charging, Liberal Democrats in Bristol opposed one such measure that Bristol city council proposed a year or so ago. The hon. Gentleman may want to reflect on that with some of his colleagues in that area. The other reason why our roads are extremely busy is because under this Government we have a very successful economy. As many as 2 million more people are working. More people are travelling to work. More people are travelling for leisure and pleasure.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about community transport. It certainly is a bright star. I am sure that he has received many appreciative letters from people who use community transport. That is reflected in the sort of communication that the Department has had from people, both at local authority level and from the service users. Community and voluntary transport has a key role to play throughout all regions of the country, and in both urban and rural areas. The challenges may vary but the need for transport for those who are socially excluded by reason of income, gender, race, disability or geographical isolation is always there.
The Community Transport Association, which represents the majority of schemes across the country, estimates that there are some 5,000 schemes in the UK, which between them run 60,000 minibuses. The schemes deliver 5 million trios a year for almost 2 million people

201 WH
with mobility problems. In addition to 10,000 or so full-time paid drivers, the sector relies on 250,000 volunteers to provide these invaluable transport schemes. I pay tribute to those volunteers who support such transport schemes. Without their contribution many others would be denied mobility, and would increasingly be socially isolated and disadvantaged.
However, as we have heard today, funding for the sector is not straightforward, and I fully appreciate the difficulties to which uncertainty over future funding and the complexities of funding applications themselves can give rise. For a small operation simply pulling together all the information needed for a funding application can be a daunting and time-consuming task. It has to be repeated time after time for different funders, and the need to "reinvent" the project to meet the relevant funding criteria can be a significant burden. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been involved over a number of years in supporting the work of schemes in his constituency to secure funding.
We recognise that good transport connections are vital to building thriving rural communities. It is central to achieving a healthy economy, a better quality of life and an improved environment. Over the past 30 years, public transport has become a marginal form of transport in many rural areas. In addition, people's journeys have become longer as local shops, schools, and other services such as health care, post offices and banks have disappeared from many communities. For people without access to a car this meant increasing difficulties accessing employment opportunities and essential services.
Many of your constituents, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not have access to a car. In my constituency some 40 per cent. do not. That is bad enough in an urban area but the problem is even worse in rural areas. Walking or cycling to the nearest services is not an option, particularly for the elderly or those who are disabled in some way. That lack of accessibility is a significant cause of social exclusion in rural areas. We recognised this in the commitments made in both the 10-year plan for transport and the rural White Paper to invest in rural transport, to improve the transport infrastructure and to enhance rural accessibility.
The measures we are taking are having a positive impact. New and enhanced bus services are being delivered across all rural counties. They are improving links between market towns and halting the decline in bus use in rural areas. More than £50 million will be spent this financial year alone on the rural bus subsidy grant. More than 2,000 new and enhanced bus services are now being funded from that grant, supporting some 26 million passengers per annum. We have succeeded in stopping the gradual decline in the rural bus network and provided a much-needed boost to many rural communities.
Additional resources for conventional bus services are not the only answer in rural areas however. We fully recognise the potential contribution of more flexible, demand-responsive services and community transport solutions in meeting local needs. In doing so, in 2001 we extended the fuel duty rebate scheme to a wide range of
202WH
community transport services, helping them with their fuel costs and providing not inconsiderable assistance. We have made changes to the regulations governing bus registrations, which will ensure that outdated rules and regulations are not a barrier to the introduction of demand-responsive bus services. We shall carefully consider the hon. Gentleman's point about section 22 in the forthcoming review of the permit regime. If the hon. Gentleman wants us to consider other issues, we shall certainly give them careful scrutiny, although we cannot guarantee that we shall take them on board.
Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the Minister, because my point was about a concrete issue. Can he say something about the time scale for decision making and changing things?
Mr. Jamieson: I cannot, but my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), is more familiar with such issues than I am, so I shall get him to pen the hon. Gentleman a line.
We want still further improvements in rural accessibility, with better targeting of resources by local authorities to meet accessibility needs, greater promotion of rural transport services and a more joined-up approach, linking public transport and the less conventional services that I just mentioned. All such initiatives can help to make more services available to more people.
The Department has a number of initiatives aimed at supporting the community and voluntary sectors in both rural and urban areas, where social exclusion also exists. One of the most significant initiatives has been the extension to community transport operators of the bus service operators grant, which was formerly the fuel duty rebate. Since the introduction of the grant in May 2002, nearly 800 community transport operators in England, including Vale Link community transport in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, have been awarded eligibility. The grant is continuing, not time limited.
On the interests of rural communities, since 1998 the Department has provided significant funding to improve the provision of bus services in rural areas. Our rural bus subsidy grant and the rural bus challenge schemes have been widely welcomed as having a real impact on the transport needs of rural communities around the country. I am pleased to say that the challenge scheme in particular has opened up new opportunities in many areas for community transport operations to play a bigger part in addressing local needs. Although we have helped to stimulate many such initiatives, I should also like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication that community groups have invested in improving quality of life for the many people who rely on them. As the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, south Gloucestershire has benefited from that funding for rural services, having successfully received awards for four projects totalling £2.1 million from the rural bus challenge and some £294,000 from the rural bus subsidy grant.
We of course recognise that the funding regimes that I have outlined do not provide a long-term funding base for schemes. The hon. Gentleman said that the grants cannot go on for ever, and I agree. However, that was never our intention, and we have made it clear from the

203WH
outset of the rural bus challenge that it was never intended to be a source of permanent revenue support. The main aim was to get projects under way, which would then become part of mainstream funding. Although I recognise the pressure on local authority resources for revenue support of buses, the overall Government grant has increased by 7.3 per cent. for next year and by 30 per cent. since 1997.
Some authorities have an exceptional record of working in close and supportive partnership with community transport. Others, however, have not yet recognised the value of working in partnership. In particular, many authorities continue to provide funding support one year at a time. That is no basis for forward planning or development.
Now that local authorities have the benefit of funding on a five-year basis rather than annually, we hope that they will pass that benefit to the schemes that they support. One of the things that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has recognised is that security of funding over a long period gives local government a better opportunity to plan. However, those who rely on such funding should also benefit from the certainty of the five-year forward planning.
In the same vein, it is important to engage community transport providers in the local transport plan process at a strategic level in recognition of their contribution to public transport delivery. The LTP guidance to local authorities emphasises the need to encourage active involvement from that sector. However, too many community and voluntary transport providers continue to be treated as some sort of optional extra in the transport mix. Clearly in south Gloucestershire there is evidence of engagement and, as we have heard, projects have been taken forward under the rural bus challenges.
Where do we go from here on funding? We all recognise that community and voluntary transport schemes are vital in the mix of transport provision. The Government want to do all that we can to ensure that they thrive. Funding is, as we have heard today, a key factor in determining how the sector is able to continue and to develop effectively. It is important that all those involved in funding, including national and local government, as well as other funding providers, are aware of how their decisions can affect the future viability of community schemes. It is important that
204WH
they are able to share their experiences, learn from others, and develop their funding policies with a broad understanding of the sector.
In August last year, the Department hosted a seminar for the major funders of community and voluntary transport. Its purpose was to discuss funding and to consider what we could all do to enable the community and voluntary sector to develop to the benefit of the communities—both rural and urban—that it serves. As a result of that seminar we have commissioned the CTA to produce a good practice guide to funding. It is due to deliver the guide this summer and we intend to make it widely available to all involved. In addition, funding will be considered in the context of a research project that we have commissioned to consider the role of community transport in reducing social exclusion. One of the aims of that work is to identify and evaluate the funding regimes that are available to the sector. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
Finally, as part of our commitment to the compact with the voluntary sector, we have worked closely with it on "Working in Partnership with the Voluntary Sector—Strategy and Action Plan", which we are soon to publish. That document will outline how the Department has met and will continue to meet the aims of the compact. By liaising with the sector, we aim to obtain views on the Government's transport agenda and to identify and better understand the barriers that voluntary organisations have to overcome if they are to provide a full and sustainable service.
In conclusion, we are actively considering the impact of funding on the voluntary and community transport sector. There is no simple solution, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. Our role is to provide a national policy, regulatory and financial framework so that the transport system works for everyone. We must engage others, local authorities in particular, in recognising the implications for local communities if community and voluntary transport schemes are not supported.
This has been a useful opportunity to explore some important issues. I am sure that this debate will not be the last that we have on an issue of enormous interest to my Department and to the constituents of many hon. and right hon. Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Initiatives
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) budget, (b) expenditure and (c) amount spent on administration was for each area-based initiative for which her Department and its predecessors have been responsible in each year since 1997. [177108]

  Alun Michael
  The information is as follows:

  Warm Zones

  DEFRA and DTI jointly contributed £0.5 million each towards the pilot programme of five Warm Zones to run from 2001–04, which brings together a range of public and private sector funding. An independent evaluation of the pilots is being carried out by the Energy Saving Trust on behalf of DEFRA. Final results of the evaluation are expected at the end of 2004.

  Market Towns Initiative

  £37 million has been provided to the Regional Development Agencies and the Countryside Agency since 2000 to reinvigorate small rural towns, help them meet the needs of local people and provide access to a wide range of retail, leisure, professional and public services and enables regional partnerships to target towns in their region according to selection criteria agreed regionally. A full assessment of this initiative is under way.

  Voluntary and Community Sector Infrastructure Programme

  The Department is to provide £10 million over the period 2003–04 to 2005–06 for capacity building in the voluntary sector in rural areas. During 2003–04 £86,000 has gone toward developing Voluntary and Community Sector consortia across the existing or former shire county areas. The remainder will be spent during 2004–05 and 2005–06 on the delivery of generalist and specialist support to the Sector frontline bodies in rural areas. The first strand will go towards priorities identified by these county consortia, the second will be to increase the uptake of financial entitlements among pensioners in some rural areas and the third will be go towards researching the potential for sustainable income generation through trading by rural voluntary and community organisations.

  Horse Passports
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to implement a system of horse passports; and if she will make a statement on her strategy for increasing public awareness of the need for such passports prior to their implementation. [177705]
  790W
  Alun Michael
  Legislation on requirements for horse passports came into effect on 30 November 2003. This has been updated by the Horse Passports (England) Regulations 2004, which came into force on 10 June.

  We have worked alongside the horse industry and passport issuing organisations to publicise this requirement. Bearing in mind the diversity of the target audience, our strategy has been to concentrate on specialist and regional media for news and advertising activity, and providing information direct to a full range of horse establishments (including riding stables, retail and service outlets.)

  Moorland Fires
  Tom Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial and other support her Department(a) has given, (b) is giving and (c) plans to give to the use of helicopters in fighting moorland fires. [178099]

  Alun Michael
  No support is given to this activity, nor has support been given in the past but officials will review the position as part of a forthcoming review of policy concerning moorland management.

  Orchards
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the acreage of(a) apple, (b) pear, (c) plum and (d) cherry orchards is in active production in England; and whether that has varied over the last 10 years. [177782]

  Alun Michael
  The following figures show the total estimated area of orchard fruit from 1994 to 2003 in England and Wales.

  Crop area (hectares)

  Apples (dessert and culinary)

  Pears

  Plums

  Cherries

  1994

  14,477

  3,032

  1,669

  611

  1995

  12,797

  2,941

  1,588

  604

  1996

  11,993

  2,739

  1,444

  592

  1997

  12,783

  2,665

  1,672

  645

  1998

  12,506

  2,500

  1,596

  578

  1999

  12,013

  2,360

  1,367

  591

  2000

  11,457

  2,355

  1,213

  459

  2001

  9,970

  2,330

  1,072

  473

  2002

  8,373

  2,041

  947

  428

  2003

  7,796

  1,742

  1,003

  381

  Notes:

  1. Data for 1994 and 1995 relates to England only.

  2. Data for 1994 to 2000 inclusive excludes minor holdings.

  3. The Orchard Fruit Survey is conducted on a sample basis with estimates made for non-responders and those holdings not surveyed.

  Source:

  Orchard Fruit Survey (England and Wales)

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money was paid to English apple growers under the Countryside Stewardship scheme in each of the last 10 years. [177786]
  791W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Annual payments to Countryside Stewardship agreement holders, for the restoration of traditional orchards in each of the last 10 years were as follows:

  £000

  Amount

  1994

  99

  1995

  133

  1996

  146

  1997

  192

  1998

  220

  1999

  265

  2000

  294

  2001

  343

  2002

  387

  2003

  470

  These orchards can be apple, pear, cherry, plum or damson, or cider and perry orchards, or cob nut platts.

  Water Technologies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications have been received for products to be included in the Enhanced Capital Allowance Scheme for Water Technologies; and how many have been refused. [175276]

  Margaret Beckett
  Since the launch of the scheme, 366 applications for inclusion of products have been received. Of these applications, 147 have been refused inclusion in the scheme, as the products failed to meet the relevant technical specifications.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost is to date of the Enhanced Capital Allowance Scheme for Water Technologies. [175277]

  Margaret Beckett
  When the Government announced the introduction of the scheme in 2003, it published estimated Exchequer costs of £20 million in 2003–04, £30 million in 2004–05 and £25 million in 2005–06.

  Actual Exchequer costs will depend upon take-up of the qualifying technology products. It is too early to comment on the actual take-up.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many employees in her Department have(a) signed a formal opt out from and (b) are exempt from the Working Time Directive; and how many employees in her Department have recorded hours, including any accruing on a flexitime basis, in excess of the maximum allowed under the Working Time Directive in the last month for which figures are available. [178363]

  Alun Michael
  Currently 13 staff in DEFRA have signed voluntary agreements to disapply the 48 hour limit set by the Working Time Regulations. The Department has determined that none of its staff is exempt from their provisions. The Department does not have centralised records to show how many staff have worked in excess of the maximum in the last month. The Regulations require that the 48 hour limit is measured 792W
  over a 17 week period but a flexibility to the Regulations introduced in 1999 removed the requirement for employers to keep records of the hours worked by staff who voluntarily agree to disapply the limit. DEFRA has stated its commitment to keep to an absolute minimum the numbers of staff who regularly work more than 48 hours per week and continually reviews this including staff who are working close to but may not actually exceed the limit.

  Wyevale Garden Centre (Birds)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason her Department granted a licence to Wyevale Garden Centre near Thornbury to shoot robins; and if she will make a statement. [176392]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes provision for a system of licensing to allow certain persons to undertake actions against birds which would otherwise be illegal in terms or the Act.

  Section 16(1)(i) gives powers to the Secretary of State to grant licences for the purpose of preserving public health or public or air safety, subject to there being no other satisfactory solution.

  An application was received by the Department to kill a small number of robins that were persistently fouling a cafeteria located within a garden centre. The application was considered by one of the Department's wildlife management advisers and based on the adviser's recommendation the licensing unit granted a licence to allow up to four robins to be killed to preserve public health and safety. An investigation of this case, showing that the shooting of the birds by a pest control company was legal and proper procedures were followed, was published on the DEFRA website (www.defra.gov.uk) on 11 June.

TRANSPORT

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the responses received from safety camera partnership project managers in England and Wales to his Department's letter of 19 December 2003 about the safety camera programme. [155540]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has today made a Statement to hon. Members on the successful operation of the Safety Camera Programme, and have placed in the Libraries of the House, copies of the Partnerships' replies to my Department's letter of 19 December, regarding their work.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 1002W, on speed cameras, at which locations in Humberside he has given permission for (a) fixed and (b) mobile camera sites to be placed; and what criteria he took into account before granting permission for these sites. [176050]
  793W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The approved sites are listed as follows. They were assessed against and meet the criteria for proposed new sites set out in flat current 'Handbook of rules and guidance for the operation of the national road safety camera programme for England and Wales', a copy of which was placed in the Library in December, including the criteria for the number of collisions over the preceding three years (4 or more collisions involving people being killed or seriously injured (KSIs) or eight or more personal injury collisions (PICs) for fixed speed camera sites, and 2 KSIs or 4 PICs for mobile speed camera sites.

  Fixed Cameras

  Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) collisions in the preceding three years

  Personal Injury Collisions (PIC) in the preceding three years

  Clough Road

  5

  12

  Spring Bank west

  4

  28

  B1239 North of Preston

  4

  6

  A1079BeverleyRoad

  6

  6

  Mobile Cameras

  KSI casualties in the preceding three years

  PIC collisions in the preceding three years

  Greenwood Avenue

  4

  13

  A614 North of Shiptonthorpe Roundabout

  3

  6

  Ashby Road, near Pittwood

  3

  22

  Luneburg Way

  2

  7

  Bricknell Avenue

  2

  4

  Anlaby Road

  2

  20

  Cromwell Road, Grimsby

  2

  6

  Saltshouse Road

  2

  3

  Queensway

  2

  22

  A161 Belton

  2

  6

  A 1077 Barton

  2

  5

  A614, south of Shiptonthorpe

  2

  1

  Pelham Road, Immingham

  2

  11

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the current state of Mr. Sharon's plan to move out of Gaza and the effect of that on the road map. [178640]

  Mr. Rammell
  I welcome the 6 June announcement of approval in principle by the Israeli Cabinet for the removal of settlements in Gaza and four from the West Bank. I hope that preparations for withdrawal will be carried out without delay and that implementation swiftly follows. Withdrawal of settlements would be in line with Israel's commitments under Phase One of the roadmap.

  Libya
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in UK relations with Libya. [178642]
  794W
  Mr. Rammell
  Libya's decisions to formally accept responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, renounce terrorism and take action to dismantle its Weapons of Mass Destruction development programmes opened the way for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to meet Colonel Qadhafi on 25 March.

  The Government are building on this contact to develop further our political, cultural and commercial ties, while continuing to seek progress on the difficulties that remain between us.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent advice he has given to British nationals resident in Saudi Arabia. [178643]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office advises British nationals resident in Saudi Arabia that if they choose to remain in Saudi Arabia they should take all necessary steps to protect their safety and should make sure they have confidence in their individual security arrangements. They should maintain a high level of vigilance, particularly in public places frequented by foreigners. They should adopt a low profile and avoid public gatherings, which could lead to disorder. They should remember that Islamic law is strictly enforced in Saudi Arabia.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice makes clear that there is a continuing high threat of terrorism in Saudi Arabia. Following terrorist attacks in April and May 2004, we continue to believe that terrorists are planning further attacks against Westerners and places associated with Westerners.

  The full test of our advice is available at: www. fco.gov.uk. We keep our travel advice under close review.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account the Government takes of the changing(a) security and (b) political situation in Saudi Arabia when making decisions on arms export licences; and if he will make a statement. [178139]

  Mr. Rammell
  Export licence applications for Saudi Arabia, as for all countries, are assessed against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Criteria, taking account of the circumstances at the time and other announced Government policies. In assessing export licence applications, the Government take account of all available and relevant information.

  Cyprus
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the(a) Turkish and (b) Greek Governments about the future of Cyprus. [178644]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North. The Government, at the 26 April General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels and the 17 May UK-Turkey summit, and via our Ambassadors in Ankara and Athens, have been
  795W
  in regular contact with the Turkish and Greek Governments following the 24 April referendums on the UN Secretary-General's Cyprus settlement plan.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Turkish Government on protecting cultural sites in Turkish-occupied Cyprus. [178134]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government attaches importance to the protection of cultural sites throughout Cyprus. We urge the authorities on both sides of the island to co-operate for the protection and preservation of Cyprus's cultural heritage for the benefit of all Cypriots.

  Aung San Suu Kyi
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the regime in Burma about human rights and the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi. [178645]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz).

  EU Enlargement
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the enlargement of the European Union on 1 May. [178646]

  Mr. MacShane
  The enlargement of the EU on 1 May was a historic event. It will make a lasting contribution to peace, stability and prosperity across the continent.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an official visit to St. Helena. [178647]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to visit St. Helena.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on negotiations on the European Constitution. [178648]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took part in a further round of negotiations with European partners yesterday in Brussels. I understand that he intends to make a statement to the House tomorrow.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of the changes to the draft European Constitution demanded by the Government representative on the Convention on the Future of Europe. [178649]

  Mr. MacShane
  Throughout the 18 months of the Convention on the Future of Europe the British Government representative, the right hon. Mr. Hain, submitted many amendments, comments and suggestions 796W
  to different versions of the draft Constitution as it developed. The written amendments can be found on the Convention website at: www.european-convention.eu.int

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been made for international supervision and monitoring of the forthcoming elections in Afghanistan. [178039]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Joint Elections Management Body (JEMB), comprised of the Afghan Transitional Administration (ATA) and UN representatives, and chaired by Interior Minister Jalali, is responsible for election preparations. As part of its electoral support plans, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) intends to establish an 'Observation Office' to facilitate national and international election observation. The Office is intended to support information exchange between Afghan and international observers and other interested parties; provide briefing packages for observers; and develop training materials for Afghan observers.

  We are currently discussing with EU partners and the European Commission a range of measures to support the elections, including deployment of monitors and advisers. There are also likely to be observer teams from a number of other countries. Work is also in hand to develop domestic monitoring capacity. Afghan civil society organisations involved in this have formed a 'Core Group' to coordinate domestic monitoring activities.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of the reform of the Afghan National Army since 2002. [178054]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The creation of multi-ethnic and accountable armed forces, providing the elected Government with the institutional means to exercise their authority, is one of the key challenges for the Afghan Government and international community in post-conflict Afghanistan. Considerable progress has been made, and the Afghan National Army (ANA) is now about 10,000 strong. In recent months the training of officers and soldiers has been accelerated after the building of further capacity at the military training centre in Kabul and a total of 1,800 additional troops are now able to undergo training at any one time.

  International support in this area is led by the United States. UK military forces stationed within the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) are providing training and mentoring for Afghan NCOs. In the next few months the ANA will start to establish permanent bases in cities outside Kabul, with the first to be established in Kandahar. This follows successful deployment of ANA battalions in March and April 2004 in response to unrest in the Herat and Faryab regions.

  Biological Materials (US Exports)
  Mr. Hancock
  To :ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has collated on US exports of biological materials between February 1985 and November 1990. [177154]
  797W
  Mr. MacShane
  None, other than information published by the United States Administration.

  China
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the actions of the Chinese Government in respect of the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. [178583]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are concerned by reports from Human Rights NGOs that at least 12 dissidents were put under house arrest or surveillance in the run up to this anniversary. Those under house arrest included the leader of the Tiananmen Mothers Group, Ding Zilin.

  The UK raised the harassment of dissidents, including those linked to the events in Tiananmen Square, most recently at the May round of our human rights dialogue with China.

  Correspondence
  Sir Gerald Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 26 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Yakubu Kabiz; [177998]

  (2) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 26 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to H S Khan. [178945]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend's letter refers to documentary evidence at appeal, which is collated by the Immigration Appellate Authority. The letter has been transferred to the Department of Constitutional Affairs as the Department responsible for the Immigration Appellate Authority. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Lammy) will reply to my right hon. Friend.

  Cuba
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to encourage the US Administration to remove its sanctions against Cuba. [178129]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK prefers a policy of constructive engagement and dialogue with Cuba, and we make our objections known to US policy every year at the United Nations General Assembly. On 4 November 2003, we again voted to adopt the resolution on the necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the USA against Cuba.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Gordon Prentice) on 26 May 2004,Official Report, column 1634W, on Guantanamo Bay, on how many occasions, and in respect of how many individuals concerns were raised with the US authorities; and on what dates. [179054]
  798W
  Mr. Mullin
  We are not in a position to provide the detailed information requested. This information is withheld under Exemption 12 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The Data Protection Act also prevents us from disclosing personal data on individual cases under Exemption 15 of the Code.

  We are very conscious of the importance of seeking to safeguard the welfare of all British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay. Officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are in touch with the families of the British detainees, who are advised of the welfare visits by British officials to Guantanamo Bay.

  Iraq
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 30 January 2004,Official Report, column 581W, on Iraq, what the basis is of the Government's understanding that the originators of the intelligence that Iraq sought the supply of uranium from Africa discussed the issue with the International Atomic Energy Agency shortly before the International Atomic Energy Agency Report of 7 March 2003. [178086]

  Mr. MacShane
  As stated in the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend, together with subsequent answers given to my hon. Friend on this issue, I am withholding further details of intelligence exchanges with allies under Exemption 1(c) of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to whom the Coalition Provisional Authority is accountable. [178397]

  Mr. Rammell
  The role of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was recognised and further defined in resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003, and its authority is set out in CPA Regulation No 1, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Resolution 1483 will continue to operate until 30 June, when the handover of authority to the Iraqi Interim Government will be complete and the CPA will dissolve. Security Council Resolution 1546 of 8 June sets out the transition arrangements for after 30 June.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to whom the Iraq Survey Group is accountable. [178398]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Iraq Survey Group forms part of the Joint Task Force Iraq, which reports through the chain of command to General Abizaid and upwards to the US Secretary of State for Defense. The US Director Central Intelligence has overall responsibility for the search for weapons of mass destruction. The British element of the Group has a national link to the Secretary of State for Defence through the Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood and the UK Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Iraq Survey Group to complete its work; and what criteria will be applied when deciding whether the work of the Iraq Survey Group is complete. [178399]
  799W
  Mr. MacShane
  There is no set timetable for Iraq Survey Group activities. The Group will continue its work for as long as appropriate. It is not possible to say when the Iraq Survey Group will have completed its task

  Sudan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Independent Expert mandated by the 23 April UN Commission on Human Rights decision on Sudan to be appointed. [177384]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UN Economic and Social Council has to endorse the decision of the Commission on Human Rights before an Independent Expert can be appointed. We have pressed for an early decision of the Council and consultations are under way. Once the decision is approved, the Chairman of the Commission on. Human Rights will then be in a position to appoint an individual to the post.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Alcohol Licences
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many premises have a licence to serve alcohol all night, broken down by local authority. [178410]

  Mr. Caborn
  Alcohol licences are granted by licensing justices and, where available, statistics are broken down by petty sessions areas and not by local authority areas. Generally, no justices' licences permit the sale or consumption of alcohol all night. This is the effect of section 60 of the Licensing Act 1964 which details the permitted hours for the sale and supply of alcohol from licensed premises. There are however four exceptions. Firstly, all on-licensed premises are able to sell alcohol all night on each New Year's Eve unless the premises are subject to a restriction order. Secondly, the 1964 Act does not prohibit or restrict the sale or supply of alcohol to, or its consumption by, any person in any licensed premises where he is residing, or the supply for consumption by any private friends of such a person who are being entertained by that person at his own expense. Thirdly, the 1964 Act does not prohibit or restrict the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises to persons employed there for the purposes of the business carried on by the holder of a justices' licence if the alcohol is supplied at the expense of their employer or the person carrying on or in charge of the business on the premises. Fourthly, under section 74 of the 1964 Act, justices of the peace on application from premises situated in the immediate neighbourhood of a public market or place where people follow a lawful trade or calling, may grant an order adding, either generally or for such days as may be specified in the order such hours as may be so specified, to the permitted hours in those premises. These are commonly called "general orders of exemption". There are no centrally held statistics on the numbers or dispersal of general orders of exemption. However, the number permitting the sale or supply of 800W
  alcohol all night in connection with a public market (for example, Smithfields Meat Market in London) is believed to be very small.

WALES

  A483
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has held with National Assembly for Wales Secretaries concerning improvements to the A483. [177368]

  Mr. Hain
  Responsibility for the A483 Trunk Road rests, in Wales, with the National Assembly, and in England with the Highways Agency. Officials from these two bodies meet regularly to discuss improvements.

  A public consultation was held last year, on a Route Management Strategy for the A5/A483 Trunk Roads. Further consultation is planned towards the end of this year, on the Pant—Llanymynech by-pass, and it is hoped to award the contract for this work at around the same time.

  Administration Budget
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [177423]

  Mr. Hain
  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.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have left employment in his Department because of(a) anxiety, (b) stress, (c) depression and (d) other mental health reasons in each year since 1997. [175673]

  Mr. Hain
  Since the establishment of the Wales Office on 1 July 1999 there have been no departures by staff from the Wales Office because of anxiety, stress, depression or mental health reasons.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  India
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will cease his Department's funding of the state's deregulatory Centre for Good Governance in Andhra Pradesh, India. [178607]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Centre for Good Governance (CGG) was set up in 2001 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh (AP) to assist it in developing and implementing its governance reform programme. The programme has many strands, and since its inception, the Centre for Good Governance has undertaken work on a wide range of issues. Highlights
  801W
  include a thorough assessment of public expenditure management systems, and an action plan for their improvement. The Centre has also studied Citizens' Charters and how they can be effectively used to improve services. Other work includes analysing corruption-prone processes, and assisting the Government to develop a broad anti-corruption strategy. CGG is currently completing a study on local bodies, and how their effectiveness can be improved. In addition to assisting the AP Government, the Centre is working with the Government of India, particularly in the areas of civil service reform and e-governance.

  Recognising the importance of governance to tackling poverty and achieving the Millennium Development Goals, DFID has committed up to £5.9 million for the Government of Andhra Pradesh's governance reform programme; this lasts until March 2005. The assistance is provided in a flexible way so that it can respond to the state Government's evolving agenda. Regular discussions are held on the work programme of the Centre to ensure that it is line with the Government's priorities.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will end the arrangement which places the Implementation Secretariat of the Andhra Pradesh state's Public Enterprises Department under the control of the Adam Smith Institute. [178608]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Implementation Secretariat is responsible for taking forward the Government of Andhra Pradesh's public enterprise reform programme. It has always been under the control of the state government, and is headed by an Andhra Pradesh government official. The Implementation Secretariat reviews the options for state enterprises, and recommends their closure, restructuring or sale; it then implements the state government's decision.

  Adam Smith International (ASI) won a competitive tender to provide advisory and administrative support to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In the first stage, as well as providing consultancy advice, ASI also engaged the local consulting firms and staff for the Implementation Secretariat. In 2003, the Implementation Secretariat itself took over these administrative responsibilities. DFID is discussing its programme, including assistance to public enterprise reform, with the new government, to ensure that it reflects their priorities and makes the most effective contribution to their efforts to tackle poverty.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the viability of his Department's commitments entered into as a result of the Vision 2020 document produced by McKinsey & Co for Andhra Pradesh's Chief Minister Naidu. [178609]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Vision 2020, published in 1999, set out the vision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh for development in the state. It committed the government to a number of goals, including the eradication of poverty and universal primary education, and included many ideas and approaches about how these goals could be achieved. It was not however, a strategy or plan that could he funded. The projects which DFID is supporting in Andhra Pradesh were each based on requests for assistance, and were designed and 802W
  agreed only after detailed appraisals and discussions with government. They are regularly reviewed to assess progress and agree any changes.

  DFID has a wide-ranging programme in Andhra Pradesh. It includes both support to the government in implementing cross-cutting reforms and support for programmes providing basic services such as primary schooling and treatment of Tuberculosis. DFID also has two large programmes—AP Rural Livelihoods (APRLP) and AP Urban Services for the Poor (APUSP)—which aim to make government more responsive to the needs of poor people, and to encourage the involvement of poor communities in decisions which affect their lives. APRLP works in five of the poorest rural areas, and has a central focus on agriculture, on which most poor people depend. APUSP works in 32 towns, and as well as improving government's services, it finances new infrastructure in slum areas, for example to address drinking water and sanitation needs. Both projects include components to help poor families to make a better living by developing new opportunities to earn income, for example through skills training.

  The new state government of Andhra Pradesh is setting out its priorities for development and poverty reduction. Discussions have started on how DFID can most effectively support government's efforts to tackle poverty, and this dialogue will include reviewing existing projects to see whether any changes are required.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost to public funds of travel expenses incurred by Ministers in his Department in(a) domestic journeys and (b) journeys abroad was in each year since 1997. [176659]

  Hilary Benn
  In respect of overseas travel by Ministers, since 1999 the Government has published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government 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 give information reaching back to 1995–96. Information for 2003–04 will be published in due course.

  For domestic travel the information is not held centrally 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.

  Palestinian Authority
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department has provided to enable the Palestinian Authority to prepare for elections. [178594]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government welcomes the recent announcement by the Palestinian Authority (PA) to hold municipal elections between August 2004 and mid-2005. The European Commission has committed
  803W
  €10 million to enable the PA to prepare for these and other elections. 17 per cent. of this expenditure is attributable to the UK. DFID has no plans to provide additional bilateral financial assistance for elections.

  Rome Declaration on Humanitarian Aid
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made on the Rome Declaration on Humanitarian Aid. [176793]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK is one of 23 members of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)'s Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which provides a means for donors to share experience and develop best practice in aid management. In February 2003, an OECD High Level Forum in Rome agreed a series of Good Practice Papers on the Harmonisation of Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery. With support from DFID and other agencies, the DAC has been developing means to measure progress in this work and a report will be published in December 2004.

  The UK Harmonisation Action Plan was also agreed in February 2003, and over the last year DFID has been at the forefront of advocating harmonisation, both by testing out new approaches and by working collectively with others to change ways of working. This should significantly reduce the burden imposed on partner countries by the wide range of procedures that donors now apply to very similar tasks in delivering their assistance, for example during audit and evaluation.

  As co-chair of the Strategic Partnership for Africa (SPA), DFID has also supported efforts to improve donor harmonisation. The 2003 survey indicated that alignment with national Poverty Reduction Strategies was still falling short. However, work is now being carried out jointly by SPA donors to identify how to make faster progress.

  Rwanda
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) action is being taken and (b) aid is planned to be offered by the United Kingdom Government to help Rwanda reach the targets set in the memorandum of understanding; and what aid is being offered from other western countries, with particular reference to the United States of America. [177665]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's programme of support to Rwanda is set out in the Rwanda Country Assistance Plan. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) complements this, providing the political framework in which the Country Assistance Plan is set.

  The United Kingdom Government is committed to helping Rwanda reach the targets set out in these documents. Officials from DFID work closely with colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and with other donor Governments, to ensure our approach is consistent and focused on helping the poor of Rwanda.
  804W
  The UK/Rwanda MoU was first signed in 1999 and is renewed on an annual basis. It underpins the UK/ Rwanda bilateral relationship, and provides a sound basis for constructive dialogue and assessment of progress on political developments.

  The UK Government maintains a regular dialogue with the Government of Rwanda and has gained their trust and respect. The UK's strong relationship with the Government of Rwanda enables us to have open and frank discussions on a range of issues, including performance against targets set out in the Memorandum of Understanding.

  The UK Government remains committed to reducing poverty in Rwanda and to the targets set out in the Government of Rwanda's Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS). The MoU sets out Rwanda's commitment to this and reaffirms the UK Government's long-term commitment to poverty reduction in Rwanda.

  DFID has committed £42 million for poverty reduction in 2004–05 and £47 million in 2005–06. Two thirds of the money—equating approximately to all the salaries for all the teachers in Rwanda—is given direct to the Government of Rwanda in the form of Poverty Reduction Budget Support.

  The United States of America, through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), has committed $46 million (£25 million) to Rwanda through both bilateral $36 million/£19.5 million) and non-bilateral programmes ($10 million/£5.5 million). Over half of the US programme ($29 million/£16 million) is committed to Health and HIV/AIDS programmes, $13.5 million (£7 million) to agriculture, food security and economic growth and $3.5 million (£2 million) to democracy and governance programmes.

  Other bilateral donors active in Rwanda include Switzerland, Sweden, Holland, Germany, Belgium, France and Canada. Together they have committed an estimated £61.5 million to Rwanda in 2004. This makes the UK the largest bilateral donor in Rwanda. Multilateral donors, notably the European Union to which the UK provides an annual contribution, are also present in Rwanda. The EU has committed approximately £74.7 million to Rwanda in 2004.

  To ensure that aid given to Rwanda is used in the most effective way, all bilateral and multilateral donors are working to harmonise their approaches and develop complementary programmes.

  Sudan
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if his Department will(a) increase pledges to and (b) ensure more supplies are delivered and pre-positioned in Darfur, Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [178238]

  Hilary Benn
  During my visit to Darfur last week I announced a further allocation of £15 million for humanitarian response to the situation in Darfur. This takes the total DFID humanitarian response to the crisis to £34.5 million since September 2003. The UK is the
  805W
  second largest bilateral donor in Darfur. We are urging other donors to make significant contributions and will keep our own levels of funding under review.

  DFID is working closely with the UN and other operational agencies and donors to ensure that the delivery of assistance is increased as more areas become accessible and as operational capacity on the ground increases. This includes supporting the World Food Programme to pre-position foodstuffs in the areas likely to be cut off during the rainy season.

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

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations his Department has made(a) bilaterally to the Government of Sudan and (b) through the international community, with particular reference to the EU, to ensure resources ate made immediately available for the rapid deployment of the ceasefire monitoring mechanism in Darfur and if he will make a statement. [178239]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK has been heavily engaged in ensuring an effective deployment of the African Union (AU) Ceasefire Monitoring Mechanism.

  I have emphasised to the Government of Sudan on several occasions the importance of swift agreement to and full co-operation with the African Union Monitoring Mechanism. In particular, during the visit of the Sudanese Foreign Minister to London on 11 May, during a telephone conversation with the Sudanese Foreign Minister on 20 May and during my visit to Sudan on 6–8 June. In addition, the Joint DFID/FCO Sudan Unit is in almost daily contact with the Government of Sudan in London and Khartoum and have been reiterating these messages.

  Following agreement of the AU proposals on 28 May, the UK committed £2 million to the mission and one observer. EU member states last week approved an EC proposal to provide the AU mission with 12 million euros (c. £8 million) from the Africa Peace Facility, which is funded from the European Development Fund. This will cover over half of the estimated costs. DFID have urged other donors to support the AU mission. The EU and member states are also contributing six observers to be integrated with each of the six AU observer teams (including the observer for the UK), a representative on the political-level Joint Commission and the Deputy Chairman of the Ceasefire Commission.

  Effective deployment of the African Union Monitoring Mechanism will play a critical part in improving the security situation in Darfur. I met with the first group of monitors in E1 Fasher on 7 June. I refer the hon. Member for Banbury to the statement I made to the House on 9 June 2004, Official Report, column 275 on my return from Sudan.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if his Department will maintain pressure on the Government of Sudan to 806W
  permit only the voluntary return of displaced people and refugees in relation to Darfur; and if he will make a statement. [178269]

  Hilary Benn
  During my visit to Sudan I raised with the Government of Sudan, including the first vice-President, the urgent need for the Government of Sudan to rein in the Janjaweed and other militias, to condemn these acts of violence and to provide adequate protection for displaced people. The UK is fully involved in the situation in Darfur and will continue to press the Government of Sudan to take all steps to ensure the security of its citizens, including by ensuring that any return of internally displaced persons (IDP)s and refugees is voluntary and with adequate protection. I was told by the Sudanese Government that IDPs and refugees would not return unless there was adequate security.

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

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what guidelines are issued to magistrates on the consequences of a youth breaking an antisocial behaviour order. [178470]

  Mr. Leslie
  A sentencing guideline for a breach of an ASBO has been produced for use in the Adult court by the Magistrate's Court Sentencing Guidelines Working Party. However, due to the specific legislative and other considerations applicable when dealing with youths, these guidelines cannot be readily applied within the youth court.

  The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provided for the creation of the recently formed Sentencing Guidelines Council, and it will fall to them to determine in due course, whether Youth court guidelines should be provided. The Judicial Studies Board (JSB) is planning to undertake a review of its Youth Court Bench Book during this financial year and will consider whether information and guidance on the breach of an ASBO could be included.

  Statutory responsibility for the training of magistrates currently rests with the 42 independent Magistrates Courts' Committees (MCCs). The JSB has provided training materials to MCCs on ASBOs, which encourage through case studies, discussion of the issues arising in sentencing on the breach of orders, including those in the Youth court. In addition, in February 2004, the JSB advised MCCs that it expected every magistrate to receive a minimum of two hours face to face training on ASBOs by the end of this financial year.

  In court lay magistrates sit with their justices' clerk or a legal adviser. The justices' clerk has a statutory duty to provide advice to the magistrates on questions of law, practice and procedure. This will include advice on applying any case law and relevant Court of Appeal judgments when making decisions on sentence.

  Fixed-Term Parliaments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the Secretary of State has considered, as part of the Government's programme of constitutional reform, the introduction of fixed-term parliaments; and if he will make a statement. [178720]

  Mr. Leslie
  No.

  Judges (Ethnic Minorities)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) men and (b) women from ethnic minorities sit as judges in the High Court. [178686]

  Mr. Leslie
  There are at present no High Court judges who declare themselves as from minority ethnic communities.

  Opinion Polls
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what(a) regulations and (b) code of standards govern the opinion polling industry. [178184]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Data Protection Act 1998 applies to market research and opinion polling. Professionally conducted market research and opinion polling should be carried out in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Guidelines of the Market Research Society.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps the Department is taking to ensure standards of accuracy and integrity in opinion polling. [178185]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  These are matters for the industry's professional body, the Market Research Society, to address in the first instance.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans his Department has to undertake an investigation into the methods used by polling organisations to gather, use and present information. [178186]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has no such plans.

DEFENCE

  1958 Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on the retrieval and assessment of the radiation from badges worn by participants in the Technical Services Forward Group during the nuclear tests in August and September 1958; and if he will make a statement. [178576]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]The Ministry of Defence has received one representation on this issue in the last six months, which was a letter on 808W
  6 January 2004 from my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) on behalf of one of his constituents.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the work of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. [178146]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under the terms of the United Nations' Security Council Resolution 1510, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) continues to assist the Afghan Transitional Authority in maintaining security in Afghanistan, and the United Nations and other international civilian organizations engaged in humanitarian and reconstruction work. Work is in hand in NATO to expand the ISAF across Afghanistan.

  Alvis plc
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assurances General Dynamics has given regarding the continuance of(a) Alvis plc's UK-based and (b) Alvis Hagglund's development and production programmes and capabilities; [177780]

  (2) what light and medium armour capabilities are produced by General Dynamics Corporation and its subsidiaries; what discussions have been held with General Dynamics concerning Alvis plc's Future Rapid Effects System activities; and if he will make a statement on the defence implications of the Office of Fair Trading's investigation into the proposed takeover of Alvis plc by General Dynamics Corporation. [177892]

  Mr. Ingram
  General Dynamics Corporation (GDC) and its subsidiaries produce a full suite of light and medium armour capabilities. Since the GDC offer to acquire Alvis plc was announced there have been several high-level discussions between the Ministry of Defence and GDC. These discussions covered both Alvis plc and the Future Rapid Effects System programme. On 3 June 2004 the Alvis plc Board recommended to its shareholders their acceptance of an offer from BAE Systems to acquire the company. GDC subsequently announced on 4 June 2004 that it would not revise its offer. The GDC offer for Alvis plc formally lapsed on 7 June 2004.

  Army Medal Office
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to delay the closure of the Army Medal Office until the end of the 2006–07 financial year. [178994]

  Mr. Caplin
  No. I am convinced that the investment of effort now to modernise medals delivery through the formation of a Joint Medal Office linked to the new Joint Personnel Administration system, will be to the ultimate benefit of veterans, and serving personnel.

  Commonwealth War Graves
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) the Israeli

  809W
  Government and (b) the Palestinian authority regarding the protection of Commonwealth war graves. [178584]

  Mr. Caplin
  Neither my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, nor the Secretary of State for Defence has had discussions on this subject with the Israeli Government. However, the Consul-General in Jerusalem has raised the vandalism of the Commonwealth War Graves at Gaza War Cemetery on Sunday 9 May with the Palestinian authority, which has undertaken to investigate.

  The Commonwealth War Graves Commission views the recent vandalism at Gaza War Cemetery as an isolated incident. Officials at local level within the Israeli Government and the Palestinian authority have given the Commission assurances that there is continuing respect for their cemeteries among the local population.

  Defence Medical Services
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances service personnel who have had private medical treatment or diagnosis owing to delays in receiving such treatment and diagnosis from the Defence Medical Services will be refunded the cost of such treatment. [170006]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Medical Services are responsible for the provision of clinical care to military personnel. Secondary care for military personnel is usually provided through routine treatment within the national health service unless there are operational reasons to do otherwise. In such cases, accelerated access to diagnosis and treatment can be provided at NHS hospitals that host the Ministry of Defence Hospital Units. An initial decision on the most appropriate care pathway is made at the time of referral, and is reviewed once the diagnosis is confirmed. Occasionally, use is made of private healthcare providers to enable Service personnel to be returned to operational fitness quickly it' it is anticipated that treatment within the NHS would fail to meet an urgent operational requirement. However, no financial provision is made for reimbursing the cost of diagnosis and treatment if individuals choose to seek private medical care.

  Explosion Mitigation Technology
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the use of explosion mitigation technology in the fuel tanks of armoured fighting vehicles used by British forces. [177214]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the main, the armoured vehicles used by the British forces rely on the protection afforded to the fuel tanks by the vehicle's armour and the positioning of tanks themselves within the vehicle. Some of the newer armoured vehicles currently in service, however, have additional measures incorporated in their design, with the intention of reducing the risk of fire and explosion in the fuel tanks.

  In addition, since the acceptance and implementation of the current NATO Single Fuels Policy by the United Kingdom in 1991, all operational vehicles procured will run on diesel or kerosene type fuels which are inherently
  810W
  safer than gasoline. This in itself mitigates against the threat of fire, because of the reduction in the flammability of the fuel. For older vehicles, conversion programmes have been undertaken where this represents a cost-effective option for the remaining life of the fleet.

  FRES Programme
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strategic purpose is of the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) programme; if he will make a statement on the range of technologies required for FRES; how many of the technologies needed for the FRES programme will be UK-sourced; what importance he places on FRES being a British developed and manufactured capability; and what role(a) Alvis Hagglund and (b) Alvis plc are expected to have in the FRES programme. [177781]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Future Rapid Effects System will provide a family of network-capable armoured vehicles as part of a coherent, effective and highly deployable medium-weight force, able to operate across the full spectrum of conflict, but with a significantly improved rapid intervention capability to prevent escalation of conflict and more protracted military commitment. However, the overall utility of FRES is much broader than just rapid intervention, as the vehicles will fulfil a wide range of combat and combat support roles.

  There are a number of technologies that are under consideration, and early work will focus on maximising our understanding of their risks and maturity levels before we determine what is, and what is not, suitable for FRES.

  FRES provides excellent opportunities for the United Kingdom industry to engage in the programme in line with the Defence Industrial Policy. However, until we have a better understanding of the FRES capability, and the potential solutions for providing it, the industrial arrangements must remain flexible in order to avoid prejudicing future options.

  HMS Caroline
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in securing the retention of HMS Caroline in Belfast once decommissioned by the Royal Navy. [178548]

  Mr. Caplin
  After consideration by the Ministry of Defence, it has been decided to retain HMS Caroline for the foreseeable future as the RN Reserve Training Centre in Belfast. HMS Caroline will remain under the ownership of the Warship Support Agency who fund the maintenance of the ship.

  Iraq
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the operation of the concessionary postal service for forces personnel in Iraq. [178432]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to my Written Statement of 27 February 2004,Official Report, column 70WS, and subsequent answers of 5 March 2004, Official Report, column 1155W, to the hon.

  811W
  Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), 1 April 2004, Official Report, column 1605W, to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and 5 May 2004, Official Report, column 1527W, to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall).

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sites where it is known that cluster bombs were dropped by UK forces in Iraq have been cleared; how many sites await clearance; and if he will make a statement. [161586]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date, around 1.1 million individual items of unexploded ordnance have been cleared in the Multinational Division (South East) Area of Operations. This figure includes around 6,000 items of submunitions, though it is not possible to break down this figure into type of submunition or the county from which individual submunitions originated.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are being made governing the responsibility for prisoners currently detained by the occupation forces in Iraq when powers of sovereignty are returned to Iraq on 1 July 2004. [167376]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 8 June 2004,Official Report, columns 292–93W, to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell).

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British Service personnel have used stress postures as a technique of interrogation in Iraq. [174619]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: The use of stress positions is not a permitted interrogation technique and is therefore not permitted in Iraq.

  Overseas Dentists
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State, Department of Health hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), of 11 May 2004,Official Report, column 22WH, how many overseas dentists he expects to start working in the armed services; and if he will make a statement. [178565]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence employs two types of dentist—those who are part of the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, and Civilians employed as Civilian Dental Practitioners (CDPs) or as locums, who work within the Defence Dental Agency (DDA).

  In order to become a military dentist, individuals have to satisfy the nationality requirement to join the armed forces. This requires that applicants must be UK, Commonwealth or Irish Republic nationals. Therefore recruitment of Military dentists from outside of these areas does not take place.

  The DDA does however recruit some civilian and locum dentists from the European Economic Area (EEA) and other countries, in addition to those from the UK, Commonwealth and the Irish Republic.

  Prisons
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women held in British-run
  812W
  military and civilian prisons in Iraq have been charged with (i) criminal and (ii) military offences; and if he will make a statement. [177249]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of 10 June 2004 the United Kingdom were holding in Iraq 78 male internees no female internees and no detainees at the Divisional Temporary Detention Centre in Shiabah. Individuals are classified as internees if they pose or are judged likely to pose a threat to Coalition Forces. They are classified as detainees if they are suspected of a criminal act under Iraqi law. Detainees are immediately handed over to the Iraq Police Service.

  Procurement
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he takes account of the sustainability of the UK defence industrial base when making decisions on defence acquisitions for UK forces. [177389]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government's Defence Industrial Policy, published in October 2002, seeks to provide the armed forces with the equipment which they require at best value for money for the taxpayer while sustaining a healthy and globally competitive defence industry. The factors that we take into account when making acquisition decisions are set out in Tables 1 and 2 of the Policy and, taken together, enable the best value for money solution to be identified. These factors include consideration of the impact on long-term value for money and on industrial capabilities which it is desirable to retain in the United Kingdom industrial base not only for defence reasons but also owing to the high value which they bring to the industrial economy. Copies of the Policy, together with detailed implementation guidance are freely available, and are included on the Ministry of Defence's website (www.mod.uk).

  Sexual Offenders
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what measures he has taken to ensure that non-commissioned officers convicted of child pornography sex offences are debarred from further contact with young soldiers; and if he will make a statement on the particular circumstances of an NCO serving in the Royal Regiment of Wales; [175197]

  (2) what steps were taken to inform civilian authorities in (a) Kosovo and (b) Germany following the conviction in 2002 of a Royal Regiment of Wales non-commissioned officer for offences involving child pornography. [175198]

  Mr. Ingram
  All personnel convicted of child pornography offences will have details of the charges, and punishment, recorded on their career file and conduct sheet. Subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, this will be taken into consideration during the selection process, in order to assess an individual's suitability for any particular post.

  There is no record of a non-commissioned officer currently serving in, or attached to, the Royal Regiment of Wales being convicted, in 2002, of offences related to child pornography, though a junior NCO attached to RRW was convicted in 2004 as a result of an investigation started in 2002.
  813W
  No provision exists within the Sexual Offences Act requiring the armed forces to inform other jurisdictions that a sex offender is intending to visit their country; this is a matter for the civil police.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of defence-related ship building in the United Kingdom. [178588]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has embarked on the largest procurement programme of new ships for the Royal Navy in many years, including orders for six Type 45 destroyers, three ASTUTE Class submarines and four Landing Ships Dock (Auxiliary).

  Future plans include the purchase of two new aircraft carriers, further orders of Type 45 destroyers and Astute Class submarines, and the progressive replacement of existing RFA vessels.

  Looking further ahead, we expect to replace the capability provided by the Type 22 and 23 Frigates with the Future Surface Combatant.

  It remains the policy of this Government that all warships for the Royal Navy, or vessels designated warlike, will be built in the United Kingdom, although weapon, command and propulsion systems, may be procured from overseas, following open competition.

  All bidders for new procurements will, of course, have to demonstrate the capability and competitiveness to meet our needs, but this future programme should provide an excellent opportunity for the UK's shipbuilding industry.

  Thales (Racal Acquisition)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what undertakings were given to his Department by Thales when they acquired Racal. [177146]

  Mr. Ingram
  When Thomson CSF (now Thales) acquired Racal Electronics plc in July 2000, contractual undertakings addressing national security aspects were provided to the Ministry of Defence by Thomson CSF.

  Statutory undertakings were also provided to the Department of Trade and Industry as part of the regulatory clearance for the acquisition. These are in the public domain and provide assurance that the company will comply with the contractual undertakings provided to the MOD.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Support
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have benefited from the Small Businesses Loan Scheme in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in each of the last three years. [177130]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government do not operate a Small Business Loan Scheme.

  Carbon Emissions
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of changes in carbon emissions which would result if all gas fired power stations which have been approved, but are yet to enter service, replaced existing carbon emitting generators. [178323]

  Mr. Timms
  The answer depends on the assumptions made about the type of existing carbon emitting generation which the new gas-fired capacity would replace and the load factor for the new gas-fired plant. There is currently around 4,800MW of gas-fired capacity, comprising six large stations, approved but yet to enter service.

  If coal-fired plants are replaced then the carbon saving would amount to around 4 million tonnes per annum as coal emits more than twice the amount of carbon as gas per TWh of generation. If older gas-fired generation plants were replaced then the change in emissions would be around 0.3 million tonnes per annum, the change reflecting only the higher efficiency of new gas-fired generation compared with older gas generation technologies. A load factor of 70 per cent. is assumed for gas-fired generation.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of how much carbon would be emitted if all gas fired power stations which have been approved, but are yet to enter service, entered service. [178324]

  Mr. Timms
  There is currently around 4,800MW of gas-fired capacity comprising six large stations, approved but yet to enter service. The level of associated carbon emissions will depend on the operational load factor associated with this capacity. On the assumption of a 70 per cent. load factor, emissions from these stations would amount to around 3 million tonnes of carbon per annum. The net impact on UK emissions will depend on what type of capacity (conventional fossil fuel or nuclear generation) this new capacity is replacing.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the likely changes in carbon emissions if all renewable electricity generators which have been approved, but are yet to enter service, replaced carbon emitting generators. [R] [178325]

  Mr. Timms
  There is currently around 1700MW of renewable capacity approved but yet to enter service. This comprises 500MW of onshore wind and 1200MW of offshore wind as well as 20MW of hydro power. The change in carbon emissions associated with this level of new renewables capacity will depend on the assumption made about the type of carbon emitting generation which it replaces and the operational load factors associated with the renewables capacity.

  If new renewables capacity replaces gas-fired generation, which would otherwise have been built, then the reduction in emissions would amount to around 0.5 million tonnes of carbon per annum. If the new capacity is assumed to have replaced coal-fired generation then the change in emissions would amount to around 1.2 million tonnes of carbon per annum.

  815W
  These figures are based on the assumptions of a 30 per cent. load factor for onshore wind and 35 per cent. for offshore wind and hydro.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies her Department has undertaken to assess the(a) economic impact and (b) carbon savings of requiring energy suppliers to have a statutory requirement to include combined heat and power as part of their overall production; and if she will make a statement. [177692]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2003, the DTI and DEFRA commissioned Cambridge Econometrics to undertake a study of the prospects for CHP to 2010. This work included an analysis of the effects of a CHP obligation along the lines of the existing Renewables Obligation. The results of this study were published in November of that year and can be found at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/environment/energy_efficiency/chpreport.pdf

  DVDs/Videos
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 24 May 2004,Official Report, column 1442W, on DVDs/videos, if she will ask the Office of Fair Trading to investigate whether fair pricing competition exists between national supermarket chains and small independent retailers of DVDs and videos. [178670]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]It is for the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), as the UK's independent competition authority, to decide whether to investigate competition issues. Any information or evidence concerning market failure or anti-competitive practices should be submitted directly to the OFT.

  Management Earnings (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average gross weekly pay for(a) managers and (b) senior officials in (i) Merseyside and (ii) the UK was in 2003; and if she will make a statement. [177918]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 15 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the average gross weekly wage for (a) Managers and (b) Senior Officials in (i) Merseyside and (ii) the UK for 2003. (177918)

  Average earnings are estimated from the 2003 New Earnings Survey (NES) and are provided for full-time employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was unaffected by absence during the pay period, by their place of work. This is the standard definition used for NES tables. The NES does not collect data (on the self employed and people who do unpaid work. I attach a table showing the average gross weekly wage for Managers and Senior Officials in both Merseyside and the UK.

  The NES, carried out in April of each year, is the most comprehensive source of earnings information in the UK. It is a one per cent. sample of all employees who are members of pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) schemes, but because of its sampling frame, it
  816W
  has difficulty capturing data on people with very low pay. It is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff earning below the tax threshold.

  The New Earnings Survey publication criteria ensures that all estimates are undisclosive and of reliable quality. A number of estimates have been removed from the published tables for these reasons.

  Average gross weekly pay for (a) Managers and (b) Senior Officials in (i) Merseyside and (ii) the UK for 2003

  Weekly earnings (£)

  Managers

  732.2

  Senior Officials

  1,739.9

  Merseyside

  Managers

  585.6

  Senior Officials

  1—

  1Data are not shown due to the small sample size.

  Notes:

  1. The occupation groups are defined using Standard Occupational Coding 2000. Managers have been taken as SOC 2000 Major Group 1, Managers and Senior Officials. Senior Officials have been taken as SOC 2000 Minor Group 111 Corporate Managers and Senior Officials. Here is a link to SOC 2000: http://www. statistics. gov. uk/methods_quality/ns_sec/downloads/SOC2000_Vol1_V5.pdf

  2. The New Earnings Survey release criteria currently require that any estimate: (a) of a mean is based on a sample size of at least 30 and that the associated coefficient of variation does not exceed 5 per cent. (b) of a quantile such as a percentile, quartile or median, or of a percentage, is based on a sample size of at least 10 and that the sample size is either at least 225 or that the relative coefficient of variation is less than 20 per cent.

  3. Estimates are based on the workplace location.

  Source for earnings data:

  New Earnings survey, April 2003

  Electricity Generation/Supply
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what basis her Department includes(a) generators subject to transmission constraints and (b) inherently intermittent generators in aggregated totals of generation capacity when comparing levels of installed generation capacity against possible levels of electricity demand. [178351]

  Mr. Timms
  National Grid Transco (NGT) reports the level of installed generating capacity relative to forecast levels of electricity peak demand in its annual "Seven Year Statement" (SYS) and the associated quarterly Updates.

  NGT do not currently differentiate the capacity of intermittent generators directly connected to the system from other forms of installed capacity. The registered capacity of any transmission-constrained generator is adjusted to the limit of the constraint in question.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 13 January 2004,Official Report, column 696W, on the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), what information her Department can provide within reasonable cost that will not prejudice ECGD negotiations. [177722]
  817W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are able to provide a breakdown of all of ECGD's unrecovered claims on a market-by-market basis (see following table). This information is updated regularly on ECGD's website at www.ecgd.gov.uk. These figures do not include our assessment of what claims are or ate not recoverable. To disclose these figures would prejudice ECGD's attempts to recover claims outstanding.

  Country

  Unrecovered claims ((£)

  Algeria

  129,541,473.30

  Angola

  52,540,571.75

  Antigua and Barbuda

  2,745,763.44

  Argentina

  31,517,224.98

  Australia

  7,144,450.70

  Bahrain

  69,465.62

  Belgium

  18,688,061.48

  Benin

  1.00

  Bolivia

  0.00

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  895,641.37

  Brazil

  176,101,779.37

  Bulgaria

  0.01

  Burkina Faso

  0.00

  Cameroon

  24,387,259.69

  Canada

  17,085,467.64

  Central African Republic

  144,745.87

  Chad

  0.00

  Colombia

  1,024,981.33

  Congo

  58,027,462.04

  Costa Rica

  0.00

  Cote D'Ivoire

  21,029,634.18

  Croatia

  46,133,199.40

  Cuba

  52,146,568.31

  Cyprus

  454.00

  Dominica

  981,167.37

  Ecuador

  27,136,774.09

  Egypt

  134,034,814.42

  El Salvador

  0.00

  Ethiopia

  10,996,463.86

  France

  83,801.01

  Gabon

  74,718,999.71

  Germany

  0.00

  Ghana

  50,821,016.55

  Greece

  120,559.82

  Grenada

  957,608.78

  Guinea

  922,419.10

  Guyana

  0.01

  India

  1,742.06

  Indonesia

  772,775,807.24

  Iran (Islamic Republic of)

  28,766,647.48

  Iraq

  621,852,319.97

  Israel

  0.00

  Italy

  71,063.06

  Jamaica

  1,170,673.49

  Jordan

  216,315,339.29

  Kazakhstan

  5.97

  Kenya

  16,555,734.19

  Korea, Democratic People's Republic

  5,864,356.17

  Kuwait

  1,398,519.12

  Lebanon

  77.14

  Liberia

  7,875,586.13

  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

  8,972,335.50

  Macedonia

  2,382,683.45

  Madagascar

  9,930,882.07

  Malawi

  306,816.44

  Mali

  0.04

  Mauritania

  0.00

  Mexico

  1,291,657.72

  Morocco

  19,684,364.48

  Mozambique

  159,513.38

  Myanmar

  22,904,009.02

  Nicaragua

  367,532.50

  Niger

  3,370,318.92

  Nigeria

  1,650,458,746.72

  Pakistan

  6,517,406.84

  Paraguay

  5,939.89

  Peru

  56,027,018.47

  818W

  Country

  Unrecovered claims ((£)

  Philippines

  6,089,710.50

  Poland

  359,163,789.81

  Portugal

  1.00

  Russian Federation

  570,898,987.19

  Saudi Arabia

  1,305,765.53

  Senegal

  616,506.63

  Serbia Republic

  148,479,862.67

  Seychelles

  882,602.43

  Sierra Leone

  810,763.64

  Singapore

  5,326.27

  Somalia

  10,380,865.12

  Spain

  64,866.50

  Sri Lanka

  811.63

  Sudan

  89,460,418.44

  Switzerland

  23,412,038.16

  Syrian Arab Republic

  0.00

  Taiwan

  0.00

  Tanzania, United Republic of

  7,374.26

  Togo

  9,460,912.59

  Turkey

  1,632,772.29

  Turkmenistan

  0.00

  Uganda

  619.00

  United States

  3,207,078.66

  Vietnam

  5,528,838.01

  Yemen

  0.00

  Yugoslavia

  0.00

  Zaire

  24,652,248.37

  Zambia

  67,215,313.47

  Zimbabwe

  85,797,036.06

  Flexible Working
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the merits of allowing employment tribunals to test the business case for the refusal of a request for flexible working; and if she will make a statement. [178115]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The flexible working law was designed by the Work and Parents Taskforce to be light-touch and is based on employer best practice. In translating the Taskforce proposals into legislation, the Government accepted their recommendation on handling unresolved requests. As the law currently operates, the facts on which the business case is based can be contested in an employment tribunal, as long as the appeal stage has been exhausted.

  Since its introduction in April 2003, we have been constantly monitoring the impact of the law. We are committed to not making any changes to the laws for working parents until after their impact is reviewed in 2006. We continue to work with stakeholders and intermediaries, as well as engaging the views of both employers and parents directly to build up a strong evidence base for the review.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many requests for flexible working from(a) women and (b) men were for (i) shorter working hours and (ii) compressed working hours. [178116]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The DTI published results of the first flexible working employee survey in April 2004. The survey reported the types of flexible working requested by male and female employees since the introduction of the new employment rights in April 2003.
  819W

  Table A4—Types of flexible working requested (percentage)

  Male employees

  Female employees

  All employees

  Part-time

  31

  41

  38

  Flexitime

  30

  23

  25

  Reduced hours for a limited period

  1—

  12

  13

  Work from home on a regular basis

  17

  1—

  10

  Compressed working week

  1—

  1—

  8

  1 Sample size too small for a reliable estimate. Percentage of those employees surveyed who had requested flexible working.

  Notes:

  1. Respondents could give multiple responses.

  2. Respondents also stated other types of flexible working, but sample sizes were too small to report above.

  3. All employees who requested flexible working since April 2003. Total of 456 employee responses.

  Source:

  ONS Omnibus Survey, September to November 2003 and February 2004.

  In total an estimated 56,000 men and 294,000 women have requested shorter working hours, although the sample size was not large enough to include the number of men requesting reduced hours for a limited period, so this has not been included.

  The sample sizes were too small to reliably estimate the number of women or men requesting compressed working hours.

  Industrial Development Grants (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public funding from industrial development grants has been spent in Crosby. [177946]

  Jacqui Smith
  There have been two offers made to businesses in Crosby since 1997 worth £154,401.

  Minerals
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the total gross value added to the economy from the mining and quarrying of minerals in each year between 1994 and 2004. [178661]

  Jacqui Smith
  The gross value added of mining and quarrying of minerals and of the whole economy from 1994 to 2002 (latest available) are:

  Gross value added at basic prices (£ billion)

  Mining and quarrying of minerals

  Whole economy

  Minerals share of whole economy (percentage)

  1994

  1.2

  608.7

  0.2

  1995

  1.4

  639.9

  0.2

  1996

  1.6

  680.2

  0.2

  1997

  1.7

  720.4

  0.2

  1998

  1.6

  762.4

  0.2

  1999

  1.7

  797.8

  0.2

  2000

  1.8

  839.2

  0.2

  2001

  1.9

  880.9

  0.2

  2002

  2.3

  925.6

  0.2

  820W
  Note:

  Minerals comprise subsection CB of the Standard Industrial Classification—Mining and Quarrying Except Energy Producing Materials.

  Sources:

  1. Office for National Statistics.

  2. UK National Accounts (the Blue Book), 2003 edition, table 2.3.

  National Minimum Wage (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people aged(a) between 18 and 21 and (b) over 21 years of age are receiving the national minimum wage in Scotland, broken down by parliamentary constituency or nearest available area. [176733]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates for individual parliamentary constituencies.

  Based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that between 100,000 and 120,000 people in Scotland were expected to have benefited from the October 2003 up-rating of the national minimum wage. However, it is not possible to provide estimates specifically for the development rate because of small sample size.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new firms have been established in the UK during each of the last five years. [178665]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on 20 May 2004,Official Report, column 1118W.

  Nuclear Material/Power
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the occasions since 1974 when nuclear material has been found to be unaccounted for, broken down by(a) the material and (b) the location where it had been held. [179055]

  Mr. Timms
  In accordance with international practice, the inventory difference that occurs when the result of a physical inventory of nuclear material is compared with the book inventory is referred to as MUF (material unaccounted for'. The difference may be negative (an apparent loss) or positive (an apparent gain). MUF is a recognised feature of accounting for nuclear material and is caused primarily by the uncertainties inherent in the techniques used to measure nuclear material.

  MUF figures at UKAEA, BNFL and Urenco sites are published annually by the industry. Figures published since 1973—74 will be placed in the Libraries of the House. There is no evidence to suggest that there have been any real losses or gains of nuclear material.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the employment rights and benefits of constables in the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary will change under the provisions of the Energy Bill. [178317]
  821W
  Mr. Timms
  The Energy Bill requires that the Secretary of State make a nuclear transfer scheme providing for the transfer to the Civil Nuclear Police Authority those employees of the UKAEA who are members of the UKAEA Constabulary. The Bill also provides for members of the UKAEA Constabulary to hold office as members of the new Civil Nuclear Constabulary.

  There will be no practical effect on the employment rights and benefits of members of the UKAEA Constabulary as a result of this transfer. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE) will apply, and current and future members of the Constabulary will continue to be eligible for membership of the UKAEA pension scheme.

  The Bill prohibits members of the Constabulary from joining trade unions (subject to the same limited exceptions that apply to other police officers). This puts current informal arrangements on a statutory footing. It also brings the Constabulary into line with long established arrangements for other police forces. The restriction on trade union membership will not extend to civilian employees of the Police Authority.

  The Bill also provides for statutory recognition of a Civil Nuclear Police Federation, and requires the Civil Nuclear Police Authority to align any provisions it makes about conditions of service of members of the new Constabulary with the provision made on such matters by police regulations (unless differences are justified due to the circumstances and structure of the Constabulary). Again this provides a statutory basis for current informal arrangements.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the proposed decommissioning dates are of each nuclear power station in the UK; and what level of carbon emissions would result if each was replaced by combined cycle gas turbine generation. [R]178321]

  Mr. Timms
  The proposed closure dates of each nuclear power station in the UK are as follows:

  Name of power plant

  Current proposed closure date

  Chapelcross

  2005

  Dungeness A

  2006

  Sizewell A

  2006

  Oldbury

  2008

  Dungeness B

  2008

  Wylfa

  2010

  Hinkley Point B

  2011

  Hunterston B

  2011

  Hartlepool

  2014

  Heysham 1

  2014

  Heysham 2

  2023

  Torness

  2023

  Sizewell B

  2035

  Output from nuclear generation in 2003 amounted to 82TWh. If this output was replaced by combined cycle gas turbine generation then the increase in carbon emissions would be around eight million tonnes of carbon per annum.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she 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. [178141]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]The Office of Fair Trading is an independent body, and Ministers have no role to play in relation to its decisions about the conduct of market studies.

  Parental Leave
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of eligible(a) men, (b) women and (c) parents have taken parental leave in each year since its introduction. [175407]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]Take-up of parental leave is not recorded by the DTI. However, a DWP report ("Maternity and Paternity Rights in Britain 2002: Survey of Parents") suggests that around 8 per cent. of eligible female employees whose employers provided parental leave used the provision. The same report also states around 10 per cent. of eligible male employees whose employers provided parental leave used the provision.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) evidence she has collated and (b) representations she has received regarding cartels in petrol prices, with particular reference to West Wales. [177601]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]I have received no such evidence or representations. Under the Competition Act 1998 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is responsible for anti-cartel enforcement. Where the OFT has reasonable grounds to suspect a cartel in a particular sector of the economy, it will investigate the matter. Evidence of anti-competitive behaviour should therefore be passed to the OFT. The OFT's powers of investigation were strengthened by the Enterprise Act 2002, which also introduced a criminal penalty for cartel activity.

  Regional Development Agency Funding
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which organisations have received funds from each of the regional development agencies, for each year since 1999; and how much funding was received in each case. [178858]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]The RDA's fund an enormous number of organisations including businesses, local authorities, voluntary groups and partnerships. Such information could be obtained and made available only at a disproportionate cost.

  Further information on RDA expenditure is available from their annual reports and accounts.

  Rochdale Constituency
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale have benefited from a reduction of the working week to 48 hours; and what percentage of those are(a) women and (b) of Asian origin. [178516]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations provide workers with the right to refuse to work more than 48 hours on average, if they do not want to. Numbers for Rochdale are not available, however it has been estimated that around 300,000 workers resident in the North West stood to benefit from the introduction of the weekly working time limits in 1998.(a) Around 30,000 (10 per cent.) of the workers in the North West who stood to benefit from the introduction of the weekly working time limits in 1998 were female.
  (b) The number of workers in the North West who stood to benefit from the introduction of the weekly working time limits in 1998 of Asian origin was too small to provide a reliable estimate.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the benefits to the residents of the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale of the new rights for nightshift workers. [178517]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations came into force on 1 October 1998. The regulations limit working time to 48 hours per week averaged over a 17-week reference period. For night workers the limit is eight hours per day on average, including overtime where it is part of a night worker's normal hours of work. There is no opt-out from the night working time limit.

  Night workers are entitled to 11 hours rest between working days, one day's rest per week, and a 20-minute in work rest break if the working period is longer than six hours.

  All night workers should be offered a free health assessment before they start working nights and thereafter at regular intervals for as long as they are working nights. The health assessments should take account of the nature of the work and the restrictions on a worker's working time under the regulations. Workers who suffer from problems as a result of working at night, should as far as practicable be offered alternative day work.

  All workers are entitled to four weeks paid annual leave. There is no specific data available for night shift workers in Rochdale.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government have taken to help small businesses in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale since 1997. [178562]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Business Link Operator for North Manchester has provided assistance to 1,795 enterprises in the constituency of Rochdale since 2001. The Small Business Service was set up as an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry in April 2000. Contracts were exchanged with a national network of 45 Business Link Operators (seven in the North West) to provide Business Support to small and medium sized 824W
  enterprises from April 2001. Before this date Government Support to businesses was provided through Training and Enterprise Councils and the Small Business Service does not have access to this data.

  The type of assistance provided to the 1,795 companies include Business Finance, Environmental, E-services, High Growth, International trade, Innovation and Technology, Micro Support, Workforce Development and other Account Management assistance.

  Under the Enterprise Grant scheme (EGS), which has now come to a close (April 2004), 27 companies have received offers of grant with a total value of £994,500 since 1997.

  Under the Research and Development grant scheme (R&D), six companies have received offers of grant with a total value of £325,776.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new businesses have started up in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale since 1997 and what percentage are run by(a) women and (b) people of Asian origin. [178563]

  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 400 in Rochdale local authority (for which Rochdale is a constituency), in the last quarter of 2003. Data for local authorities are not available for before 2003.

  The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start ups in England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before.

  DTI figures based solely on VAT registrations for Rochdale local authority (for which Rochdale is a constituency) are shown as follows for the period 1997 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in autumn 2004.

  VAT registrations per year-Rochdale

  Number

  1997

  480

  1998

  455

  1999

  440

  2000

  430

  2001

  455

  2002

  465

  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 Library 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.

  The numbers of businesses starting in Rochdale that are run by women, or people of Asian origin, are not available.
  825W
  The Small Business Service Omnibus Survey from autumn 2002 estimates that the proportion of businesses in England with one to 249 employees, with a majority of women in control of the business, is 13 per cent.; and the proportion of businesses in England with one to 249 employees, with a majority of people of Asian origin (Bangladeshi, Indian or Pakistani) in control of the business, is 3 per cent.

  Utility Bills (Direct Debit)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what protection is available for people against utility company levies that are added to their bills because they choose not to pay by direct debit. [178668]

  Mr. Timms
  The protection available to utility customers varies according to the industry concerned, each of which is subject to specific regulation. In respect of gas, electricity and telephone, levies are not applied to customers who choose to pay by standard credit,826W
  although direct debit customers ordinarily receive a discount because of the lower costs of administering their accounts. Gas and electricity prepayment meter customers will ordinarily pay a higher tariff than other customers because of the costs of the meters and the infrastructure that supports them, but some suppliers do not maintain differentials between their standard credit and prepayment tariffs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for matters concerning the water industry.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the practice of utility companies in imposing different levels of charges upon customers who pay for their services by direct debit and those who do not. [177659]

  Mr. Timms
  Direct debit is the most cost-efficient payment method for companies because, among other things, it guarantees payment and reduces invoicing costs. Utility companies therefore customarily offer a discount on their standard tariff for those paying by direct debit.

TREASURY

  Carers
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many carers of working age are(a) in full-time employment, (b) employed part-time and (c) not in paid work. [178198]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Helen Jones, dated 15 June 2004:

  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many carers of working age are a) in full-time employment, b) employed part-time and c) not in paid work. (178198)

  Information on economic activity of people in households providing unpaid care is available in table S026 in the 2001 Census National Report for England and Wales. This volume is available in the House of Commons Library and also on the National Statistics website through http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/cn_87.asp. Figures derived from this table are shown in Table 1 below.

  Census information on economic activity was coded for all people aged 16–74, rather than the usual 'working age' definition covering all males aged 16–64 and all females aged 16–59. Table S026 follows the convention of presenting results for this wider population.

  Table 1: Economic activity and provision of unpaid care All people aged 16–74 in households, 2001 England and Wales

  All people

  Providers of unpaid care

  All people

  37,049,262

  4,776,934

  Full-time employment1

  17,535,321

  1,852,762

  Part-time employment1

  5,143,701

  847,002

  Not in paid employment1

  13,462,160

  2,029,437

  Economically active full-time students

  908,080

  47,733

  1 Excluding economically active full-time students.

  Source: S026, Census 2001 National report for England and Wales

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer that would result if the unpaid care provided for older or disabled people by their relatives had to be paid for from public funds; arid if he will make a statement. [178118]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have made no estimate of the cost to the Exchequer that would result if the unpaid care provided for older or disabled people by their relatives had to be paid from public funds. The Royal Commission on Long Term Care included an assessment of the contribution made by carers. In response to the Commission's recommendations to increasingly offer flexible support services for carers, the Government introduced a specific carers grant that will provide over £600 million for carers by 2006.

  Unemployment (London)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in London were unemployed in each year since 1997 according to the(a) claimant count and (b) survey definition; and what proportion this was of total unemployment in the UK on each definition. [177901]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 15 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about measures of unemployment. (177901)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions.

  Table 1 overleaf gives estimates of the number of unemployed people in London as measured by the LFS and expresses them as a percentage of the United Kingdom totals for the 12 month periods ending February in 1997, and each year from 2000 to 2003. Comparable information is not available for 1998 and 1999. As with any statistical sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (ISA). Table 2 overleaf gives the annual average numbers of JSA claimants for the London region, also expressing them as a percentage of the United Kingdom totals, for each year from 1997 to 2003.

  Table 1: Estimated number of unemployment people London, 12 months ending February in 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003

  Estimate

  As percentage of UK total

  1997

  380,000

  17.2

  2000

  258,000

  15.3

  2001

  245,000

  16.1

  2002

  240,000

  16.5

  2003

  254,000

  17.0

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Table 2: Number of claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance (annual averages) London, 1997–2003

  Number

  As percentage of UK total

  1997

  269,717

  17.0

  1998

  225,367

  16.7

  1999

  203,133

  16.3

  2000

  174,458

  16.0

  2001

  154,917

  16.0

  2002

  166,000

  17.5

  2003

  170,692

  18.3

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus Administrative system

  Job Creation (Stoke-on-Trent North)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new jobs have been created in Stoke-on-Trent, North in each year since 1997. [177632]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Ms Joan Walley, dated 15 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about jobs created in Stoke-on-Trent.

  While statistics of new jobs created art not available explicitly, statistics from surveys enable comparisons to be made of net changes, in numbers of jobs, from year to year.

  The following table, from the Annual Business Inquiry (a survey of businesses), shows the informat on requested, relating to jobs located in Stoke-on-Trent North, for each year from 1997 to 2002, the latest year available. The fall in the overall number of jobs almost all occurred in the manufacturing sector, and over the period 1997 to 2002 as a whole, there were increases in jobs in Stoke-on-Trent North in the sectors relating to: distribution, hotels and restaurants, transport and communication, and public administration, education and health.

  The Labour Force Survey (a survey of households) shows a that the number of people of working age resident in the Stoke-on-Trent North Constituency who were is employment fell from 32,800 to 31,100 between the two 12 month periods ending respectively in February 1997 and February 2003, the latest period for which such information is available. However, the working age employment rate rose from 65.2% to 67.1%.

  Total number of employees1 with workplace in Stoke-on-Trent North Parliamentary Constituency: 1997 and 2002

  Total

  Number of employees

  Change on previous year2

  1997

  27,800

  -

  1998

  29,400

  1,600

  1999

  25,200

  -4,200

  2000

  24,500

  -700

  2001

  23,900

  -700

  2002

  22,800

  -1,000

  1Employee jobs only, not self-employed jobs

  2 The change figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred separately from rounded levels for individual years

  Source:

  1997; Annual Employment Survey, rescaled 2002; Annual Business Inquiry (ABI)

  Rochdale Constituency
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [178543]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mrs. Fitzsimons, dated 15 June 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about job vacancies in Rochdale. I am replying in his absence (178543)

  According to Jobcentre Plus administrative records, the number of unfilled vacancies in the Rochdale travel-to-work area was 800 on average during 1997. This represents only a proportion of all the vacancies available, as not all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.
  830W
  Figures are not available for Rochdale alone because the vacancies are allocated to local Jobcentres, not according to constituency boundaries, and because of the practice of notifying some vacancies centrally with one Jobcentre taking vacancies for others in the same district.

  Jobcentre vacancy statistics were withdrawn from National Statistics in September 2001 as a result of distortions to the data, which occurred following the introduction of new administrative procedures by Jobcentre Plus. Comparable figures for vacancies in 2003 are therefore unavailable.

  Results from the ONS Vacancy Survey were released as National Statistics from July 2003, but are not available for local areas.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale have received child tax credit; and what percentage were of Asian origin. [178546]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the total number of such families, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on 15 March 2004,Official Report, column 98W. Details of the ethnic groups of tax credits claimants are not currently available.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale have benefited from the 100 per cent. tax exemption for the purchase of computer and internet equipment; and what percentage of those businesses was owned or run by(a) people of Asian origin and (b) women. [178547]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We regret that the information is not available to estimate the number of businesses in a given constituency which have benefited from the 100 per cent. first year capital allowances for the purchase of information and communication equipment. Neither is any breakdown available from tax records on business ownership by ethnic group or gender.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual total public sector expenditure in Rochdale was in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2003–04. [178552]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury annually publishes analyses of public expenditure outturn data by country and region as National Statistics, in chapter 8 of the command paper 'Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses'. The latest edition was published in April 2004 as Cm 6201—Public Expenditure Statistical analyses 2004'.

  The ONS have also published a one-off set of experimental statistics of sub regional government accounts for 1998. The link to the article is: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/ theme_other/Regional_Government_Accounts.pdf

  However no such information is available for Rochdale in either of these sources, as it is neither published nor collected to this degree of detail.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the(a) change and (b) percentage change was in full-time permanent jobs in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale from 1997 to 31 December 2003; [178554]
  831W
  (2) how many new jobs have been created in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale since 1997; [178556]

  (3) how many people were employed in manufacturing-related jobs in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale (a) on the latest date for which figures are available and (b) in 1997. [178557]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons, dated 15 June 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about jobs created in Rochdale. (178554, 178556 and 178557)

  While statistics of new jobs created are not available explicitly, statistics from surveys enable comparisons to be made of net changes, in numbers of jobs, from year to year.

  The attached table shows the information requested, relating to jobs in Rochdale, for 1997 and the latest year available, 2002.

  Number of full-time employees and total number of employees1 with workplace in Rochdale parliamentary constituency: 1997 and 2002

  Number, per cent

  Manufacturing

  Full-Time

  Total

  Number of employees

  1997

  8,700

  24,700

  36,000

  2002

  7,200

  27,500

  39,400

  Change from 1997 to 20022

  Absolute

  -

  2,900

  3,400

  Percentage

  -

  10.4

  8.7

  1 Employee jobs only, not self-employed jobs.

  2 The 1997 to 2002 change has been rounded to the nearest hundred separately from rounded levels for 1997 and 2002.

  Source:

  1997; Annual Employment Survey, rescaled 2002; Annual Business Inquiry (ABI).

  Advisers/Consultants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [172437]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Inland Revenue, HM Customs and Excise, Office for National Statistics, Office of Government Commerce, National Savings and Investment, Royal Mint, Valuation Office, Debt Management Office and Government Actuary's Department's spend on external consultants in the last three years is as follows (using the OGC's definition of consultancy):

  £million

  2001–02

  173

  2002–03

  78

  12001–02 excludes data for Inland Revenue. The data has been archived and would only be available at disproportionate cost.

  Reliable data for 2003–04 is not yet available. Figures relate to resource expenditure.

  Correspondence
  Sir Gerald Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter to him dated 27 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Patrick McKenna. [178951]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I replied to the right hon. Member on 9 June.

  Departmental Savings
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total saving to his three departments has been in each of the years to April(a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004 arising from the STEPS agreement. [178604]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Over the 20-year life of the STEPS contract, when compared with the Public Sector Comparator, the Departments expect to save £344 million (in net present values), with an estimated first year saving of some £27 million. In addition further benefits and savings will accrue over the life of the contract, for example through the transfer of risk and payment by the departments of a reduced facilities price as an offset against the deferred capital payment at the outset of the contract. Because all of these savings and benefits are taken over the 20 year life of the contract it is not possible to quanify annual savings.

  Departmental Surveys
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what surveys of public perceptions of(a) his Department and of its areas of responsibility, (b) Customs and Excise and (c) the Inland Revenue 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. [176944]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  HM Treasury

  No surveys of public perception of HM Treasury have been conducted during the past 12 months.

  HM Customs and Excise

  HM Customs and Excise commissioned a programme of 'Business Needs' surveys at the end of 2003. The cost of these surveys was £79,959 (including VAT).

  An overall measure of customer satisfaction, obtained by combining results from the separate surveys, is used to monitor performance against the customer satisfaction element of the Department's current Public Service Agreement (PSA) Target 4.

  Reports on these surveys will, following completion, be published on the Customs and Excise website and hard copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  No other surveys of this type were conducted during the past 12 months.
  833W
  Inland Revenue

  The Customer Service Performance Indicator (CSPI) is used as a performance indicator score for the Revenue's Public Service Agreement (PSA) Target 5. Information about the nature of the CSPI survey and the overall score produced by the 2003 survey have been published in the Inland Revenue's Spring Departmental Report (May 2004 (Cm 6225) Page 23). A research summary of the findings for the customer groups covered is under preparation and will be included in the Inland Revenue's publication schedule copies of which will be placed in the House of Commons Library. The cost of the 2003–4 CSPI survey was £292,810 (including VAT).

  The Brand Tracking study tracks customer perception of the Inland Revenue over time.

  A research report summarising the findings for future waves of Brand Tracking will be produced and will be included in the Inland Revenue's publication schedule copies of which will be placed in the House of Commons Library. The total cost of the two waves of Brand Tracking Research was £115,020.80 (including VAT).

  EU Savings Directive
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue change to the Treasury arising from the implementation of the EU Savings Directive. [178130]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Regulatory Impact Assessment, published on 16 December 2003, which considers the costs and benefits of implementation of the EU Savings Directive. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment were placed in the Library of the House. It is also available on the Inland Revenue website http://www.ir.gov.uk/ria/eusd- ria.pdf.

  Financial Regulation
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department maintains a record of the annual percentage which financial institutions add to their with profits endowments, mortgage annuities and pension financial vehicles for their investors; whether any financial regulatory body keeps such a record; if he will require such a record to be made available in the public domain; what steps he is taking to(a) encourage competition between such financial institutions and the financial vehicles they promote and (b) enable investors to make an informed choice; and if he will make a statement. [178400]

  Ruth Kelly
  With-profits bonus decisions are publicly available through a variety of sources including statements to policyholders, annual reports and accounts, regulatory returns made to the Financial Services Authority and reports in both the general and the specialist financial press. There are no plans to compile and make available a comprehensive record. These are medium and long-term r olicies for which one year's annual bonus percentage provides only part of the information relevant to understanding the policy.
  834W
  The Financial Services Authority tells me that it regards improving transparency for existing and potential policyholders and treating customers fairly as the cornerstones of the changes that are being introduced for with-profits. Enabling consumers and those who advise consumers on their choice of investment to make rational choices on the basis of clearer and more transparent information will encourage healthy competition within the industry.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve investment competition by reducing penalties upon investors who wish to opt out of very low paying annual percentage additions to with profits endowments, mortgage annuities and pension financial vehicles; if he will instruct the Financial Services Authority to bring forward proposals to ensure that investors are not effectively locked in to uncompetitive financial vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [178401]

  Ruth Kelly
  The value of with-profits funds depends on the interaction between annual bonuses over the lifetime of the policy and the level of terminal bonus. Surrender values sometimes incorporate market value reductions where the nominal value of a policyholders funds is in excess of the value of the underlying assets and the terms of the insurance contract allow one to be imposed. It is important that the amounts paid to departing policyholders are fair both to those who leave the fund and to those who wish to remain invested for the longer term.

  The Financial Services Authority has already made a number of proposals relating to closed with-profits funds including better provision of information to policyholders explaining the circumstances of closure, setting out the options available to policyholders and better planning for the run-off of the fund.

  Imported Electricity
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons electricity imported into the United Kingdom via interconnectors is not subject to the Climate Change Levy. [178352]

  John Healey
  Climate change levy is a single-stage tax which becomes due when a utility supplies a consumer with electricity, whether produced in the UK or imported via an interconnector.

  International Development
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 27 May 2004,Official Report, column 1725W, on international development, if he will define what constitutes the usual representations. [178244]

  John Healey
  The Government have received many representations from Members, private individuals and other bodies such as NGOs on the subject of the 0.7 per cent. target for official development assistance. These include letters, e-mails and postcards.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to the answer of 27 May 2004,Official Report, column 1728W, on tax credits, where the reference to (a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit appears in the document sent to all honourable Members; [178844]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 27 May 2004, Official Report, column 1728W, on tax credits, whether (a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit are subject to the right to reside test. [178845]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to page 3 of the briefing sent to all Members of Parliament on 10 May 2004 by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Browne).

  Professional Football Clubs
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many professional football clubs have gone into receivership or administration since 1997; and what the average percentage is of the money they owed to the Government that(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Customs and Excise has agreed the clubs should repay. [178177]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Individual businesses are monitored by both revenue departments when they fall into arrears. However, information on the debts of particular groups according to the nature of their business is not held centrally in both departments. The information requested is therefore not readily available.

  STEPS Agreement
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much in total has been paid to external commercial, legal and financial advisers in respect of the STEPS agreement. [178102]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The STEPS agreement can be split into two distinct activities—the STEPS Project prior to contract go live in April 2001 and STEPS Contract Management since then. The costs given as follows for external commercial, legal and financial advice in respect of the STEPS agreement reflect this:

  £

  STEPS

  Cost

  Project

  8,545,992

  Contract 1 April to 4 April

  4,838,910

  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was paid by the Department to Mapeley STEPS Contractor Limited in each year to April(a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004. [178131]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Payments to Mapeley STEPS Contractor Limited for the Chancellors Departments are:

  To April

  £

  2002

  301,945,016.19

  2003

  309,546,889.08

  2004

  309,264,264.67

  Taxation (Married People)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost to the Exchequer of allowing married people to transfer their unused income tax allowance to a spouse with a taxable income in respect of families where the child is(a) under one year old, (b) one, (c) two, (d) three, (e) four and (f) five years old. [178857]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost to the exchequer through lower income tax of allowing married persons with children to transfer their full personal allowance to their spouse if he or she has a higher gross income for the options are listed as follows.

  Cost in 2004–05 per annum

  Option

  Amount(£ million)

  (a) married and with at least one child aged less than one year

  320

  (b) married and with at least one child aged one year

  340

  (c) married and with at least one child aged two years

  360

  (d) married and with at least one child aged three years

  350

  (e) married and with at least one child aged four years

  370

  (f) married and with at least one child aged five years

  340

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to the nearest £10 million. They exclude any estimate of behavioural response to the tax change.

  2. Age of child at last birthday.

  The change in revenue for other taxes can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Trade (Endangered Species)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many articles were seized by HM Customs under the Convention for the International Trade in Endangered Species in each year since 1997–98. [178758]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise reported in their Departmental Annual Reports for 1997–98 and 1998–99 details of Cites seizures for those years. Detailed information for the period April 1999 to December 2000 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Customs' Spring Departmental Report 2004 (Cm 6224) contains details of the numbers of Cites seizures for the nine months from 1 April 2003 to 31 December 2003, and the tables show details of seizures for the calendar years 2001–03.

  Seizures may be recorded by weight or number and seizures of items such as traditional Chinese medicines may be recorded either according to the individual count of capsules or according to the quantity of containers.
  837W

  2001

  Number of seizures

  Number of items seized

  Weight of items seized (kg)

  Live animals and birds

  49

  5,196

  Parts and derivatives of endangered species

  204

  15,908

  19

  711,071

  Ivory

  40

  347

  4

  476,850

  Plants

  28

  3,923

  1

  4,800

  Other CITES listed species

  45

  1,489

  20

  29,376

  Preparations of oriental medicines that include parts or derivatives of endangered species

  50

  37,205

  2002

  Number of seizures

  Number of items seized

  Weight of items seized (kg)

  Live animals and birds

  114

  8,685

  Parts and derivatives of endangered species

  238

  9,672,827

  4

  227,600

  Ivory

  29

  156

  Plants

  13

  758

  Other CITES listed species

  51

  6,664,307

  30

  107,675

  Preparations of oriental medicines that include parts or derivatives of endangered species

  60

  5,597,596

  2003

  Number of seizures

  Number of items seized

  Weight of items seized (kg)

  Live animals and birds

  99

  2,925

  Parts and derivatives of endangered species

  144

  2,143

  Ivory

  33

  145

  Plants

  15

  2,044

  Other CITES listed species

  53

  18,972

  29

  73.5

  Preparations of oriental medicines that include parts or derivatives of endangered species

  20

  5,042,728

  18

  469.3

  Travel Expenses Claims
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many self-employed individuals who work as temporary workers under a terms of engagement for services arrangement have appealed against Inland Revenue decisions not to grant in full their claims for travel expenses. [178759]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not keep central records of disallowed travel expenses claimed by the self-employed or of appeals against refused claims.

  The general rule for self-employed working under a contract for services is that travel expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of a trade are tax deductible.

  UK Tax Burden
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much extra tax revenue would be generated if the UK tax burden was at the EU average; and if he will make a statement. [178471]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest available figures on total tax revenues and social security contributions across the EU are published in "OECD Revenue Statistics 1965–2002", October 2003 edition: p.18—Table A; p.109—Table 38; and p.111—Table 41. A copy of this publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Workless Households
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of children were living in households with no-one in work in each year since 1992. [177903]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 15 June 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about children in workless households. (177903)

  The attached table gives the estimates of the number and the percentage of children who were living in workless households for the three months ending May of each year from 1992 to 2003.

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

  Children1 living in workless households2—United Kingdom, three months ending May each year from 1992 to 2003

  Thousands, per cent Children1 living in workless households2

  Year

  Number ( thousands)

  Percent3

  1992

  2,219

  18.8

  1993

  2,288

  19.2

  1994

  2,398

  20.0

  1995

  2,339

  19.4

  1996

  2,344

  19.4

  1997

  2,163

  17.9

  1998

  2,156

  17.9

  839W

  Children1 living in workless households2—United Kingdom, three months ending May each year from 1992 to 2003

  Thousands, per cent Children1 living in workless households2

  Year

  Number (thousands)

  Percent3

  1999

  2,086

  17.3

  2000

  1,896

  15.7

  2001

  1,830

  15.3

  2002

  1,889

  15.9

  2003

  1.796

  15.2

  1 Children under 16 years.

  2 A workless household is a household that includes at least one person of working age, and in which no one aged 16 or over is in employment.

  3 Children in workless households as a percentage of children in all working age households.

  Note:

  These LFS estimates have not been adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census results.

  Source:

  ONS—Labour Force Survey

  Unemployment (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the levels of long-term(a) adult and (b) youth unemployment in Coventry over the last seven years. [178143]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 15 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about unemployment. (178143)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Coventry South Constituency.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (ISA) for local areas including parliamentary constituencies.

  The table below gives total JSA claimants claiming for over 12 months and those aged 18 to 24 years old claiming for over 12 months for the Coventry South constituency. The figures are annual averages for each year since 1997. The data are not seasonally adjusted.

  JSA claimants for over 12 months in the Coventry, South constituency annual averages (computerised claims only), 1997–2003

  All ages

  18 to 24 years

  1997

  1,033

  154

  1998

  772

  90

  1999

  649

  19

  2000

  450

  10

  2001

  357

  11

  2002

  319

  12

  2003

  306

  11

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Asbestos
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the 840W
  tonnage of materials containing white asbestos in use by the farming industry; and what the total costs of disposal would be at current prices. [176644]

  Jane Kennedy
  Asbestos is present on a large proportion of farms in the form of asbestos cement sheeting. Much, though not all, of this material contains white asbestos. There is no requirement under the new duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises regulation to remove or dispose of asbestos-containing material if it is in good condition. HSE advice is that in this case it is safer to leave it in place and manage it.

  The Regulatory Impact Assessment for the new regulation estimated the total cost of compliance for agricultural buildings at a present value of £180 million over the 50 years, 2000–50. There are approximately 163,540 agricultural premises in Great Britain. The cost of disposal was not estimated separately.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when farmers will be expected to be fully compliant with the provisions of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. [176650]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 came into force in November 2002 with the exception of Regulation 4: the Duty to Manage Asbestos in Non-Domestic Premises, which came into force on 21 May this year.

  Now that the new duty is in force, HSE expects duty-holders to have adopted a precautionary approach to prevent accidental exposure and to deal with emergency situations. They also expect to see a compliance strategy in place, which should set out how and when the specific steps required in the legislation will be complied with.

  Assuming these steps have been taken, HSE inspectors do not necessarily require farmers or any group to be fully compliant with the duty to manage asbestos in these early stages.

  However, HSE inspectors will take enforcement action where disregard for the Regulation means that people are being put at serious risk of asbestos exposure.

  Carers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how much carers have received in allowances in each of the last 10 years(a) as a total for each year and (b) on average for each carer per week; [177707]

  (2) how many people have registered as full-time carers in each of the last 10 years. [177708]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department does not hold records of the number of full-time carers. Carers may be entitled to carer's allowance if they provide a minimum of 35 hours care per week to a severely disabled person in receipt of either attendance allowance or the highest or middle rate of the care component of disability living allowance. They must also meet the other conditions of entitlement. The numbers of carers in receipt of carer's allowance in each of the last 10 years is in Table 1.
  841W

  Table 1: Invalid care allowance/carer's allowance1.2

  Caseload(Thousand)

  Expenditure(£ million)

  Average weekly amount(£)

  1994–95

  261

  526

  39

  1995–96

  309

  617

  38

  1996–97

  348

  736

  41

  1997–98

  371

  746

  39

  1998–99

  373

  782

  40

  1999–2000

  375

  835

  43

  2000–01

  375

  867

  44

  2001–02

  380

  932

  47

  2002–03

  395

  995

  48

  2003–04

  434

  1,052

  46

  1 Caseload figures are rounded to the nearest thousand; expenditure figures are rounded to the nearest million pounds; average weekly amounts in Table I are rounded to the nearest pound, and are derived from the annual caseload and expenditure data.

  2 It is a basic principle of the social security system that only one benefit at a time can be paid for the same purpose. For example, even though the circumstances that give rise to entitlement to carer's allowance (CA) and state pension (SP) are different, they are both designed to provide a degree of replacement for lost or foregone income. CA replaces income where the carer is over working age or has had to give up the chance of working to look after a severely disabled person, while SP replaces income in retirement. CA is therefore not payable, or not payable in full, in addition to SP The payment of SP takes precedence, either extinguishing or reducing the payment of CA.

  Tables 2 and 3 show expenditure and caseload information for the carer premium in income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance respectively.

  It is not possible to disaggregate other benefit payments to carers, as there may more than one reason for receipt (for example, disability or lone parenthood).

  Table 2: Income support carer premium1.2

  Caseload(Thousand)

  Expenditure(£ million)

  Carer premium(£)

  1993–94

  96

  60

  11.95

  1994–95

  121

  78

  12.40

  1995–96

  150

  98

  12.60

  1996–97

  170

  115

  13.00

  1997–98

  182

  127

  13.35

  1998–99

  188

  134

  13.65

  1999–2000

  194

  141

  13.95

  2000–01

  201

  149

  14.15

  2001–023

  219

  278

  24.40

  2002–03

  237

  307

  24.80

  2003–04

  Not available

  Not available

  25.10

  1 Caseload figures are rounded to the nearest thousand; expenditure figures are rounded to the nearest million pounds; average weekly amounts in Table 1 are rounded to the nearest pound, and are derived from the annual caseload and expenditure data.

  2 Nevertheless, the income of a person in these circumstances will be at least as high as the rate of CA, and is usually higher. In addition, where the benefit cannot be paid, the person will keep underlying entitlement to CA, which gives them access to the carer premium, currently £25.55, in the income-related benefits such as housing benefit and council tax benefit or a similar additional amount through pension credit.

  3 Tables 2 and 3 do not take account of recipients' other income. They include information on income support for the unemployed and minimum income guarantee (information for pension credit in 2003–04 is not currently available).

  842W

  Table 3: Income-based jobseeker's allowance carer premium1.2

  Caseload(Thousand)

  Expenditure(£ million)

  Carer premium(£)

  1996–97

  Not available

  Not available

  13.00

  1997–98

  8

  5

  13.35

  1998–99

  7

  5

  13.35

  1999–2000

  6

  4

  13.65

  2000–01

  5

  4

  14.15

  2001–023

  4

  5

  24.40

  2002–03

  4

  5

  24.80

  2003–04

  Not available

  Not available

  25.10

  1 Caseload figures are rounded to the nearest thousand; expenditure figures are rounded to the nearest million pounds; average weekly amounts in Table 1 are rounded to the nearest pound, and are derived from the annual caseload and expenditure data.

  2 Nevertheless, the income of a person in these circumstances will be at least as high as the rate of CA, and is usually higher. In addition, where the benefit cannot be paid, the person will keep underlying entitlement to CA, which gives them access to the carer premium, currently £25.55, in the income-related benefits such as housing benefit and council tax benefit, or a similar additional amount through pension credit.

  3 Tables 2 and 3 do not take account of recipients' other income. They include information on income support for the unemployed and minimum income guarantee.

  Note:

  The increase in expenditure in Tables 2 and 3 from 2000–01 to 2001–02 reflects a £10 real increase in the carer premium.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action his Department is taking to support carers. [177709]

  Maria Eagle
  As part of the Government's National Strategy for Carers, substantial improvements have been made to the financial support available to the carers of severely disabled people from social security benefits. These include extending the availability of carer's allowance to new carers aged 65 and over and for up to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for, increasing the earnings limit for the benefit and linking it to the national insurance lower earnings limit so that it goes up each year. This means that carers can now earn up to £79 per week net of allowable expenses and still be entitled to the benefit. It is therefore possible for a carer to earn well in excess of £79 per week and be entitled to carer's allowance.

  For those entitled to carer's allowance and on low incomes, the carer premium in the income-related benefits and the equivalent amount payable through pension credit has been substantially increased. Carers may also be entitled to other benefits depending on their circumstances. Carers who wish to keep in touch with the labour market can get help, advice and training from personal advisers in Jobcentre Plus.

  Departmental Sick Leave
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many days of sick leave were taken in his Department in 2003; how many related to employees suffering(a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to his Department. [177525]

  Maria Eagle
  1.7 million days sick leave were taken by DWP staff during 2003, of which 187,900 days were for stress, and 293,600 were for other mental health problems.
  843W
  The total cost to the Department of sick leave during 2003 was around £100 million, of which around £28 million was attributed to stress and other mental health problems.

  Source:

  DWP Sickness Absence Model.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many visits by Band Three Inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive in 2003–04 per week were made in(a) the north west region and (b) the west Midlands region. [176724]

  Jane Kennedy
  In the year to 3 April 2004 Band 3 operational inspectors in operational groups from the Health and Safety Executive's North West and Midlands Divisions made, on average, 3.25 and 3.9 contacts per week respectively.

  During this period new working arrangements were piloted in North West Division with the aim of increasing the amount of time spent by operational inspectors on contact activities. In the period of the pilot (July—December 2003) each operational Band 3 inspector made, on average, 4.4 contacts.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of the Band Zero and Band One staff in each of the regions of the Health and Safety Executive received performance awards in financial year 2003–04. [176725]

  Jane Kennedy
  Performance reviews and recommendations for performance awards for the reporting year April 2003 to March 2004 are still being processed. The information will not be available until later in the year.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many retired employees, and at what grade, have subsequently been re-employed by the Health and Safety Executive since 2001; and what plans he has to cease this policy. [176728]

  Jane Kennedy
  Since 2001 there have been, broken down by grade, the following numbers of re-employed staff:

  Grade

  Number of staff

  Band 1 (grade 6 equivalent):

  1

  Band 2 (grade 7):

  6

  Band 3 (SEO):

  5

  Band 4 (HEO):

  2

  Band 5 (E0):

  0

  Band 6 (AO/AA):

  2

  As these individual cases are based on justified business needs, there are no plans to review the current policy until such time as the provisions of the EU Directive "establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation" commonly known as the "Employment Directive" (2000/78/EC) and the provisions specifically relating to discrimination on the grounds of age have been implemented into UK legislation (by the end of 2006).

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the average duration of an incapacity benefit claim has been in each year since 1997; [177957]

  (2) what has been the average duration of a claim for incapacity benefit in each year since 1995. [178847]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available in the format requested. The available information is in the table.

  Incapacity benefits claimants by duration of claims to date

  Percentage

  November

  Duration of claim to date

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  0–3 months

  6

  5

  5

  5

  3–6 months

  5

  4

  5

  4

  6–12 months

  7

  7

  7

  7

  1–2 years

  11

  11

  11

  10

  2–5 years

  26

  25

  23

  23

  5 + years

  46

  47

  50

  51

  Notes:

  1. The figures provided are for length of incapacity benefits claims to date, as data on the average length of completed claims is unavailable.

  2. Reliable information on the duration of claims prior to 2000 is unavailable.

  Source:

  Incapacity Benefit quarterly figures, 5 per cent. sample.

  The incapacity benefits caseload is now broadly stable after more than 20 years of significant growth. However, we are determined to help people on these benefits realise their aspirations of a return to work. The Pathways to Work approach, which combines specialist advice, mandatory work-focused interviews, rehabilitation provision, and financial incentives is the most advanced welfare to work policy for this group anywhere in the world.

  Mobile Jobcentres
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many mobile jobcentres have been established; in which areas they have operated; how many people have been obliged to attend work-focused interviews as a result and how many people have found work as a result. [177900]

  Jane Kennedy
  We have established no mobile jobcentres. We do however acknowledge the need to reach out to the communities that we serve. We do have mobile information services that go into the community to provide information and advice. They do not carry out work-focused interviews.

  For example an Ethnic Minority Outreach service provider in North London uses a mobile bus service to meet customers on their doorsteps, bringing access to a range of job and training opportunities. Action Teams make use of mobile units to reach jobless residents who would not normally register with Jobcentre Plus services. The St. Helens Action Team, for example, reached out to 46 eligible customers with their mobile units in May 2004, placing 27 of them into work.

  Departmental Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the visits abroad made by his Department's(a) special advisers and (b) unpaid advisers without Ministers in their official capacity in each year since 1996–97. [174644]

  Maria Eagle
  Since 1 April 2002, departmental special advisers have travelled abroad on one occasion, to Boston and Washington, USA at a cost of £4,900.00. Information prior to 1 April 2002 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department has no unpaid advisers.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the external speeches his Department's(a) special advisers and (b) unpaid advisers have made in their official capacity in each year since 1996–97. [174645]

  Maria Eagle
  Since 1 April 2002, the Department's special advisers have made no external speeches in an official capacity. Information prior to 1 April 2002 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department has no unpaid advisers.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list the attributable(a) articles and (b) contributions that his Department's (i) special advisers and (ii) unpaid advisers have made to newspapers, magazines, journals, books and other media in their official capacity in each year since 1996–97; [174647]

  (2) if he will list the attributable interviews that his Department's (a) special advisers and (b) unpaid advisers have given to newspapers, magazines and other media in their official capacity in each year since 1996–97. [174648]

  Maria Eagle
  Special advisers' contacts with the media are conducted in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers. Since 1 April 2002, the Department's special advisers have given no attributable articles, contributions or interviews to these media. Information prior to 1 April 2002 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department has no unpaid advisers.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary a State for Work and Pensions if he will list the appearances that his Department's(a) special advisers and (b) unpaid advisers have made before parliamentary select committees in their official capacity in each year since 1996–97. [174650]

  Maria Eagle
  Since 1 April 2002, the Department's special advisers have made no appearances before parliamentary select committees in their official capacity. Information prior to 1 April 2002 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department has no unpaid advisers.

  Disabled Workers
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the 846W
  measures introduced to improve the working conditions of disabled workers in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale over the last seven years. [178536]

  Maria Eagle
  We have a number of measures in place nationally to help improve conditions for disabled people at work, as well as measures to improve their access to services generally. None of these are specific to Rochdale, but all are available to disabled people who live and work there.

  From 1996, the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act required most employers of 20 or more staff not to discriminate against, and to make reasonable adjustments for, disabled job applicants or employees; in December 1998, we reduced this threshold to 15 employees. From October this year, the small employer exemption will be removed and most currently excluded occupations, such as police officers, fire-fighters, and partners in business partnerships will be brought within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act employment provisions.

  Jobcentre Plus runs a number of specialist programmes providing help for disabled people, including New Deal for Disabled People, Workstep, Access to Work, the Job Introduction Scheme, and Work Preparation. All these programmes provide practical advice and support to disabled people and their employers to help overcome work-related obstacles resulting from disability. Since 1997–98, there have been year-on-year increases in both numbers helped and programme spend.

  To help people access appropriate help, Jobcentre Plus has established a network of Disability Service Teams. The teams are made up of Disability Employment Advisers, Access to Work Advisers and Occupational Psychologists; their services are accessed through local Jobcentres.

  Since April 2003, disabled people in work have been receiving financial support through the working tax credit. This is available if a person is working an average of at least 16 hours per week (self-employed or for an employer); and have a disability which puts them at a disadvantage in getting a job. 70,000 families (including over 32,000 adults without children) are benefiting from the disability element within the working tax credit, compared to 38,000 who benefited from the old disabled person's tax credit.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimates he has made of the number of his Department's staff who act as appointees of applicants for tax credits. [177954]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Cash Incentive Scheme
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Cash Incentive Scheme grants were made by each local authority in 2003–04; and what the total value of these grants was in each authority. [178690]
  847W
  Keith Hill
  Information on Cash Incentive Scheme grants made in 2003–04 will not be available until autumn 2004. The number of Cash Incentive grants made and the total expenditure by each local authority in 2002–03 has been made available in the Libraries of the Houses. In England, local authorities reported that 574 Cash Incentive Scheme grants were made, with a value of around £8.95 million.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his response to Recommendation 18 of the Home Ownership Task Force, if he will commission research into the strategic benefits of Cash Incentive Scheme grants. [178733]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is committed to encouraging social tenants to move into home ownership where they can afford to do so, while minimising unnecessary loss of social housing. The Home Ownership Task Force was established to help with this objective. We have or are already taking forward the majority of its recommendations. Consideration is still being given to the research project on Cash Incentive Schemes recommended by the Task Force alongside other priorities for the limited research funds for 2004–05.

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) nature and (b) value was of contracts, consultancies and other services placed with (i) Deloitte and Touche, (ii) Ernst and Young, (iii) KPMG and (iv) Pricewaterhouse Coopers since 2000–01 by the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and its agencies. [177506]

  Yvette Cooper
  The value of contracts placed by the former Department for Transport Local Government and the Regions and its agencies for the years 2000–01 and 2001–02 with the suppliers detailed in the question was as follows.

  £

  PWC

  4,239,936

  Ernst and Young

  112,000

  Deloitte & Touche

  860,831

  KPMG

  2,292,625

  The nature of such contracts across the Department and its agencies can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Government Office of the West Midlands
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total expenditure on consultants and contractors for the Government Office of the West Midlands was in each year since 1997. [176900]

  Yvette Cooper
  Detailed expenditure of this type is no longer available for 1997–98. Also, expenditure on "contractors" is not recorded separately from a wide range of general administrative costs. "Consultants" costs are recorded under the heading of professional 848W
  services for which total expenditure was as follows:

  Professional Services

  £

  1998–99

  41,000

  1999–2000

  115,000

  2000–01

  119,000

  2001–02

  68,000

  2002–03

  58,000

  2003–04

  560,000

  The 2003–04 data involves a change of definition and is not compatible with previous figures.

  Homebuy Loans (London)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Homebuy loans were made in each local authority area in London in 2003–04. [178691]

  Keith Hill
  A total of 1,061 home purchases were completed with Homebuy loans, funded by the Housing Corporation through its Approved Development Programme, in London in 2003–04. The following table shows a breakdown of the total by local authority area.

  Local authority

  Number

  Barking and Dagenham

  38

  Barnet

  27

  Bexley

  48

  Brent

  21

  Bromley

  57

  Camden

  3

  Croydon

  61

  Ealing

  42

  Enfield

  57

  Greenwich

  91

  Hackney

  23

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  12

  Haringey

  41

  Harrow

  13

  Havering

  36

  Hillingdon

  52

  Hounslow

  34

  Islington

  16

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3

  Kingston upon Thames

  27

  Lambeth

  20

  Lewisham

  46

  Merton

  25

  Newham

  24

  Redbridge

  41

  Richmond upon Thames

  10

  Southwark

  17

  Sutton

  51

  Tower Hamlets

  15

  Waltham Forest

  71

  Wandsworth

  29

  Westminster

  10

  Total

  1,061

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Homebuy loans were made to(a) those in social housing, (b) those on housing waiting lists and (c) key workers in London in 2003–04. [178732]
  849W
  Keith Hill
  1,061 home purchases with Homebuy loans were completed in London during 2003–04. From a Housing Corporation survey, CORE Sales, at least 211 of these Homebuy loans were given to tenants in social housing and at least 59 to people on housing waiting lists. The Housing Corporation's investment system shows that over 400 of the loans were made to key workers in London.

  Local Authority Websites
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the Government are tackling access barriers to disabled people on local government websites. [177020]

  Phil Hope
  Under the local e-Government programme the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is supporting a national project called LAWS—Local Authority Websites, to develop guidance for local authorities on best practice for designing and managing websites. One of the issues addressed is website accessibility, including for disabled people. Ensuring that their websites are accessible to all their citizens is fundamental to the design of individual authorities' websites. Another national project, e-SB—the Standards Body, will incorporate website accessibility information into the forthcoming website standards for local authorities.

  Housing Corporation (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much public funding has been spent from the Housing Corporation Programme in Crosby. [177854]

  Keith Hill
  The following table shows the Housing Corporation Social Housing Grant expenditure in Sefton for the past five years.

  Social sector lettings in England and the regions

  England

  North East

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  East Midlands

  East of England

  London

  South East

  South West

  West Midlands

  North West

  Total lettings by local authority

  1979–80

  412,200

  35,400

  54,300

  38,000

  37,900

  57,900

  44,400

  29,800

  51,000

  63,600

  1980–81

  444,000

  39,800

  57,500

  35,900

  n/a

  68,200

  n/a

  27,800

  53,600

  67,300

  1981–82

  415,500

  36,300

  52,800

  32,700

  32,400

  81,400

  41,000

  25,700

  47,400

  65,900

  1982–83

  439,500

  40,500

  55,500

  36,600

  35,200

  71,800

  44,900

  29,200

  52,600

  73,100

  1983–84

  429,100

  36,800

  57,400

  35,600

  36,200

  70,200

  43,500

  29,200

  50,200

  70,000

  1984–85

  429,300

  38,900

  54,700

  36,400

  34,100

  66,200

  45,300

  29,600

  53,300

  70,700

  1985–86

  436,600

  38,900

  59,800

  36,800

  36,600

  63,900

  45,600

  29,500

  55,900

  69,700

  1986–87

  430,200

  39,600

  59,300

  36,900

  33,600

  59,800

  44,800

  29,200

  56,100

  70,900

  1987–88

  425,800

  38,200

  57,400

  34,500

  33,300

  59,200

  43,300

  27,900

  57,100

  75,000

  1988–89

  410,200

  38,600

  55,400

  33,400

  30,500

  58,300

  42,700

  26,800

  53,300

  71,400

  1989–90

  390,300

  37,800

  51,200

  30,600

  30,700

  57,300

  40,600

  25,500

  49,200

  67,300

  1990–91

  400,900

  35,000

  51,900

  31,400

  34,400

  65,200

  41,200

  27,500

  48,700

  65,700

  1991–92

  406,500

  36,800

  52,200

  31,300

  32,200

  71,400

  40,300

  28,300

  51,500

  62,500

  1992–93

  399,900

  37,000

  52,200

  32,000

  31,400

  67,000

  38,900

  27,300

  50,700

  63,200

  1993–94

  404,900

  36,400

  51,600

  34,500

  32,500

  65,800

  38,600

  28,700

  53,400

  63,400

  1994–95

  407,900

  39,000

  56,800

  34,300

  31,500

  62,900

  35,600

  27,300

  53,600

  66,900

  1995–96

  415,200

  41,000

  58,700

  35,500

  31,900

  61,300

  34,200

  27,400

  54,000

  71,200

  1996–97

  422,000

  42,200

  59,900

  39,100

  32,100

  62,300

  32,400

  26,700

  56,200

  71,000

  1997–98

  403,900

  41,500

  56,900

  38,200

  31,400

  57,600

  30,300

  24,300

  53,200

  70,500

  1998–99

  379,200

  39,500

  56,000

  37,400

  30,700

  48,200

  28,300

  21,400

  49,300

  68,500

  1999–2000

  353,900

  38,600

  55,900

  33,900

  29,000

  42,100

  25,800

  18,800

  45,200

  64,700

  2000–01

  326,600

  36,500

  53,300

  32,500

  27,200

  39,300

  23,800

  16,500

  40,100

  57,300

  2001–02

  289,700

  29,700

  49,300

  29,200

  25,700

  35,200

  20,500

  15,400

  33,600

  51,100

  2002–03

  272,800

  26,900

  49,000

  29,100

  22,700

  34,300

  21,200

  14,200

  31,000

  44,400

  England

  Total lettings by housing association

  1995–96

  135,700

  8,100

  22,200

  11,500

  9,700

  13,800

  11,600

  13,900

  23,000

  21,900

  1996–97

  187,200

  9,600

  29,300

  16,500

  13,500

  20,000

  15,500

  17,800

  35,500

  29,500

  1997–98

  202,800

  10,000

  33,600

  20,300

  15,400

  22,300

  16,500

  19,300

  36,100

  29,400

  1998–99

  212,000

  11,300

  35,300

  21,300

  15,600

  24,000

  18,800

  20,300

  35,300

  30,100

  850W

  £ million

  1999–00

  6.711

  2000–01

  4.768

  2001–02

  3.816

  2002–03

  6.000

  2003–04

  4.663

  The Housing Corporation gathers information at local authority level, therefore information for the constituency of Crosby is not available. Crosby is within the local authority of Sefton.

  Regional Assemblies (Referendums)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what date the proposed referendums on regional assemblies will take place; and whether the voting will be all-postal. [178719]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government intend to hold the referendums this autumn by all-postal ballot. We will be laying orders to that effect this summer.

  Social Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) local authority and (b) housing association lettings were made in each Government Office Region in each year since 1980. [178734]

  Keith Hill
  The number of local authority and housing association lettings made in each Government Office region are tabled as follows.

  In the table, information on local authority lettings is provided for the years 1979–80 to 2002–03 and on housing association lettings for the years 1995–96 to 2003–04.
  851W

  Social sector lettings in England and the regions

  England

  North East

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  East Midlands

  East of England

  London

  South East

  South West

  West Midlands

  North West

  1999–2000

  214,300

  11,300

  37,500

  21,100

  16,100

  24,900

  21,500

  19,700

  32,800

  29,500

  2000–01

  214,000

  11,600

  39,100

  20,200

  16,900

  26,800

  20,100

  18,800

  32,400

  28,100

  2001–02

  224,200

  15,500

  42,800

  20,400

  16,600

  29,100

  20,200

  18,100

  32,600

  29,000

  2002–03

  225,100

  15,400

  44,500

  21,400

  16,700

  28,100

  19,900

  19,000

  32,100

  27,900

  2003–04

  212,400

  13,100

  41,100

  21,300

  15,600

  28,400

  18,400

  18,400

  28,900

  27,200

  Notes:

  n/a = denotes that information is unavailable.

  1. Regional totals include estimates for non-response.

  2. The number of lettings given by local authorities includes any transfers and exchanges, as well as secure and non-secure lettings.

  3. The number of lettings given by housing associations includes those for general as well as supported needs. Figures for 1995–96 include only lettings given for general needs.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of new social housing for rent built in each year since 1990 had three or more bedrooms. [178735]

  Keith Hill
  The percentages of registered social landlord (RSL) new build completions in England that had at least three bedrooms are shown in the table. Equivalent figures for local authority new build are not readily available.

  Percentage

  1990–91

  20

  1991–92

  20

  1992–93

  26

  1993–94

  31

  1994–95

  34

  1995–96

  35

  1996–97

  36

  1997–98

  39

  1998–99

  38

  1999–2000

  37

  2000–01

  35

  2001–02

  33

  2002–03

  38

  2003–04

  32

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will add to his Department's Public Service Agreement 5 a performance indicator for the number of families with children living in overcrowded housing. [178736]

  Homeless households1 with dependent children in all forms of temporary accommodation by Government Office Region

  2002

  2003

  March

  June

  September

  December

  March

  June

  September

  December

  North East2

  270

  440

  1,220

  280

  220

  300

  250

  360

  North West

  990

  1,110

  1,200

  1,130

  1,230

  1,280

  1,450

  1,220

  Yorkshire and Number

  800

  970

  960

  1,080

  1,160

  1,190

  1,140

  1,120

  East Midlands

  1,350

  1,620

  1,560

  1,500

  1,650

  1,770

  1,890

  1,930

  West Midlands

  1,030

  800

  1,100

  800

  870

  860

  1,090

  1,130

  East of England

  3,840

  3,710

  3,850

  4,030

  4,740

  5,070

  5,460

  4,990

  London

  20,860

  26,320

  31,190

  29,120

  31,100

  31,400

  33,660

  34,380

  South East

  7,560

  8,270

  9,110

  7,310

  8,760

  9,170

  8,800

  8,540

  South West

  3,110

  3,710

  4,030

  2,740

  3,350

  4,250

  4,100

  3,480

  England3

  39,810

  46,950

  54,220

  47,980

  53,070

  55,280

  57,840

  57,140

  1 Households in accommodation arranged by local authorities pending inquiries or after being accepted as homeless under the 1996 Act (including any residual cases under the 1985 Act).

  2 Figures for December 2002 onwards reflect changes in lettings policies by a local authority in the region.

  3 Totals may not equal the sum of components because of rounding.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funding has been allocated to the
  852W
  Keith Hill
  No. The Office's Public Service Agreement 5 underpins the Government's commitment to improve the balance between supply and demand for housing. In this context, the main function of a performance indicator for overcrowding would be to monitor progress in alleviating the position of those at the bottom of the housing ladder. However, PSA5 already incorporates such an indicator— number of statutory homeless households with children in temporary accommodation. The further indicator proposed here would simply cover the same ground, albeit from a slightly different perspective.

  Temporary Accommodation (Children)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many children were living in temporary accommodation in each year since 1997, broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [178148]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the number of children living in temporary accommodation is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on the number of households that contain dependent children and/or expectant mothers in various types of temporary accommodation has been collected since March 2002. The following table shows this information by Government Office Region for all eight quarters since March 2002.

  Liveability Fund for financial year (a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06, broken down by region; and what funding plans are in place to continue the work of the Liveability Fund from financial year 2005–06 onwards. [178107]
  853W
  Keith Hill
  The Liveability Fund allocations, by region, for these two years are as follows:

  Region

  2004–05

  2005–06

  East of England

  4,310,500

  4,425,000

  East Midlands

  4,010,000

  4,030,000

  London

  4,680,000

  4,555,000

  North East

  3,664,730

  3,760,000

  North West

  4,170,000

  4,170,000

  South East

  4,692,400

  4,105,000

  South West

  4,534,640

  4,425,000

  West Midlands

  4,769,636

  4,650,000

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  4,441,000

  4,380,000

  Total

  39,272,906

  38,500,000

  Funding plans for future years are currently under consideration as part of the on-going 2004 Spending Review.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funding from(a) his Department and (b) non-departmental public bodies has been allocated to urban regeneration companies for financial year (i) 2005–06 and (ii) 2006–07. [178149]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not provide funding directly to any urban regeneration company (URC). All funding is provided by the partners in each URC. This usually comprises the Regional Development Agency (RDA), the local authority or authorities, and English Partnerships (EP). The following table shows the revenue funding that EP and the various RDAs estimate will be allocated to the individual URCs for 2005–06 and 2006–07, based on current projections. Capital funding for development projects is not normally provided to the URCs themselves; expenditure on projects is incurred by the partners on the basis of agreed strategies in pursuit of URC objectives.

  Revenue Allocations to URCs

  £

  URC

  2005–06

  2006–07

  Bradford City Regeneration

  845,000

  845,000

  CPR Regeneration

  544,000

  544,000

  Catalyst Corby

  544,000

  544,000

  Derby Cityscape

  544,000

  544,000

  Gloucester Heritage

  544,000

  544,000

  Hull Citybuild

  693,000

  693,000

  Leicester Regeneration

  540,000

  560,000

  Liverpool Vision

  771,000

  771,000

  New East Manchester

  713,000

  736,000

  RegencoSandwell

  544,000

  544,000

  Sheffield One

  746,000

  746,000

  Sunderland Arc

  660,000

  660,000

  The New Swindon Company

  544,000

  544,000

  Number of ASBO applications, by result, and the number given on conviction, in Gloucestershire, by local authority area, as notified to the Home Office, 1 April 19991 to 31 December 2003

  ASBOs on application2

  ASBOs on conviction

  Period/local authority area

  Total applications

  Total refused

  Total issued

  Total issued

  Total issued on application/on conviction

  1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000

  Cheltenham borough council

  1

  -

  1

  n/a

  1

  Forest of Dean district council

  1

  -

  1

  n/a

  1

  Sub-total

  2

  -

  2

  n/a

  2

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  Cheltenham borough council

  2

  -

  2

  n/a

  2

  Sub-total

  2

  -

  2

  n/a

  2

  854W

  Revenue Allocations to URCs

  £

  URC

  2005–06

  2006–07

  Tees Valley Regeneration

  623,000

  623,000

  Walsall

  544,000

  544,000

  West Lakes Renaissance

  200,000

  200,000

  Total

  9,599,000

  9,642,000

  Note:

  The West Lakes URC does not receive revenue funding from English Partnerships (EP). All other figures are collated EP and Regional Development Agency estimates. Where appropriate, the figures include funding to cover non-recoverable VAT.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Action Against Business Crime Group
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which towns and communities in Wales have benefited from Action Against Business Crime Group grants; and how much grant has been allocated to each town or community, broken down by constituency. [177205]

  Paul Goggins
  The Action Against Business Crime Group has not yet allocated funds to any individual towns or communities. The Home Office agreed a contract with the British Retail Consortium to set up the Action against Business Crime Group in March 2004 and Government funding has been provided to enable the Group to set up partnerships in priority locations. The Home Office will work with the Group to identify the criteria for priority locations, but it will be for them to decide how best to allocate the funding provided in order to meet the agreed outcomes.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders were(a) sought and (b) achieved in each district council area in Gloucestershire for each year since the introduction of this legislation. [178462]

  Ms Blears
  Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) have been available, on application to the magistrates courts, since 1 April 1999. The Police Reform Act 2002 authorised the magistrates courts and the Crown court to issue ASBOs on conviction, and the county courts (from 1 April 2003) to issue ASBOs on application, alongside other proceedings. Information, as notified to the Home Office, is given in the table, by local authority area and result, up to 31 December 2003 (latest available), on the number of ASBOs within Gloucestershire.
  855W

  Number of ASBO applications, by result, and the number given on conviction, in Gloucestershire, by local authority area, as notified to the Home Office, 1 April 19991 to 31 December 2003

  ASBOs on application2

  ASBOs on conviction

  Period/local authority area

  Total applications

  Total refused

  Total issued

  Total issued

  Total issued on application/on conviction

  1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002

  Cheltenham borough council

  1

  -

  1

  -

  1

  Sub-total

  1

  -

  1

  -

  1

  1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

  Cheltenham borough council

  2

  -

  2

  -

  2

  Gloucester city council

  -

  -

  -

  1

  1

  Stroud district council

  2

  -

  2

  -

  2

  Sub-total

  4

  -

  4

  1

  5

  Total

  9

  -

  9

  1

  10

  n/a = Not applicable.

  1 From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2DOO data were collected by police force area on ASBO numbers only. During this period no ASBOs were reported to the Home Office for Gloucestershire.

  2 Only covers applications dealt with by 31 December 2003.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been(a) sought and (b) granted in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement. [177818]

  Ms Blears
  Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) have been available, on application to the magistrates courts, since 1 April 1999. The Police Reform Act 2002 authorised the magistrates courts and the Crown court to issue ASBOs on conviction, and the county courts (from 1 April 2003) to issue ASBOs on application, alongside other proceedings. Information, as notified to the Home Office, is given in the table, by result, up to 31 December 2003 (latest available), on the number of ASBOs within Greater London.

  Number of ASBO applications, by result, and the number given on conviction, in Greater London, as notified to the Home Office, 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2003

  ASBOs on application

  Number

  Total applications

  121

  Total refused

  9

  Total issued

  112

  ASBOs on conviction

  Total issued

  42

  Total issued on application/on conviction

  154

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale. [178507]

  Ms Blears
  Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) have been available to the courts since 1 April 1999. From commencement, up to 31 December 2003 (latest available), the Home Office has been notified of 20 ASBOs issued within the Rochdale metropolitan borough council area, in which the constituency of Rochdale is located.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are 856W
  taking to improve the removals process and to ensure that it is transparent and fair. [151474]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government are committed to identifying and removing those who have no right to be here by ensuring a transparent and fair system where all applicants are treated humanely and fairly and only seeking to return those who have no legal basis of stay in the UK. This is done by having an internal complaints procedure and an independent appeal system established by Parliament to resolve disputes between the Home Office and applicants who feel that their applications for leave to remain or asylum have not been properly assessed or the correct decision reached.

  We are constantly striving to improve the way this process works by continually monitoring and reviewing internal procedures and practices.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on the removal of failed asylum seeker; and how many asylum seekers were removed, in each year since 1997. [173676]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 18 May 2004]The information is as follows:

  (a) The cost of the removal of failed asylum seekers is not disaggregated from the overall costs of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) and therefore not readily available. Any attempt to calculate the cost of removal of failed asylum seekers would need to take into account a large number of factors and this could be done only at disproportionate cost. However the total public spending for IND is set out in the published Home Office report.

  (b) The number of asylum seekers who were removed in each year since 1997 is shown in the table.

  Removals and voluntary departures1 of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, 1997 to 2003

  Principal applicants

  Dependants2

  Total2

  1997

  7,165

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  6,990

  n/a

  n/a

  1999

  7,665

  n/a

  n/a

  2000

  8,980

  n/a

  n/a

  857W

  Removals and voluntary departures1 of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, 1997 to 2003

  Principal applicants

  Dependants2

  Total2

  2001

  9,285

  1,495

  10,780

  20023

  10,740

  3,170

  13,910

  20033

  12,490

  4,550

  17,040

  n/a = Not available.

  1 Includes persons departing 'Voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them, persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration, and removals on safe third country grounds.

  2 Data on dependants removed have only been collected since April 2001.

  3 Provisional figures.

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest five, with* = one or two, and may not sum due to rounding.

  Church Yards
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for closure of church yards have been refused in the past five years. [174282]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office does not keep a record of this information. However, the majority of applications that fail do so because they do not fall within the main criteria for closure as agreed by the Home Office, local authority representatives and representatives of the Church of England:

  There is no proper room for new graves;

  Further burials would be contrary to decency;

  Discontinuance of burials would prevent or mitigate nuisance;

  Further burials would constitute a health risk.

  Correspondence
  Sir Gerald Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 27 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Ihsan Mehrobi and Ms Bethan Galliers. [178946]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 10 June 2004.

  Sir Gerald Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 22 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. N. Sibanda. [178947]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 10 June 2004.

  Court Attendance (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the non-attendance of witnesses and defendants in Merseyside. [170534]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government's Criminal Case Management Programme will reduce the non-attendance of defendants and witnesses. It is made up of three complementary strands: ensuring that charges are 858W
  more appropriately brought; providing victims and witnesses with proper care and attention; and ensuring that trials are effectively managed.

  Witness care units are currently at the planning stage in Merseyside and will be introduced for Crown courts towards the end of this year and in the magistrates courts in 2005. As part of its delivery plan to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system, Merseyside Criminal Justice Board carried out a survey examining reasons for witness non-attendance. The results will be used as part of the planning process for the introduction of witness care units. For example, one petty sessional area found that if witnesses were contacted by telephone shortly before they were due to appear, attendance increased, and consequently, this practice is being rolled out across Merseyside.

  The Effective Trial Management Programme will be implemented in Merseyside in November. It includes specific measures to improve defendant attendance at court hearings through the early communication of the benefits of co-operating with the process and the potential consequences of non-attendance, as well as improved enforcement procedures for non-attendance.

  There are a number of warrant enforcement initiatives in place in Merseyside to ensure that defendants are brought to justice for failing to appear in court. Bench warrants in Merseyside are circulated on the Police National Computer as soon as they are received from the courts, with priority given to persistent offender and street crime offences. Merseyside police have also run Operation 'Cardsharp' in which defendants were sent letters following their failure to appear, informing them that a warrant had been issued and advising them to surrender to the court or face police visits. This initiative proved to be a success, with defendants surrendering themselves to the court after receiving the letter, and over 1,000 warrants executed in the month the operation was running. It is continuing to operate successfully in Merseyside, and has now been recognised as best practice nationally.

  Drug Offences (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests have been made, (b) convictions have been obtained and (c) cautions have been issued in (i) Greater London and (ii) each London borough for offences relating to (A) possession and (B) dealing in (1) Class A, (2) Class B and (3) Class C drugs in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [177180]

  Ms Blears
  Information collected centrally on arrests is broken down only into the main offence groups. Within the "drug offences" group we are unable to identify different classes of drugs or different kinds of offences.

  The information contained in the tables relates to persons found guilty of possession of, or dealing in Class A, B and C drugs, 1998 to 2002, in each borough in outer London and each magistrates court in inner London (it

  859W
  is not possible from the statistics collected centrally to identify boroughs in inner London). The figures include persons found guilty at the Crown court when committed for trial or sentence from the courts/boroughs shown. Caution data cannot be broken down

  Number1 of persons cautioned by the Metropolitan or City of London Police, or found guilty of certain drug offences in Greater London2 by magistrates court/London Borough: 20021

  Possession

  Class A drug

  Class B drug

  Class C drug

  Cautioned

  Found guilty

  Cautioned

  Found guilty

  Cautioned

  Found guilty

  Inner London magistrates courts2

  City of London Police

  Guildhall Justice Rooms

  3_

  23

  3)_

  54

  3_

  3_

  Total City of London Police

  31

  23

  448

  54

  1

  3_

  Metropolitan police

  Bow Street

  3_

  206

  3_

  286

  3_

  3

  Camberwell Green/Tower Bridge

  3_

  227

  3_

  338

  3_

  1

  Greenwich/Woolwich

  3_

  105

  3_

  333

  3_

  1

  Highbury Corner

  3_

  164

  3_

  314

  3_

  1

  Horseferry Road

  3_

  121

  3_

  266

  3_

  3_

  Marylebone

  3_

  -

  3_

  4

  3_

  3_

  South Western

  3_

  75

  3_

  312

  3_

  3_

  Thames

  3_

  205

  3_

  448

  3_

  3_

  West London

  3_

  124

  3_

  435

  3_

  1

  Outer London boroughs

  Metropolitan Police

  Barking and Dagenham

  3_

  51

  3_

  185

  3_

  3_

  Barnet

  3_

  21

  3_

  145

  3_

  3_

  Bexley

  3_

  31

  3_

  84

  3_

  3_

  Brent

  3_

  97

  3_

  237

  3_

  3_

  Bromley

  3_

  33

  3_

  117

  3_

  3_

  Croydon

  3_

  51

  3_

  236

  3_

  3_

  Ealing

  3_

  131

  3_

  212

  3_

  3_

  Enfield

  3_

  42

  3_

  142

  3_

  3_

  Haringey

  3_

  104

  3_

  348

  3_

  2

  Harrow

  3_

  37

  3_

  80

  3_

  3_

  Havering

  3_

  107

  3_

  88

  3_

  3_

  Hillingdon

  3_

  55

  3_

  182

  3_

  3_

  Hounslow

  3_

  76

  3_

  166

  3_

  3_

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  3_

  66

  3_

  71

  3_

  3_

  Merton

  3_

  15

  3_

  79

  3_

  3_

  Newham

  3_

  92

  3_

  271

  3_

  3_

  Redbridge

  3_

  26

  3_

  99

  3_

  3_

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  3_

  17

  3_

  95

  3_

  3_

  Sutton

  3_

  15

  3_

  61

  3_

  3_

  Waltham Forest

  3_

  50

  3_

  156

  3_

  1

  Total Metropolitan Police

  595

  2,344

  10,612

  5,790

  31

  9

  Total Greater London

  626

  2,367

  11,060

  5,844

  32

  9

  Dealing

  Class A drug

  Class B drug

  Class C drug

  Cautioned

  Found guilty

  Cautioned

  Found guilty

  Cautioned

  Found guilty

  Inner London magistrates courts2

  City of London Police

  Guildhall Justice Rooms

  3_

  12

  3_

  5

  3_

  3_

  Total City of London Police

  595

  12

  10,612

  5

  31

  3_

  Metropolitan police

  Bow Street

  3_

  20

  3_

  16

  3_

  2

  Camberwell Green/Tower Bridge

  3_

  104

  3_

  52

  3_

  3_

  Greenwich/Woolwich

  3_

  74

  3_

  38

  3_

  3_

  Highbury Corner

  3_

  97

  3_

  41

  3_

  3_

  Horseferry Road

  3_

  58

  3_

  26

  3_

  3_

  Marylebone

  3_

  3_

  3_

  1

  3_

  3_

  South Western

  3_

  24

  3_

  17

  3_

  3_

  Thames

  3_

  104

  3_

  33

  3_

  3_

  West London

  3_

  47

  3_

  23

  3_

  1

  Outer London boroughs

  Metropolitan Police

  Barking and Dagenham

  3_

  4

  3_

  11

  3_

  3_

  Barnet

  3_

  18

  3_

  14

  3_

  3_

  Bexley

  3_

  6

  3_

  12

  3_

  3_

  Brent

  3_

  24

  3_

  22

  3_

  3_

  860W
  beyond police force area in the statistics collected centrally, and is given as a total for the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police Force area.

  Statistics on court proceedings and cautions for 2003 will be published in the autumn.
  861W

  Dealing

  Class A drug

  Class B drug

  Class C drug

  Cautioned

  Found guilty

  Cautioned

  Found guilty

  Cautioned

  Found guilty

  Bromley

  3_

  8

  3_

  8

  3_

  3_

  Croydon

  3_

  34

  3_

  23

  3_

  3_

  Ealing

  3_

  36

  3_

  15

  3_

  3_

  Enfield

  3_

  1

  3_

  3

  3_

  3_

  Haringey

  3_

  24

  3_

  27

  3__

  3_

  Harrow

  3_

  10

  3_

  8

  3_

  3_

  Havering

  3_

  8

  3_

  6

  3_

  3_

  Hillingdon

  3_

  548

  3_

  197

  3_

  3

  Hounslow

  3_

  13

  3_

  15

  3_

  3_

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  3_

  11

  3_

  10

  3_

  3_

  Merton

  3_

  4

  3_

  8

  3_

  3_

  Newham

  3_

  33

  3_

  23

  3_

  3_

  Redbridge

  3_

  12

  3_

  11

  3_

  3_

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  3_

  5

  3_

  12

  3_

  3_

  Sutton

  3_

  13

  3_

  4

  3_

  3_

  Waltham Forest

  3_

  12

  3_

  12

  3_

  3_

  Total Metropolitan Police

  33

  1,352

  179

  688

  3_

  6

  Total Greater London

  628

  1,364

  10,791

  693

  31

  6

  1These data are on the principal offend basis

  2 Information held centrally does not allow a breakdown of cases by borough in the inner London area

  3 Not available

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of how long the Criminal Records Bureau is taking to process applications from voluntary organisations. [174668]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not available to determine how long the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) is taking to process applications from voluntary organisations; this information is not held centrally.

  The CRB continually assesses its performance against its service standards across all sectors and aims to make further improvements to the service it provides. Since June 2003, the CRB has been issuing on average 93 per cent. of all Standard and Enhanced Disclosures within two and four weeks respectively, against published service standards of 90 per cent.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders have been issued in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland in each year for which figures are available. [174850]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of drug treatment and testing orders (DTTOs) made since roll-out of the order across England and Wales in October 2000 is:

  Number

  2000–01 (six months)

  1,256

  2001–02

  4,854

  2002–03

  6,145

  2003–04

  8,515

  The number of DTTOs imposed by Scottish courts since 2000 is:

  Number

  2000

  59

  2001

  198

  2002

  342

  862W

  Number

  2003

  348

  2004 (to 21 May 2004)

  171

  Dungavel Family Unit
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Church and Nation Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland about the family unit at Dungavel. [176553]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]My predecessor, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Stretford and Urmston, (Beverley Hughes) met representatives of the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland at the end of October 2003. Discussions included the family unit at Dungavel.

  Durham Jail
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total capacity in Durham jail in each of the next 10 years. [176669]

  Paul Goggins
  The operational capacity at Her Majesty's Prison Durham, as at Friday 28 May, is 638 for male prisoners and 110 for female prisoners.

  Following the change of function, the Area Manager will set the operational capacity of Her Majesty's Prison Durham taking into account control, security the proper operation of the planned regime and the alterations that are currently being made to parts of the residential accommodation.

  It is not possible to give figures for each of the next 10 years.

  Gas Cartridge Weapons
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many self-contained gas cartridge weapons were surrendered to the police on or before 30 April; [175483]
  863W
  (2) how many firearm certificates were issued to owners of self-contained gas cartridge weapons on or before 30 April; [175484]

  (3) how many self-contained gas cartridge weapons he estimates there are in the UK. [175485]

  Caroline Flint
  I understand from the Association of Chief Police Officers that as at 30 April a total of 1,524 guns had been surrendered and a further 5,791 entered on a firearms certificate.

  Graves
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow the re-use and relocating of graves; and if he will make a statement. [168050]

  Paul Goggins
  The current public consultation exercise "Burial law and policy in the 21st Century: the need for a sensitive and sustainable approach" seeks views on the existing arrangements for providing cemeteries and the possibility of re-using old ones. The results of this exercise, which is part of the on-going review of burial law and ends on 13 July 2004, will help to inform the Government's decision on whether to allow the re-use of graves in future. The relocation of graves is already permissible with the proper authority.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of legal costs for the future expected hearings relating to(a) detention under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and (b) deprivation of nationality under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, in respect of Treasury Solicitor and Counsel fees; and if he will make a statement. [174145]

  Mr. Browne
  Legal costs will depend on how many people are detained/deprived in the future, and to what level they appeal. As none of the current cases so far has reached its conclusion and we do not know about future numbers, it is not possible to make any realistic estimate of future expenditure.

  Iraq
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers Her Majesty's Inspector has to report on prison facilities in Iraq. [176311]

  Paul Goggins
  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons has no powers to report on prison facilities in Iraq.

  National Criminal Intelligence Service
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) permanent and (b) seconded staff were employed at the National Criminal Intelligence Service in each of the last five years. [173134]

  Caroline Flint
  Records for the numbers of staff employed by the National Criminal Intelligence Service show the following:864W

  Directly employed staff

  Seconded staff

  Attached staff

  Total

  19991

  310

  233

  52

  595

  20001

  316

  227

  49

  592

  20011

  419

  257

  50

  726

  20021

  470

  293

  37

  800

  20032

  745

  254

  45

  1,044

  1 Based on April data.

  2 Based on November data.

  National Minorities Convention
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) representations his Department has received and (b) meetings his Department has had with representatives of (i) national minorities, (ii) ethnic groups and (iii) others in respect of his Department's assessment of the Government's compliance with the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. [175399]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]The information is as follows:

  (a) The Government have received written representations on the Government's 2nd compliance report under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities from the following organisations and members of Parliament:

  UK Race and European Network (UKREN);

  National Travellers Action Group;

  Cornish National Minority Steering Group;

  Cornwall 2000;

  Minority Rights Group;

  Jean Corston MP (as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights); and

  Lord Lester

  (b) Home Office officials have had one meeting with non-governmental organisations in connection with the 2nd compliance report. That meeting took place on 20 April 2004 with representative of the Cornish National Minority Steering Group, Cornwall 2000 and the Federal Union of European Nationalities.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his Department's contribution to the Government's compliance report to the Council of Europe under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. [175401]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office is co-ordinating the Government's second compliance report under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and we hope to complete a first draft later in the summer. We will circulate the draft widely to nongovernmental organisations for comment and aim to submit the final version to the Council of Europe in the autumn.

  On-the-spot Fines
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many on-the-spot fines have been issued in each local authority in the last five years, broken down by region and listed in descending order. [172922]
  865W
  Alun Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  Within Defra's area of responsibility local authorities in England are able to issue fixed penalty notices for offences related to litter, dog fouling and, since 31 March, graffiti and fly-posting They can also issue fixed penalty notices for night time noise offences but, until 31 March, only if they elected to do so. Only information for each is available in the form requested and the following information shows the litter fixed penalty notices issued in each local authority in the last five years. Local authorities that are not named did not issue any fixed penalty notices for litter during these periods.

  1998–99

  Local authority

  Number of fines issued

  East Midlands

  0

  East of England

  Colchester BC

  69

  Basildon DC

  13

  St. Albans CC

  2

  London

  Westminster CC

  3,486

  LB Hackney

  520

  LB Wandsworth

  242

  LB Greenwich

  120

  LB Ealing

  100

  RB of Kensington and Chelsea

  86

  LB Tower Hamlets

  43

  LB Richmond upon Thames

  1

  North East

  Darlington BC

  1

  North West

  Wycombe DC

  11

  Restormel BC

  9

  Warrington BC

  1

  South East

  Swale BC

  4

  Brighton and Hove BC

  1

  Canterbury CC

  1

  Portsmouth CC

  1

  South West

  S Somerset DC

  9

  Mid Devon DC

  2

  West Midlands

  0

  Yorkshire and Humber

  Bradford CC

  54

  Ribble Valley BC

  1

  1999–2000

  Local authority

  Number of fines issued

  East Midlands

  0

  East of England

  Colchester BC

  47

  Basildon DC

  13

  Broxbourne BC

  4

  St Albans CC

  4

  Braintree DC

  2

  London

  Westminster CC

  2,076

  LB Ealing

  310

  LB Tower Hamlets

  206

  RB of Kensington of Chelsea

  126

  LB Wandsworth

  46

  866W

  1999–2000

  Local authority

  Number of fines issued

  North East

  Middlesbrough CC

  44

  Darlington BC

  14

  North West

  Hyndburn BC

  4

  Warrington BC

  2

  South East

  Canterbury CC

  28

  Swale BC

  6

  Crawley BC

  2

  Portsmouth CC

  1

  South West

  S Somerset DC

  3

  E Devon DC

  2

  West Midlands

  0

  Yorkshire and Humber

  Bradford MDC

  30

  2000–01

  Local authority

  Number of fines issued

  East Midlands

  S Northamptonshire DC

  1

  East of England

  Colchester BC

  35

  Braintree DC

  16

  Basildon DC

  15

  Broxbourne BC

  9

  St Albans CC

  6

  Maldon DC

  2

  London

  LB Ealing

  489

  RB of Kensington of Chelsea

  466

  LB Lambeth

  321

  LB Tower Hamlets

  250

  LB Lewisham

  149

  LB Redbridge

  121

  LB Wandsworth

  64

  LB Hammersmith and Fulham

  13

  LB Richmond upon thames

  4

  North East

  Middlesbrough CC

  46

  Darlington BC

  29

  S Tyneside DC

  12

  North West

  Hyndburn BC

  11

  Ribble Valley BC

  1

  South East

  Southampton CC

  63

  New Forest DC

  12

  Maidstone BC

  2

  Swale BC

  2

  Canterbury CC

  1

  South West

  Christchurch BC

  18

  Bournemouth BC

  6

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1

  Exeter CC

  1

  West Midlands

  Birmingham CC

  59

  Dudley DC

  15

  867W

  2000–01

  Local authority

  Number of fines issued

  Yorkshire and Humber

  Bradford MDC

  7

  2001–02

  Local authority

  Number off fines issued

  East Midlands

  Gedling DC

  13

  East of England

  Colchester BC

  54

  Broxbourne BC

  30

  Braintree DC

  11

  Tendring DC

  3

  Basildon DC

  2

  Milton Keynes BC

  2

  St. Albans CC

  2

  London

  Westminster CC

  17.862

  RB of Kensington and Chelsea

  643

  LB Lewisham

  513

  LB Ealing

  504

  LB Lambeth

  309

  LB Wandsworth

  197

  LB Hammersmith and Fulham

  195

  LB Greenwich

  159

  LB Barking and Dagenham

  84

  LB Redbridge

  14

  LB Enfield

  8

  North East

  Newcastle upon Tyne CC

  117

  Middlesbrough CC

  99

  Stockton-on-Tees DC

  46

  Sedgefield DC

  26

  Darlington BC

  14

  N Tyneside BC

  1

  North West

  Oldham BC

  23

  Hyndburn BC

  11

  Burnley BC

  1

  South East

  Southampton CC

  68

  Brighton and Hove BC

  52

  Wycombe DC

  17

  Thanet DC

  8

  Maidstone BC

  6

  Portsmouth CC

  1

  South West

  E Devon DC

  1

  Exeter CC

  1

  West Midlands

  Birmingham CC

  339

  Dudley DC

  29

  Sandwell BC

  24

  Rugby BC

  5

  Wolverhampton CC

  1

  Yorkshire and Humber

  Bradford MDC

  60

  Rotherham DC

  60

  1 Westminster figures for 2001–02 includes figures for 2000–01,

  2002–03

  Local authority

  Number of fines issued

  East Midlands

  Blaby DC

  3

  868W

  2002–03

  Local authority

  Number of fines issued

  S Kesteven DC

  1

  East of England

  Luton BC

  42

  Broxbourne BC

  36

  Colchester BC

  33

  Tendring DC

  32

  St. Albans CC

  28

  Stevenage BC

  10

  Braintree DC

  7

  Chelmsford BC

  5

  Basildon DC

  4

  St. Edmundsbury BC

  4

  Maldon DC

  3

  Forest Heath DC

  2

  London

  Westminster CC

  8,547

  RB of Kensington and Chelsea

  539

  LB Lewisham

  272

  LB Southwark

  258

  LB Haringey

  152

  LB Newham

  124

  LB Barking and Dagenham

  75

  LB Waltham Forest

  68

  LB Tower Hamlets

  65

  LB Enfield

  42

  LB Greenwich

  40

  LB Wandsworth

  37

  LB Islington

  14

  LB Redbridge

  10

  LB Richmond upon Thames

  5

  North East

  Newcastle upon Tyne CC

  239

  Stockton-on-Tees DC

  108

  Redcar and Cleveland DC

  60

  Darlington BC

  14

  N Tyneside BC

  3

  North West

  Wigan BC

  294

  Carlisle CC

  108

  Ribble Valley BC

  55

  Burnley BC

  41

  Oldham BC

  22

  Rossendale BC

  17

  Hyndburn BC

  16

  Allerdale BC

  2

  Manchester CC

  2

  Chorley BC

  1

  Warrington BC

  1

  South East

  Southampton CC

  95

  Milton Keynes BC

  64

  Wycombe DC

  27

  Maidstone BC

  9

  Canterbury CC

  4

  Portsmouth CC

  1

  Thanet DC

  1

  South West

  N Cornwall DC

  9

  Exeter CC

  6

  Restormel BC

  2

  E Devon DC

  1

  Sedgemoor DC

  1

  West Midlands

  Birmingham CC

  740

  Sandwell BC

  102

  Dudley DC

  19

  Wolverhampton CC

  3

  Coventry CC

  1

  869W

  2002–03

  Local authority

  Number of fines issued

  Yorkshire and Humber

  Rotherham DC

  208

  Sheffield CC

  76

  Barnsley MBC

  10

  Parole
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many life sentence prisoners were recalled to custody during each of the last 48 months; and what the reasons for recall were. [168022]

  Paul Goggins
  The numbers of life sentence prisoners recalled to custody from 1 April 2000 onwards are shown in the table. However, the reasons for these licence revocations are only recorded from October 2002.

  Life licences can be revoked for a specific reason or a combination of reasons. In broad terms, a licensee's recall to custody is likely to occur in two main areas. Firstly, where specific behaviour, criminal or otherwise, is giving rise to concerns over the potential risk of harm to the public. Secondly, where probation staff are unable safely to manage the level of risk as a result of the licensee's non-compliance with licence conditions. Other issues will frequently combine with these main factors, most notably concerns relating to alcohol and drug misuse.

  Of the 70 lifers recalled from 1 October 2002 to 31 March 2004, the reasons for recall were listed as:
  actual or potential risk of harm to others (17 cases);
  breach of licence conditions (20 cases);
  either or both of the above factors, linked to other concerns over behaviour (33 cases).

  Life sentence prisoner recalls April 2000 to March 2004

  Year/month

  Number of recalls

  2000

  April

  2

  May

  1

  June

  2

  July

  2

  August

  4

  September

  5

  October

  2

  November

  3

  December

  2

  2001

  January

  6

  February

  1

  March

  5

  April

  0

  May

  1

  June

  2

  July

  5

  August

  4

  September

  2

  October

  3

  November

  1

  December

  3

  2002

  January

  1

  February

  2

  March

  2

  April

  1

  870W

  Life sentence prisoner recalls April 2000 to March 2004

  Year/month

  Number of recalls

  May

  2

  June

  3

  July

  2

  August

  3

  September

  2

  October

  3

  November

  3

  December

  2

  2003

  January

  2

  February

  3

  March

  3

  April

  4

  May

  4

  June

  2

  July

  4

  August

  3

  September

  2

  October

  10

  November

  6

  December

  5

  2004

  January

  6

  February

  3

  March

  5

  Police Funding
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much police expenditure was met by(a) council tax precepts and (b) Home Office grants, (i) as a percentage of local police force expenditure and (ii) in cash terms, broken down by police force, in each year since 1997–98. [170375]

  Ms Blears
  I have placed the information in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the cost of policing in Merseyside was paid for by(a) central government and (b) local taxes in each of the last eight years. [177847]

  Ms Blears
  The information is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Total gross revenue expenditure

  Government funding and specific grants1

  Other2

  Council tax

  1996–97

  225.6

  202.9

  -0.6

  23.3

  1997–98

  230.2

  206.1

  -3.2

  27.4

  1998–99

  246.8

  213.7

  3.8

  29.3

  1999–2000

  254.6

  216.1

  6.8

  31.7

  2000–01

  269.0

  226.3

  9.7

  33.0

  2001–02

  285.2

  235.9

  13.5

  35.8

  2002–03

  293.5

  244.4

  9.6

  39.5

  2003–04

  309.9

  260.0

  7.6

  42.3

  1 Includes principal Home Office police grant, ODPM Revenue Support grant and National Non Domestic Rates, Special grant, Revenue for Airwave, Crime Fighting Fund, Rural Policing grant, Loan charges grant, Street Crime Initiative grant and other specific grants.

  2 Includes all other force income apart from specific grants from Government and movements in reserves.

  Source:

  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police Statistics (Actuals 1997–98 to 2002–03 and Estimates 2003–04).

  871W
  Albert Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the cost of policing in North Wales was paid for from(a) central Government funds, (b) local council tax and (c) other sources in each year since 1996–97. [174068]

  Ms Blears
  The information is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Council tax

  Government funding and specific grants1

  Other2

  Total gross revenue expenditure

  1996–97

  10.7

  58.7

  2.0

  71.4

  1997–98

  11.2

  61.1

  0.4

  72.7

  1998–99

  13.6

  61.6

  2.0

  77.2

  1999–2000

  15.7

  64.0

  1.7

  81.4

  2000–01

  18.8

  67.3

  3.0

  89.1

  2001–02

  20.0

  74.8

  3.6

  98.4

  2002–03

  23.6

  78.4

  3.8

  105.8

  2003–04

  31.3

  78.2

  3.3

  112.8

  1 Includes Principal Home Office Police grant, Revenue Support Grant and National Non Domestic Rates (police general grants), Special Grant, Crime Fighting Fund, Rural Policing Grant, Loan Charge Grant and other specific grants.

  Under grant protection arrangements in England, police authorities have been guaranteed a minimum increase a 'floor' in general grant funding each year since 2002–03. Grant 'floors' are not applied by the Welsh Assembly, but to ensure North Wales received a grant increase equivalent to the English minimum of 2.3 per cent. in 2002–03, the Home Secretary made a special payment to North Wales Police Authority of £362,000. North Wales was also supported by this arrangement in 2004–05 (£1.5 million). Its increase in general grants in 2003–04 was 4.5 per cent. well above the funding floor of 3.0 per cent.

  2 Includes all other force income apart from specific grants from Government, and movement in reserves.

  Source:

  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police Statistics (Actuals 1996–97 to 2002–03 and Estimates 2003–04), provided by the Police Authority.

  Police Numbers (Greater London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in each police force in Greater London in each year since 1997. [177076]

  Ms Blears
  The number of police officers in the City of London and the Metropolitan Police Service are given in the table:

  Police officer strength full-time equivalent

  Strength as at:

  City of London

  Metropolitan police

  Total

  31 March 1997

  859

  26,677

  27,536

  31 March 1998

  825

  26,094

  26,919

  31 March 1999

  778

  26,073

  26,851

  31 March 2000

  732

  25,485

  26,217

  31 March 2001

  703

  24,878

  25,581

  31 March 2002

  764

  26,223

  26,987

  31 March 20031

  808

  27,984

  28,792

  31 December 20031, 2

  842

  29,441

  30,283

  1 Comparable with previous data—excludes staff on career breaks and maternity/paternity leave.

  2 The latest available figures for the end of the year were issued with Home Office Press Release 095/2004 on 2 March 2004.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) Ministry of Defence police officers, (b) British Transport police officers, (c) National Crime Squad officers and (d) police force officers there were in Greater London in each year since 1997. [177099]
  872W
  Ms Blears
  The Home Office does not collect numbers of Ministry of Defence police officers. British Transport police officer numbers were collected for the first time on 31 March 2003. The National Crime Squad was established with effect from 1 April 1998 so data were collected only from 31 March 1999.

  Available data are given in the table:

  Police strength (FTE) as at:

  British Transport Police

  National Crime Squad

  Metropolitan Police and City of London

  31 March 1997

  —

  —

  27,536

  31 March 1998

  —

  —

  26,919

  31 March 1999

  —

  1,333

  26,851

  31 March 2000

  —

  1,389

  26,217

  31 March 2001

  —

  1,308

  25,581

  31 March 2002

  —

  1,176

  26,987

  31 March 2003

  2,176

  1,175

  28,792

  30 September 2003

  1,939

  1,179

  29,765

  Prison Staff (Retirement)
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Prison Officers' Association regarding the retirement age of prison staff. [173395]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 14 May 2004]: Retirement ages are currently under general review following the publication of the Green Paper "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement", published in December 2002. The Green Paper considers retirement ages for public servants, including specific groups. It refers to the different considerations applying to:
  "… the armed forces. fire service and police where the need for a recognised physical capacity justifies the award of normal pension at a lower age …".

  The Prison Officers' Association (POA) has made representations to be included as an additional special case to the departments with lead responsibility for pensions reforms—the Treasury, Inland Revenue and the Department for Work and Pensions. The POA has also made their views known to the Prison Service on a number of occasions and officials have passed the POA views to the lead Departments.

  Prison Service Plus
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what applications have been made to the European Social Fund in relation to resettlement activities in the Prison Service; and if he will make a statement. [166818]

  Paul Goggins
  From the information available centrally about European Social Fund (ESF) applications, the Prison Service has recently submitted an ESF application to extend Prison Service Plus to a £59 million programme operating until 31 December 2006 in at least 40 establishments (45 per cent. funded by ESF). Prison Service Plus is the largest ESF-funded resettlement programme in the Prison Service. It is currently a £29 million programme operating in 28 establishments until 31 August 2004 (45 per cent. funded
  873W
  by ESF) and is geared to delivering improved employment and accommodation outcomes for released prisoners.

  Prisons (Racial Conflict)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives his Department has put in place to deal with racial conflict in the prison system. [176556]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 9 June 2004]: The Prison Service is undertaking a number of initiatives to address racism. In December 2003 a full scale and comprehensive joint action plan to combat all aspects of racism was agreed between the Prison Service and the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). The plan, entitled "Implementing Race Equality in Prisons—A Shared Agenda for Change", was produced in partnership with the CRE. It brings together work currently being undertaken to ensure compliance with the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 through the Prison Service Race Equality Scheme and incorporates lessons learned from the CRE Formal Investigation into race relations.

  Publicly Funded Programmes (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public funding has been spent in Crosby from the(a) Criminal Justice Interventions Programme, (b) Adult Drug Treatment Programme, (c) Building Safer Communities Programme, (d) Basic Command Unit Fund, (e) Wardens Scheme and (f) Regional Home Office Directors Fund. [177873]

  Ms Blears
  A breakdown of financial allocation to individual constituencies is not available. Funding is allocated at local authority level. The following amounts of funding have been allocated in Sefton:

  (a) Criminal Justice Interventions Programme (CJIP) to Sefton Drug Action Team (DAT):

  2003–04—£35,000

  2004–05—£222,235

  (b) Adult Drug Treatment Programme to Sefton DAT:

  2002–03—£971,000

  2003–04—£1,261,712

  2004–05—£1,416,095

  In order to ensure consistency, the 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. Other mainstream funding is made available at a local level. This varies both in amount and origin and as a result it is not possible to provide robust financial information.

  (C) Building Safer Communities Fund (BSC) to Sefton Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP).

  2003–04—£288,024

  2004/05—£295,225 + £25,000 for anti-social behaviour co-ordinator costs

  874W
  (d)Basic Command Unit (BCU) Fund to Sefton BCU.

  2003–04—£196,745

  2004–05—£196,745

  (e) Neighbourhood Wardens Scheme—there are no neighbourhood wardens in Sefton.

  (f) A broad, pan-Merseyside investment of £110,000 in 2003–04 and £45,000 in 2004–05 has been made available from the Home Office Regional Directors' allocation to the Multi-Agency Group/Joint Action Group strategic and tactical co-ordination arrangements. No funding has been given direct to Crosby or Sefton but those areas may benefit from the overall allocation.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the recordable offences which he categorises as antisocial behaviour. [177465]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 June 2004]: All offences under provisions which carry the possibility of a custodial sentence are recordable. These are specified in the schedule for the National Police Records Regulations 2000.

  The decision as to what constitutes anti-social behaviour is for local communities and those public bodies that serve them. It is for local bodies to look carefully at recorded crime statistics, recordable offences, British Crime Statistics, plus reports from local people in order to understand anti-social behaviour locally.

  Section 44 Funding
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total allocation of section 44 funding in each year since 1997. [174771]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I have asked the Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality if he will write to my hon. Friend with this information in due course.

  Security Firm Contracts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contracts his Department has with the security firm Reliance; whether these are being reviewed; and if he will make a statement. [175545]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 25 May 2004]: Her Majesty's Prison Service for England and Wales currently contracts with Reliance Security Task Management Ltd. for the delivery of prisoner escort and custody services in the South West of England and South Wales.

  A Better Quality Services Review in 2002 recommended that court escort and custody services should remain contracted out but that there should be a re-competition of the current contracts.
  875W
  The re-competition has been undertaken and contracts are in the process of being awarded and a further contract will be awarded to Reliance.

  Sexual Offences
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of(a) drug rape and (b) sexual abuse where drugs had been administered were reported in England in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [171023]

  Caroline Flint
  It is not possible from the information collected centrally on recorded crime to determine the number of offences where drugs had been administered.

  Speed Cameras (Errors)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fines consequent on speed camera evidence have been rescinded for being erroneous in each year since 1998. [177995]

  Caroline Flint
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Stun Guns
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many stun guns have been seized by the police in 2004. [177800]

  Caroline Flint
  The requested information is not collected centrally.

  Surrey Police
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) police support staff there have been in Surrey in each year since 1996. [177271]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Full-time equivalents

  Surrey

  Police strength

  Police staff1

  31 March 1996

  1,644

  792

  31 March 1997

  1,620

  757

  31 March 1998

  1,608

  768

  31 March 1999

  1,662

  754

  31 March 2000

  1,785

  780

  31 March 20012

  2,066

  922

  31 March 2002

  1,992

  1,063

  31 March 20033

  1,906

  41,258

  31 December 20033

  1,922

  n/a

  1 Includes traffic wardens.

  2 The figures for Surrey were affected by the boundary changes in April 2000.

  3 Comparable strength (excludes staff on career breaks and maternity/paternity leave).

  4 Includes 21 Community Support Officers.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women over the age of 70 years have been remanded to HMP Holloway in the last year; for how long in each case; and for what offences. [177407]
  876W
  Paul Goggins
  Two women over the age of 70 have been remanded to HMP Holloway in the last year, both for the offence of breaching a restraining order. The women spent one night and five nights in custody respectively.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicide attempts have been made by inmates of Holloway Prison in the last year. [177495]

  Paul Goggins
  In the calendar year 2003, there were 851 recorded acts of self-harm involving prisoners at HMP Holloway.

  Suicidal intent is not easy to establish. The reasons why people self-injure are highly complex, and it is difficult to distinguish between acts of self-harm that were attempts at ending life, and those that occurred for other reasons. It is not possible, therefore, for the Prison Service to determine from the general figures recording incidents of self-harm those acts that could be described as attempts at suicide. The figure above therefore includes all acts of self-harm, however serious.

  Women prisoners are to benefit from a specifically targeted and separate suicide prevention and self-harm management strategy being developed for them. This builds upon a number of interventions including: individual crisis counselling for women prisoners who self-harm; the continued development and evaluation of Dialectical Behaviour Therapy, which is currently being trialled at Durham, Bullwood Hall and Holloway prisons; investment and planning to ensure progress on the detoxification strategy in women's prisons; and the introduction of a new training pack for all staff working with women in custody, which includes a module on the health and well-being of women prisoners. £1 million from the Department of Health has been allocated to women's prisons to be spent on the recruitment of psychiatric nurses.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many female inmates have committed suicide in England and Wales(a) broken down by prison and (b) in total in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [177508]

  (2) how many female suicides in prisons were (a) remand prisoners, (b) had a substance abuse problem prior to entering jail and (c) had been moved from another prison within the previous three months in each of the past three years; [177565]

  (3) how many suicides there were in each women's prison in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [177568]

  Paul Goggins
  The following table shows the number of self-inflicted deaths involving women prisoners in each year since 1997, the establishments in which the deaths occurred, the number of women who were on remand when they died, and the number of women who had moved from another prison in the three months before their deaths.
  877W

  Number of self-inflicted deaths per calendar year

  Establishment

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  20041

  Askham Grange

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brockhill

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Buckley Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bullwood Hall

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Cookham Wood

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Downview

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Drake Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  1

  East Sutton Park

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eastwood Park

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Edmunds Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Foston Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highpoint

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Holloway

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Low Newton

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Morton Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New Hall

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  3

  1

  Risley

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Send

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Styal

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  4

  —

  Winchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  PECS2 Area 3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  PECS Area 6

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Annual Total

  3

  3

  5

  8

  6

  9

  14

  9

  Remand Total3

  —

  1

  3

  3

  4

  5

  —

  1

  Moved from another prison in previous three months4

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  4

  3

  1 To 1 June.

  2 Prison Escort and Custody Services. Deaths in PECS custody include those that occur in courts, or during transfer from police custody to court or prison, to or from court, or between prisons.

  3 Annual total includes all remand, convicted/ unsentenced, sentenced and judgment respited categories. The remand total is for those who died while on remand only.

  4 Three months has been defined as 92 days. The definition does not rule out prisoners who may have spent time in their final prison on an earlier occasion.

  It is not possible to determine how many of the women who died had a substance misuse issue prior to entering prison, as such data are not collated centrally.

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

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons there were housing women prisoners in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [177509]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of prisons in England and Wales with female units at any time during the year, in each year since 1997, is given in the table.
  878W

  Prisons with female units England and Wales

  Number

  1997

  16

  1998

  17

  1999

  17

  2000

  16

  2001

  18

  2002

  19

  2003

  19

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of transferring female prisoners between jails; and if he will make a statement; [177566]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on the mental health of women prisoners of the distance of the prison from their families. [177567]

  Paul Goggins
  There is no specific research on the effects of transferring women between prisons nor on the mental health effects of being located far from home. But we do know from other data that being close to family and friends is particularly important for female prisoners and moving between prisons is bound to he disruptive to any prisoner.

  The Prison Service has recently started research with Oxford University Public Health Department on the effects of imprisonment on women's health. The effects of women's locations in relation to their families and the effects of transfers between prisons are expected to be examined as part of that work. It is hoped that the preliminary results will be available by the end of 2005.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cattle Diseases
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average length of time was that cattle remained on farms before being collected following a positive test for(a) brucellosis and (b) tuberculosis in 2003. [R] [178388]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) In 2003, the average length of time that elapsed between a positive brucellosis test and slaughter of the reactor animal was 14 working days.

  (b) In 2003, the average length of time that elapsed between a positive tuberculosis test and slaughter of the reactor animal was 21 working days.

  GCSEs
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average point score of GCSE pupils in Northern Ireland was in each of the past five years. [177666]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The average point scores for GCSE pupils in Northern Ireland over the last five years are as follows:

  Academic year

  Average point score

  1997–98

  35.1

  1998–99

  36.3

  1999–2000

  36.9

  Percentage

  Social class

  I Professional

  II Intermediate

  III Skilled Non-manual

  III M Manual Skilled

  IV Partly Skilled

  V Unskilled

  1995–96

  8

  41

  15

  24

  8

  4

  1996–97

  8

  40

  16

  25

  8

  3

  1997–98

  8

  42

  17

  22

  8

  3

  1998–99

  7

  42

  17

  24

  8

  3

  1999–2000

  8

  41

  17

  23

  8

  3

  2000–01

  9

  40

  18

  23

  8

  3

  2001–02

  8

  41

  18

  23

  8

  3

  Notes:

  1. Individual figures have been rounded which means that the sum of percentages in each row may not total 100.

  2. The last year for which data on social class is available is 2001–02. From 2002–03, UCAS provide a Socio-Economic Classification (SEC) of students which is not directly comparable with the social class information.

  Source:

  UCAS

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what Government spending on student support in Northern Ireland has been as a proportion of gross domestic product in the last 10 years. [178243]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Student support information on the basis of Resource Allocation Budgets in Northern Ireland is only available in the Department for Employment and Learning from the 2001–02 financial year. Estimates of Gross Value Added (GVA), previously known as gross domestic product, are not yet available for Northern Ireland beyond 2001–02. Currently, therefore, the only year for which the
  880W

  Academic year

  Average point score

  2000–01

  36.9

  2001–02

  37.7

  2002–03

  37.9

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether vocational GCSE grades are included when calculating the average point scores of pupils in Northern Ireland. [177668]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Vocational GCSE's were introduced in September 2002. The first awards are expected at the end of the 2003–04 academic year. From this point they will be included in the calculation of average point scores of pupils in Northern Ireland.

  Higher Education
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of young entrants to higher education in Northern Ireland were from social classes(a) iii, (b) iv and (c) v since 1995–96. [178241]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Department for Employment and Learning does not hold information on social class of all students at Northern Ireland higher education institutions. However, data are available for Northern Ireland domiciled entrants to higher education in Northern Ireland who applied using the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS).

  Information for NI domiciled accepted applicants to degree courses at NIHE institutions through UCAS by social class from 1995–96 to 2001–02 is as follows.

  information can be calculated is 2001–02. For that year, Government spending on student support was £59,263,000 or 0.29 per cent. of GVA.

  Hotels
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the hotel occupancy rates were in Northern Ireland in each(a) year and (b) month in the last 20 years. [178842]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The table provided by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board gives the breakdown of annual and monthly percentage room and bedspace occupancy levels for Northern Ireland.
  881W

  Hotel occupancy1

  Percentage rate

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  2004

  Room

  46

  56

  56

  —

  —

  —

  Bedspace

  28

  37

  35

  —

  —

  —

  2003

  Room

  40

  51

  52

  55

  60

  66

  Bedspace

  24

  32

  32

  36

  39

  41

  2002

  Room

  41

  53

  51

  53

  62

  63

  Bedspace

  23

  31

  32

  34

  38

  41

  2001

  Room

  41

  50

  49

  49

  58

  66

  Bedspace

  22

  29

  29

  31

  35

  40

  2000

  Room

  39

  46

  50

  58

  62

  63

  Bedspace

  22

  28

  29

  38

  38

  39

  1999

  Room

  40

  47

  47

  51

  58

  63

  Bedspace

  23

  28

  30

  33

  36

  41

  1998

  Room

  43

  53

  50

  53

  59

  64

  Bedspace

  24

  31

  28

  32

  34

  39

  1997

  Room

  39

  51

  51

  52

  53

  59

  Bedspace

  22

  31

  33

  32

  34

  37

  1996

  Room

  44

  55

  56

  58

  66

  67

  Bedspace

  25

  32

  34

  36

  42

  44

  1995

  Room

  46

  55

  62

  60

  67

  72

  Bedspace

  27

  33

  39

  42

  44

  48

  1994

  Room

  36

  48

  50

  49

  54

  57

  Bedspace

  21

  27

  28

  31

  34

  35

  1993

  Room

  37

  51

  49

  48

  53

  62

  Bedspace

  23

  31

  31

  32

  37

  40

  1992

  Room

  34

  46

  46

  46

  51

  54

  Bedspace

  21

  29

  28

  32

  35

  36

  1991

  Room

  37

  42

  44

  48

  56

  57

  Bedspace

  22

  27

  30

  32

  38

  37

  1990

  Room

  33

  45

  53

  49

  59

  62

  Bedspace

  21

  28

  34

  33

  40

  40

  1989

  Room

  37

  47

  49

  53

  56

  55

  Bedspace

  23

  31

  32

  34

  36

  37

  1988

  Room

  35

  44

  46

  46

  45

  52

  Bedspace

  22

  26

  29

  31

  32

  33

  1987

  Room

  33

  49

  46

  49

  51

  52

  Bedspace

  21

  30

  29

  33

  35

  35

  1986

  Room

  31

  42

  41

  42

  47

  50

  Bedspace

  19

  25

  26

  27

  31

  33

  1985

  Room

  37

  42

  45

  49

  51

  51

  Bedspace

  24

  27

  27

  34

  36

  35

  1984

  Room

  30

  41

  42

  44

  49

  51

  Bedspace

  19

  27

  28

  31

  35

  35

  1983

  Room

  29

  34

  42

  41

  42

  45

  Bedspace

  19

  21

  28

  29

  30

  32

  1982

  Room

  25

  30

  35

  32

  38

  37

  Bedspace

  16

  19

  22

  22

  26

  25

  1981

  Room

  30

  37

  38

  33

  34

  34

  Bedspace

  19

  23

  24

  23

  22

  22

  882W 883W

  Hotel occupancy1

  Percentage rate

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  1980

  Room

  32

  33

  34

  35

  36

  41

  Bedspace

  19

  21

  23

  23

  24

  27

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Year average

  2004

  Room

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedspace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2003

  Room

  56

  66

  68

  61

  56

  46

  56

  Bedspace

  40

  49

  43

  39

  34

  30

  37

  2002

  Room

  54

  60

  61

  56

  50

  39

  53

  Bedspace

  38

  42

  38

  35

  31

  25

  34

  2001

  Room

  51

  62

  62

  55

  53

  41

  53

  Bedspace

  35

  44

  38

  34

  31

  27

  33

  2000

  Room

  52

  59

  62

  55

  50

  43

  53

  Bedspace

  36

  40

  38

  33

  28

  26

  33

  1999

  Room

  54

  59

  66

  59

  54

  41

  53

  Bedspace

  37

  41

  41

  38

  31

  25

  34

  1998

  Room

  51

  60

  61

  53

  51

  38

  53

  Bedspace

  34

  41

  36

  33

  29

  24

  32

  1997

  Room

  45

  59

  66

  62

  56

  45

  53

  Bedspace

  30

  41

  41

  37

  32

  27

  33

  1996

  Room

  52

  60

  62

  56

  57

  41

  56

  Bedspace

  36

  43

  39

  34

  33

  26

  35

  1995

  Room

  61

  70

  75

  65

  65

  45

  62

  Bedspace

  45

  53

  49

  41

  38

  28

  41

  1994

  Room

  44

  54

  60

  55

  55

  44

  51

  Bedspace

  31

  38

  38

  33

  33

  28

  31

  1993

  Room

  47

  52

  55

  50

  43

  32

  48

  Bedspace

  35

  39

  37

  32

  25

  21

  32

  1992

  Room

  49

  56

  56

  49

  43

  34

  47

  Bedspace

  36

  43

  37

  33

  28

  22

  32

  1991

  Room

  55

  59

  59

  50

  47

  33

  49

  Bedspace

  40

  46

  40

  33

  30

  22

  33

  1990

  Room

  50

  58

  62

  53

  46

  34

  50

  Bedspace

  37

  43

  42

  35

  29

  23

  34

  1989

  Room

  50

  56

  59

  51

  53

  34

  50

  Bedspace

  36

  40

  41

  35

  33

  23

  33

  1988

  Room

  47

  48

  53

  46

  47

  32

  45

  Bedspace

  35

  35

  33

  30

  28

  23

  30

  1987

  Room

  46

  54

  58

  53

  45

  32

  47

  Bedspace

  35

  39

  39

  34

  28

  21

  32

  1986

  Room

  44

  53

  51

  48

  41

  30

  43

  Bedspace

  32

  40

  34

  30

  25

  20

  29

  1985

  Room

  51

  54

  48

  50

  42

  28

  46

  Bedspace

  37

  41

  37

  38

  28

  19

  32

  1984

  Room

  44

  54

  52

  49

  43

  34

  44

  Bedspace

  35

  43

  38

  32

  28

  24

  31

  884W 885W

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Year average

  1983

  Room

  41

  47

  44

  40

  40

  31

  40

  Bedspace

  31

  36

  32

  28

  27

  22

  28

  1982

  Room

  33

  40

  40

  39

  32

  28

  34

  Bedspace

  25

  31

  26

  25

  20

  19

  23

  1981

  Room

  33

  31

  36

  38

  31

  26

  33

  Bedspace

  22

  26

  25

  20

  17

  15

  22

  1980

  Room

  36

  40

  43

  35

  34

  25

  35

  Bedspace

  25

  28

  24

  22

  24

  17

  23

  1 A new survey methodology was introduced in 1997 therefore caution should be taken when comparing pre-1997 results with post-1997 results.

  Hunting Bill
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with his colleagues in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the extension of the Hunting Bill to Northern Ireland. [175638]

  Mr. Pearson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Rural Affairs referred to the issue of the introduction of a Hunting Bill with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland during an informal conversation in late 2002. There have been no other discussions with the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Lyric Theatre, Belfast
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial assistance the Government is providing for the redevelopment of the Lyric Theatre in Belfast. [178476]

  Angela Smith
  No decision has yet been taken on whether the Government will provide financialassistance for the redevelopment of the Lyric Theatre. This will depend on the strength of the business case and the availability of funding to meet the capital costs. My Department is currently working with the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and The Lyric Theatre to develop a robust and up-to-date business case for support from public sector funds.

  Music Teaching
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what risk assessment was carried out when deciding upon a maximum class size of 20 for music classes; by whom this risk assessment was carried out; and what evidence there is to support the limiting of class sizes to 20 pupils. [178539]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The maximum class size of 20 for pupils in practical music classes was initially included in the Department's 2001 Circular on Class Sizes in Practical Subjects. More recently the Department reassessed the position by consulting with various educational specialists/organisations including the Department's Education and Training Inspectorate, representatives of heads of post-primary schools, school authorities and teacher unions.
  886W
  The professional view emerging from this consultation again confirmed that in general, health and safety hazards are such that adequate and safe supervision of pupils is not possible if more than 20 pupils are present in a class and involved in practical activities. This limit only applies to music classes involving the practical use of musical instruments. Also, the limit does not apply to choirs or orchestras, which are not classified as classes for the purposes of the Department's circular.

  Should issues arise for specific schools with regard to meeting the maximum class size requirement of 20 pupils for music, schools can seek advice from the Department on an appropriate way forward.

  National Stadium
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the outcome was of the recent feasibility study into a National Stadium for Northern Ireland; whether a potential developer has been identified; and if he will make a statement. [178519]

  Angela Smith
  I made an announcement on 24 May 2004 on the outcome of the recent business plan exercise in relation to the concept of a Northern Ireland multi-sports stadium. This was to the effect that such a venture could be operationally viable provided the sports of Soccer, Rugby and Gaelic Games were engaged. No potential developer has been identified as it would be premature to seek to do so prior to the completion of a proper examination of site options and a formal commitment from the three sports concerned to a multi-sports stadium. I have arranged for a copy of my statement on this matter to be sent to the hon. Lady. A copy will also be placed in the Library

  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the sums paid to Assembly Members in(a) salaries and (b) office and staff allowances since the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in November 2003. [176958]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Following my determination under Section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in respect of Members' salaries and allowances effective from 5 December 2003, a total of £1.377 million has been paid in respect of Members' salaries with a farther £1.518 million paid in respect of office costs and other
  887W
  allowances, including Members' travel and subsistence. These figures include payments made up to 31 March 2004.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the costs of the Northern Ireland Assembly since its suspension in October 2002. [176970]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since its suspension on 14 October 2002, the cost associated with maintaining the Assembly up to 31 March 2004 is £36.6 million. This figure comprises costs relating to Members and parties of £15.4 million; property, accommodation and business services £7.5 million; and salaries of the Assembly Secretariat of £13.7 million. An element of this latter figure is attributable to Assembly staff who have been working on non Assembly projects within the wider public sector in Northern Ireland since June 2003.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken by the Department for Health in Northern Ireland to tackle osteoporosis in females. [178610]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is promoting action to prevent osteoporosis through a range of strategies and action plans designed to encourage regular exercise, a balanced diet, smoking prevention/cessation, home accident prevention and a responsible approach to alcohol consumption.

  In addition to lifestyle changes, there are a number of interventions, including medicines, used to prevent and treat osteoporosis. The choice of intervention is a matter for clinical judgment, having taken account of the evidence of effectiveness, clinical circumstances and the views expressed by the individual patient.

  Policing Board for Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the outcome was of the recruitment competitions for the post of Communications Director for the Policing Board for Northern Ireland commenced in(a) July 2003 and (b) January 2004. [177671]

  Mr. Pearson
  I am advised by the Policing Board that there was no appointment made from the July 2003 Communications Director competition because none of the candidates interviewed were deemed suitable for the post. Therefore the post was re-advertised in January 2004. An offer has been made to a candidate and the Policing Board is awaiting a formal acceptance.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what account the Policing Board for Northern Ireland has taken of the Fair Employment Tribunal decision in the case of Willis v. Police Authority for Northern Ireland and others with regard to (a) the necessity of short-listing, (b) interview panels' notes to record assessments of candidates and decisions in relation to the short-listing and interviewing process and (c) the requirement to retain all application forms and related documents for 12 months; [177672]
  888W
  (2) for what reason the panel of the Policing Board for Northern Ireland decided not to record their individual assessments and selections in short-listing applicants for the post of Communications Director in July 2003; [177673]

  (3) for what reason the Policing Board for Northern Ireland decided not to retain documentation relating to the recruitment competition for the post of Communications Director commenced in July 2003. [177674]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have been advised by the Policing Board that these are issues that have been raised in an application to the Fair Employment Tribunal in Northern Ireland by a candidate who was an unsuccessful applicant for the July 2003 competition for the post of Communications Director. As there are ongoing proceedings, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether a code of conduct has been published in respect of members of the Implementation Body on Language. [176891]

  Angela Smith
  The North South Ministerial Council at a meeting on 14 June 2002 approved the code of conduct for Board members of the North South Language Body. The code of conduct has not been published.

  Salmon
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made regarding the buy-out of salmon nets in Northern Ireland's river estuaries. [178622]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has spent just over £1.1 million on the buy-out of 27 owners of commercial salmon nets with the potential to operate 49 commercial salmon nets in the Fisheries Conservancy Board (FCB) area. This represents an 87.5 per cent. reduction in the potential number of commercial nets available to fish in the FCB area. The 10-year average number of salmon taken by these nets was 9,800 out of a 10-year average declared commercial catch of between 10,000–11,000 salmon.

  Smoking
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) discussions he has had with and (b) advice he has received from the Chief Medical Officer in relation to the possible introduction of a ban on smoking in public places in Northern Ireland. [178702]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Chief Medical Officer and I have had a number of wide-ranging discussions about tobacco control, including a possible ban on smoking in public places in Northern Ireland. We agreed that it was important for us to contribute to the wider UK debate on possible smoking prohibitions/restrictions by assessing the level of public support here. We also agreed that officials should consider the implications of a ban, including those relating to enforcement.
  889W
  As Dr. Campbell made clear in her recent interview with the Belfast Telegraph, while she favours a ban, this would not, of itself, address the appalling toll of premature death and avoidable illness caused by smoking. The ongoing inter-agency work to implement the Tobacco Action Plan is of paramount importance in pursuing our long-term aim of a tobacco-free society.

  Students (Appeals)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on future arrangements for students to appeal against decisions made by further education colleges, which are currently dealt with by the Education Department. [177738]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Colleges have formal procedures for dealing with complaints that involve the Principal, the Board of Governors and ultimately referral to the Department for Employment and Learning. The Department has the power to give direction to remedy the complaint. These arrangements, however, are being reviewed in partnership with the Association of Northern Ireland Colleges, the Trade Unions and the Department.

  Variable Fees
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the advice provided by the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council to him on the proposal to introduce variable fees in Northern Ireland. [177737]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Northern Ireland Higher Education Council (NIHEC) is art advisory body to the Department for Employment and Learning on higher education matters.

  The Council has provided advice on a number of key issues including the implications for Northern Ireland of proposals to increase funding of higher education through the introduction of variable deferred fees.

  NIHEC advice is provided to the Department on a confidential basis.

  Vehicle Tax
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to assist motorists and hauliers whose MOT and PSV tests have been postponed as a result of industrial action by civil servants and who are unable to tax their vehicles. [178856]

  Angela Smith
  The Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (DVTA), which is responsible for vehicle testing, has taken a range of measures to alleviate the impact of industrial action. These include contacting customers directly affected and, where possible, offering alternative appointments; maximising the use of the capacity available at other test centres; redeploying staff from non-urgent duties; and cancelling non-essential training.

  DVTA has also introduced temporary exemption certificates for goods vehicles, to mitigate the difficulties for the commercial sector. A temporary exemption certificate allows a vehicle to be used on the road without a goods vehicle test certificate for up to three
  890W
  months from the date of issue. It does not alter the responsibility of the owner or operator to maintain the vehicle in a roadworthy condition. The use of temporary exemption certificates has freed up capacity for the testing of vehicles in priority categories such as ambulances and public service vehicles.

  DVTA has also been keeping in contact with the Police Service for Northern Ireland (PSNI) and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland (DVLNI) regarding the implications for motorists. The law is very clear: technically it is an offence to drive a vehicle without a valid MOT certificate, and it is an offence to use or keep an unlicensed vehicle on a public road. However, PSNI and DVLNI are aware of the difficulties and have advised that for the moment each case will be considered on its merits. They have also indicated that all relevant circumstances will be taken into account before anyone is prosecuted. The agency has also been in touch with the Association of British Insurers, who have indicated that in most cases motorists affected by industrial action will continue to be covered by their insurance policies. However, they have also advised those affected to check the detail of their policies and also to make direct contact with their insurers.

  Longer term measures under active consideration include temporary exemption certificates for cars and making alternative arrangements for vehicle testing.

  Young Offenders
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) boys and (b) girls up to the age of 16 years are detained in young offenders' institutes in Northern Ireland. [178684]

  Mr. Pearson
  At present there are two boys aged 16-years-old detained at Hydebank Wood Young Offenders Centre in Northern Ireland. There are currently no females up to the age of 16 detained in young offenders institutions in Northern Ireland.

HEALTH

  Carers
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of carers of working age who gave up jobs to care for a sick or disabled relative in each of the last five years. [178199]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government have made no estimate of the number of carers of working age who have given up work to provide care.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland are carers; and what the estimated cost of paid carers being substituted for the care they provide would be. [178596]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The number of people providing unpaid care in England as recorded in the 2001 Census
  891W
  is 4.9 million. The Government have made no estimate of the cost of paid carers being substituted for the care they provide.

  Matters relating to Scotland and Wales are matters for the devolved administration. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with the Northern Ireland Office.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of carers in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland have access to respite care. [178599]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information on the proportion of carers in England that have access to short breaks is not held centrally. Local authority data showed that the 2002–03 Carers' Grant provided 2,140,632 breaks for 143,231 carers, with 31,082 carers benefiting from the services provided directly to them.

  Matters relating to Scotland and Wales are matters for the Devolved Administration. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with the Northern Ireland Office.

  Fast Food Outlets
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment has been made of the capacity of local authority environmental health departments to police adequately fast food restaurants and other food outlets; and if he will make a statement. [178256]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There has been no recent assessment of the capacity of local authority environmental health departments to police fast food restaurants and other food outlets. Local authorities receive funding through the Revenue Support Grant, to enable them to undertake inspections to the full range of food premises. It is for each local authority to decide specific resource allocations to ensure that it has the capacity to undertake this work.

  The Food Standards Agency monitors and audits the food law enforcement work of local authorities. This enables assessments to be made of individual local authority food law enforcement systems and activities, including whether food businesses are inspected in accordance with risk as required under statutory codes of practice.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of(a) nursing and (b) personal care for people with Alzheimer's disease, with particular reference to funding. [176768]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: Everyone, including those with Alzheimer's, should receive care based on an assessment of their long term care needs. Where they have a primary need for health care, all their care will be provided and funded by the
  892W
  national health service. Where they have a need for care from a registered nurse this will also be funded by the NHS. Where the assessment shows that their care needs do not currently meet the criteria for fully funded NHS care or care from a registered nurse, personal care can be provided by social services on a means tested basis.

  Autistic Spectrum Disorder
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the appropriate qualifications and experience required of psychiatrists treating(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients who have an autistic spectrum disorder. [178955]

  Dr. Ladyman
  None. This is a professional matter. It is the responsibility of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the number of people with Asperger's syndrome who are misdiagnosed as schizophrenic. [178957]

  Dr. Ladyman
  None. Where people have Asperger's syndrome or any other form of autistic spectrum disorder, it is important to distinguish behaviours due to their autism from any that might be attributable to a mental health problem in order to ensure that anti-psychotic drugs are prescribed only where they are appropriate.

  Clinical Waste (Incineration)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospitals in the Greater London area are able to incinerate their own clinical waste. [177823]

  Mr. Hutton
  The disposal of clinical waste can only be undertaken at facilities licensed by the Environment Agency. There are no national health service trusts in greater London area that are licensed to operate such facilities and each therefore contracts with the private sector to dispose of this waste.

  Coldeast Hospital Site, Fareham
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the status is of the housing development for which planning permission has been granted to a private sector developer on the Coldeast Hospital Site, Fareham.[176695]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The ownership of the Coldeast Hospital site is split between the Secretary of State for Health, Fareham and Gosport Primary Care Trust (PCT) and Hampshire Partnership National Health Service Trust.

  Reserved matters planning consent has recently been granted for a total of 253 housing units on those parts of the site owned by the Secretary of State for Health and Fareham and Gosport PCT. The planning consent was not granted to a private sector developer.

  As part of a larger portfolio, an agreement in principle has been reached to transfer the land in the

  893W
  ownership of the Secretary of State for Health to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). Discussions are continuing on the details of the transfer of the portfolio but once it takes place it will be for ODPM to move forward with the redevelopment of this part of the site.

  Fareham and Gosport PCT is firming up its plans for the health service needs of both Fareham and Gosport residents, and the health campus on the Coldeast site is a key part of those plans.

  Complementary and Alternative Medicine Council
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost of registration with the new Complementary and Alternative Medicine Council will be. [175937]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: On 2 March the Department published proposals for the statutory regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture practitioners. The consultation period closed on 7 June. I am aware that the cost of statutory regulation is of interest to practitioners and I will carefully consider the comments about costs made in response to the consultation exercise. At this stage we are unable to provide a more accurate estimate of cost than that set out in paragraph 25 of the Department's consultation document, "Regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture".

  Contaminated Blood Products
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many compensation payments have been made, and of what total value, to sufferers of hepatitis C as a result of infection by NHS supplied contaminated blood products. [176223]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Blood Authority has made payments of £2,608,075 in respect of 107 cases. These payments have been made following Mr. Justice Burton's judgment of 26 March 2001 under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 in respect of patients infected with hepatitis C through blood transfusions between March 1988 and September 1991.

  The NHS Litigation Authority has made payments of £727,027 in respect of 14 cases brought against national health service trusts and health authorities.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 17 May 2004.Official Report, column 797W, on dentistry, if he will place a copy of the full report, or of its recommendations and conclusions, in the Library. [177806]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We plan to publish the report shortly.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are registered with NHS dentists in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [177681]
  894W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The number of people registered with a national health service dentist as at 31 March 2004 in the Shropshire County Primary Care Trust area, which covers the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency, is shown in the table.

  Registrations

  Numbers registered at 31 March 2004

  Adults

  69,550

  Children

  38,991

  Total

  108,541

  Disability Equipment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many items of disability equipment issued by the NHS or social services went missing in the last year for which figures are available. [178349]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally. However, as part of the integration and modernisation of community equipment services over the past three years, services have been encouraged to improve systems for tracking equipment issued so that it can be recovered when economical to do so, with a view to decontamination and re-issue.

  In addition, the national health service counter fraud and security management service (CFSMS) has set out in its strategy document, "A professional approach to managing security in the NHS", that the security of property and assets is one of its four priority areas. Currently, the CFSMS is working with the Home Office on a Treasury-funded safer hospitals project to look at how technology can be used to better protect staff, professionals and property.

  Dr. Jonathan Lampard
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid by the NHS to Dr. Jonathan Lampard to set up his NHS dentistry service. [177679]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Jonathan Lampard received a grant of £45,000 to help establish his new practice in Shrewsbury in 1998.

  The grant was provided under the Investing in Dentistry scheme through Section 56 of the National Health Service Act 1977 and approved by the Secretary of State. The conditions agreed by Mr. Lampard included the registration of at least 2,000 patients within one year of opening the practice, the addition of 200 patients during the second year and maintaining that level for a further year. The agreement remained valid for a period of three years from the date of the first registrations (26 March 1998) after which time Mr. Lampard was free of all commitment to the NHS under the agreement.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how NHS terms and conditions allowed Dr. Jonathan Lampard, a dentist in Shrewsbury, to leave the NHS. [177680]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Under current arrangements, dentists working in the general dental services (GDS) are self employed independent contractors providing dental services. Dentists can practice wherever they like. There
  895W
  are no restrictions and, provided they meet the conditions of suitability, they have an automatic right to provide GDS. They can accept as many or as few national health service patients as they wish and can alter that commitment at will without reference to the primary care trust (PCT). If a dentist working in the GDS wishes to terminate a patient's NHS registration, he/she must give three months notice of his/her intention to the patient. Dentists can quite legally accept only certain categories of patients, for example, children and exempt adults. There is no requirement to give any notice to the PCT about changes in practice acceptance arrangements or of termination of registrations.

  Under proposals in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, PCTs will be given new responsibility to secure dental services and will be able to provide assistance and support to dental practices with which they contract. With this responsibility will go the resources, totalling some £1.4 billion for 2004–05, held centrally for dentistry to support them in delivering their new duties on dentistry.

  The shadow special health authority we set up last August for dentistry is aiming to issue in July indicative contract values to dentists and PCTs to enable them to begin discussions about contracts under the new arrangements. PCTs will be able to agree an increase in a dentist's contract value in return for increased commitment.

  E-administration
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when(a) electronic transmission of prescriptions and (b) e-booking will commence within the health service. [176864]

  Mr. Hutton
  The electronic transmission of prescriptions in England is scheduled to be implemented from the beginning of 2005. E-booking is being introduced from summer 2004, initially at a small number of sites, but will then be rolled out across the national health service in England with the aim of full coverage by the end of 2005.

  Elderly Care Services
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to reassess performance indicators for services for older people. [175921]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The independent Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection is responsible for developing a performance assessment system for use in the national health service, including health services for older people. They are considering how to develop the current performance assessment system for the future.

  The Commission for Social Care Inspection is responsible for devising criteria to be used for the basis of assessing the performance of local authority social services and awarding them a star rating, and for developing performance indicators as part of those criteria.

  Fertility Treatment
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the available 896W
  capacity in England to implement the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's clinical guideline on the assessment and treatment of people with fertility problems; and if he will publish the full results of this assessment; [177215]

  (2) what account was taken of national health service capacity during the development of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's clinical guideline on the assessment and treatment of people with fertility problems; and with whose advice; [177216]

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that there is adequate capacity available to the NHS to implement in full the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's clinical guideline on the assessment and treatment of people with fertility problems. [177217]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines, such as those for fertility services, are based on assessments of clinical and cost-effectiveness rather than national health service capacity. We recognise, as does NICE, that the NHS cannot reasonably be expected to implement the fertility guideline overnight, but primary care trusts (PCTs) will need to consider the detail of the guideline and review their services. We have advised all PCTs to offer, by April 2005, a minimum of one cycle in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to those who meet the clinical criteria, and to give priority to couples with no children living with them. We expect the NHS, overall funding for which is increasing from £56 billion to over £90 billion between 2003–04 and 2007–08, to make progress to full implementation in the longer term, including progress towards the maximum of three cycles of IVF which the guideline recommends.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is planned to be spent by the first wave NHS foundation trusts on new corporate governance arrangements, including elections and support for boards of governors; and if he will make a statement. [178251]

  Mr. Hutton
  The cost of the governance arrangements is a matter for each national health service foundation trust. These costs will not be entirely additional as they will replicate some current activity that trusts are already doing around informing the public, patients and staff about issues affecting each trust.

  Hospital Building Projects
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new NHS hospital building projects are under way in England and Wales. [177819]

  Mr. Hutton
  Currently in England there are 117 hospital schemes counting towards the NHS Plan target of 100 new hospital schemes by 2010. 107 will be built under the private finance initiative (PFI). Of the 107, 38 are now operational and a further 22 are under construction. Of the 10 publicly procured schemes, six are now operational and four are under construction.

  Since devolution to the National Assembly of Wales, no information is held centrally on the hospital building programme in Wales.
  897W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) planned and (b) actual dates for each stage of new hospital projects approved by the Department were; when each scheme started on site; and when they reached financial close. [171590]

  Mr. Hutton
  The tables show planned and actual dates for the key stages of new hospital projects prioritised by the Department. All schemes are set

  Schemes which are operational

  Trust

  Approval of outline business case

  Publication of advert in Official Journal of EU

  Date of financial close

  Operational

  North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  January 1994

  January 1996

  November 1997

  April 2000

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  March 1995

  September 1995

  July 1997

  September 2000

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  September 1994

  January 1995

  December 1997

  October 2000

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

  April 1995

  March 1995

  July 1998

  February 2001

  North Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  January 1994

  December 1994

  March 1998

  April 2001

  Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust

  December 1994

  July 1995

  July 1998

  April 2001

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  March 1994

  April 1995

  June 1998

  July 2001

  Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust

  January 1995

  February 1995

  January 1998

  September 2001

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  January 1995

  June 1995

  March 1999

  March 2002

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  December 1995

  February 1995

  February 1999

  March 2002

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  June 1995

  July 1995

  March 1999

  March 2002

  South Durham Healthcare NHS Trust

  January 1994

  December 1994

  May 1999

  June 2002

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  July 1995

  September 1995

  December 1999

  October 2002

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  December 1993

  October 1999

  October 1999

  December 2002

  Leeds Community and Mental Health services Teaching NHS Trust

  January 1996

  October 1996

  March 2000

  December 2002

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  November 2002

  November 2002

  December 2000

  March 2003

  Bromley Healthcare NHS Trust

  March 1995

  September 1995

  November 1998

  March 2003

  Berkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  October 1997

  December 1998

  May 2001

  April 2003

  West Middlesex University Hospitals NHS Crust

  August 1999

  September 1998

  January 2001

  May 2003

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  October 1994

  March 1995

  August 1999

  August 2003

  St. George's Hospital NHS Trust

  June 1995

  March 1996

  March 2000

  September 203

  Schemes which have reached financial close with planned operational date.

  Trust

  Approval of outline business case

  Publication of advert in Official Journal of EU

  Date of financial close

  Planned operational

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  April 1998

  April 2000

  May 2002

  November 2004

  Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust

  November 1996

  September 1998

  May 2001

  December 2004

  University College London Hospitals NHS trust

  March 1995

  October 1995

  July 2000

  April 2005

  East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust

  May 2000

  May 2000

  July 2003

  July 2005

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  December 2001

  May 2002

  November 2003

  September 2005

  Avon and Western Wiltshire Mental Health NHS Trust

  January 2002

  February 2002

  March 2004

  March 2006

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

  July 2000

  August 2000

  November 2002

  May 2006

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust

  March 2000

  August 2001

  January 2004

  November 2006

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  June 2001

  July 2001

  December 2003

  May 2007

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  June 2000

  June 2000

  September 2003

  May 2008

  Schemes yet to reach financial close. Operational dates yet to be finalized

  Trust

  Approval of outline business case

  Publication of advert in Official Journal of EU

  Planned financial close1.2

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  February 2002

  July 2002

  2nd Quarter 2004

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  June 2002

  June 2002

  2nd Quarter 2004

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  December 2000

  Aug 2001

  3rd Quarter 2004

  Central Manchester Healthcare/Manchester Childrens Hospitals NHS Trust

  May 2000

  June 2001

  2nd Quarter 2004

  Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals/Newcastle City Health NHS Trusts

  June 2001

  July 2001

  4th Quarter 2004

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  September 2001

  October 2001

  2nd Quarter 2004

  Mid Essex Hospitals NHS Trust

  June 2002

  November 2002

  4th Quarter 2004

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  August 2002

  October 2002

  4th Quarter 2004

  North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trusts

  August 2002

  August 2002

  4th Quarter 2004

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  November 2002

  December 2002

  4th Quarter 2004

  North Middlesex Hospitals NHS Trust

  August 2002

  December 2002

  4th Quarter 2004

  University Hospital Birmingham/South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trusts

  March 2002

  April 2002

  1st Quarter 2005

  Pinderfield and Pontefract Hospitals/Wakefield and Pontefract Community NHS Trust

  November 2002

  November 2002

  1st Quarter 2005

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  November 2002

  November 2002

  1st Quarter 2005

  898W
  indicative timetables as part of good project management. Planned financial close dates are given for schemes yet to reach financial close and these are subject to change. They are regularly reviewed and adjusted accordingly; full records of these changes are not held centrally.

  Detailed information on new hospital projects that have not been prioritised by the Department (generally below £20 million) is not held centrally.
  899W

  Schemes yet to reach financial close. Operational dates yet to be finalized

  Trust

  Approval of outline business case

  Publication of advert in Official Journal of EU

  Planned financial close1.2

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  May 2003

  May 2003

  2nd Quarter 2005

  Barts and The London NHS Trust

  Feb 2002

  Feb 2002

  2nd Quarter 2005

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  March 2003

  May 2003

  2nd Quarter 2005

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  November 2003

  November 2003

  3rd Quarter 2005

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  November 2003

  November 2003

  3rd Quarter 2005

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  May 2003

  May 2003

  3rd Quarter 2005

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  March 2003

  September 2003

  4th Quarter 2005

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  November 2002

  December 2002

  4th Quarter 2005

  Notes:

  1 Full business case approval, financial close and start on site are, generally, co-terminous.

  2 By calendar year quarters.

  Schemes yet to publish an advert in Official Journal of EU.

  Whipps Cross University Hospital

  Walsall Hospitals/Walsall Community Health NHS Trusts

  Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

  Barnet & Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells/lnvicta Community Care NHS Trusts

  Paddington Basin

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  Schemes under review

  East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  Locum Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the average cost of(a) a locum doctor and (b) an agency nurse for one day. [178478]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally. Although the Department collects data on overall expenditure on non-national health service staff by NHS trusts and primary care trusts, it does not collect separate information on the numbers of days worked by temporary staff, or on expenditure on agency staff.

  Drug Addiction
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated number of drug addicts was at the latest date for which figures are available. [174497]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Jim Cunningham), on 10 June 2004,Official Report, columns 545–47W.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the 5,560 staff reported in the Department of Health Report 2004 as employed by the National Blood Authority are in administrative or managerial posts. [175689]
  900W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Blood Service (NBS) currently employs 5,378 (whole-time equivalent) staff. The approximate breakdown of staff within the NBS is as follows:34 per cent.—professionally qualified clinical staff;
  This includes all doctors, qualified nurses, qualified scientific and technical staff.
  55 per cent.—support to clinical staff;
  This includes staff working in direct support of clinical staff, often with direct donor care. These staff have a direct impact on the NBS' ability to supply blood and patient services to hospitals;
  approximately 10 per cent.—central functions such as human resources, finance and information technology, property and estates, and managers; and
  approximately one per cent.—senior managers with overall responsibility for budgets, manpower or assets, or accountable for a significant area of work.

  National Service Framework (Long-term Conditions)
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the National Service Framework for Long Term Conditions; and what input he has received from(a) the National Assembly for Wales and (b) other Welsh organisations in developing the framework for the benefit of those people in Wales who receive neurological services from centres in England. [178095]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The external reference group which we established to support development of the national service framework for long term conditions submitted its advice to the Department last month. We are committed to publishing the framework as soon as possible but we need to consider the economic and practical implications of the advice before publishing the framework and will therefore keep the publication and implementation timetable of the framework under review.

  The framework will focus on improving services for people with neurological conditions and addressing some of the common issues that can promote independence for people with other long term conditions. It will apply to services across England and the people that receive treatment, care and support at these services.

  Officials from the National Assembly for Wales were involved in the early scoping of the framework and there have been follow up bilateral discussions with departmental officials during its development.
  901W
  The National Assembly for Wales is also conducting a strategic review of neuroscience services in Wales, which will consider equity of service provision for people in Wales who are receiving services in England and those receiving services in Wales.

  NHS Continuing Care (Recompense)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 157W, on continuing NHS care, how many people were granted recompense for being wrongly denied fully funded national health service continuing care; and what the aggregate cost of that recompense was. [177789]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the number of people who were wrongly denied fully funded national health service continuing care and the overall cost of recompense will be published once the data has been validated.

  Obesity
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been(a) allocated and (b) spent for anti-obesity advertising in every year since 1997. [174157]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 19 May 2004]There has been no expenditure by the Department of Health specifically on anti-obesity advertising during this period.

  The Government lead a range of programmes aimed at improving nutrition and promoting physical activity that will help fight obesity. Spending on Department of Health-led programmes aimed at improving children's diets was £140.98 million in 2002–03, including the national school fruit scheme (with funding from the New Opportunities Fund (NOF)), food in schools (in conjunction with the Department for Education and Skills), welfare foods and support for breastfeeding; plus funding not specific to children of £9.83 million, including five-a-day community initiatives (from NOF), Food Standards Agency activities and grants to charities.

  Spending on Department of Health-led programmes to increase physical activity includes £1 billion by 2006 to transform physical education and school sport, £3 million over the next three year, to create a team of regional cycling co-ordinators, £10 million for Sporting Playgrounds programme, £32 million on improving, and creating new playing fields (from the Sports Lottery Fund), £115 million to expand the numbers of sports colleges, £108 million in innovative sport and exercise facilities (from Sport England and NOF), and £2.6 million for 10 local exercise action pilots (Sport England and the Countryside Agency)

  In addition, local nutrition and activity initiatives are funded through health action zones, sure start, healthy
  902W
  living centres and through general funding allocations to health authorities and primary care trusts, on which information is not collected centrally.

  Orthopaedics
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the success rates of orthopaedic procedures undertaken by overseas surgeons on short-term contracts. [174474]

  Mr. Hutton
  All contracts for orthopaedic procedures, including those involving overseas surgeons, are subject to review including audit of clinical outcomes by the employing trusts. All contracts are subject to local clinical governance policies which will include the audit of surgical procedures. Information on clinical outcome will be held locally.

  Plutonium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the studies on plutonium and teeth to which reference is made in the reply to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) of 4 November 2003,Official Report, columns 597–98; and whether further work has been funded by his Department on that matter since this date. [178722]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The study referred to was published as a scientific paper entitled, "Variations in the Concentration of Plutonium, Strontium-90 and Total Alpha-emitters in Human Teeth Collected Within the British Isles", R. G. O'Donnell et al. Science of the Total Environment, 201 (1997) 235–243.

  The Department has not funded further studies specifically aimed at measurement of radioactivity in children's teeth. Since 1985, the Department has funded a programme of research in the field of radiological protection and the study by O'Donnell et al was funded from this programme.

  Registered Doctors
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the number of doctors(a) from the UK, (b) from the European Economic Area, (c) from overseas and (d) in total who have registered in the UK in the last year. [178263]

  Mr. Hutton
  The General Medical Council is the independent regulatory body responsible for registering doctors in the United Kingdom. Figures held by it are collated annually. The table shows the number of doctors whose primary medical qualification was obtained in the area specified.

  2003

  Number of doctors

  UK

  4,732

  European Economic Area

  2,129

  Overseas

  12,282

  Total

  19,143

  903W
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors from overseas took the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board test in order to register to practise in the UK in the last 12 months. [178267]

  Mr. Hutton
  The General Medical Council is responsible for administering the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board (PLAB) test for overseas doctors, and collates figures annually. The table shows the figures for 2003.

  PLAB 2003

  Part One

  Part Two

  Attempted

  12,513

  6,580

  Passed

  7,711

  5,207

  Percentage pass rate

  62

  79

  Serotonin
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the drug manufacturers which have submitted studies to the comprehensive review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors being undertaken by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulations Agency; and how many of the studies each manufacturer submitted are(a) published and (b) unpublished; [176934]

  (2) how many (a) published studies and (b) unpublished studies have been submitted by drug manufacturers to the comprehensive review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors being undertaken by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulations Agency; [176935]

  (3) which (a) drugs and (b) drug manufacturers are the subject of the comprehensive review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors being undertaken by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulations Agency; [176936]

  (4) when the comprehensive review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors being undertaken by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulations Agency will be published. [176940]

  Dr. Ladyman
  GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly and Co Ltd., Solvay Healthcare Ltd., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Organon Laboratories Ltd., Lundbeck Ltd. and Pfizer Ltd. have submitted information to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for review by the committee on safety of medicines' expert working group on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

  The information submitted is in the form of study reports, analyses of studies and data from spontaneous reporting schemes. The following table provides the drug substance names and the number of placebo-controlled studies represented in the submissions on use in children and adolescents for each drug substance.

  Drug substance (product)

  Number of placebo-controlled studies submitted (paediatric use, any indication)

  Paroxetine (Seroxat)

  6

  Fluoxetine (Prozac)

  4

  Fluvoxamine (Faverin)

  2

  Venlafaxine (Efexor)

  4

  Mirtazapine (Zispin)

  2

  904W

  Drug substance (product)

  Number of placebo-controlled studies submitted (paediatric use, any indication)

  Citalopram (Cipramil)

  2

  Escitalopram (Cipralex)

  0

  Sertraline (Lustral)

  3

  The expert working group has completed its review of SSRIs in the treatment of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents and has published previously unpublished summaries of the trials on which its advice was based. The review of SSRIs in adults is on-going and further data are expected for most substances. To date the MHRA has received reports of 214 studies conducted in adult patients and 94 studies conducted in healthy volunteers involving paroxetine. It is not possible to identify from the data submitted which of the studies have been published in the scientific literature.

  The expert working group expects to publish its report later this year.

  Smoking Cessation
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the validity of the four-week follow-up in determining the success of smoking cessation programmes. [176102]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]We considered whether to monitor the success of clients using the national health service stop smoking services at longer intervals than four weeks, such as six months and one year, but decided that this would present practical difficulties for the stop smoking services, after a trial of monitoring at 52 weeks which produced high lost-to-follow up rates.

  We have research n place to evaluate how the services have performed in practice, the final results of which will be available later in the year. The preliminary findings of this work led the research team to estimate that around a quarter of those successfully quit after four weeks will still be abstinent after a year. These results are consistent with those of clinical trials used to guide the setting up of the services.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) mean and (b) median waiting times for inpatients were in the NHS for each year from 1991 to 2003. [178886]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]The table shows estimates of the mean and median waiting times for inpatients from 1991 to 2003.

  Estimated average time patients on the list had been waiting for elective admission England: (commissioner based1

  Average waiting time in months

  March

  Mean

  Median

  1991

  7.57

  4.43

  1992

  5.12

  3.20

  1993

  4.53

  3.18

  1994

  4.60

  3.24

  1995

  4.04

  2.85

  1996

  3.67

  2.73

  905W

  Estimated average time patients on the list had been waiting for elective admission England: (commissioner based1

  Average waning time in months

  March

  Mean

  Median

  1997

  4.18

  3.05

  1998

  4.62

  3.43

  1999

  4.30

  2.97

  2000

  4.30

  2.97

  2001

  4.18

  2.90

  2002

  4.01

  2.92

  2003

  3.61

  2.75

  2004

  2.85

  2.35

  1 Commissioner based data is only avail Able from 1994, provider based data is used prior to that date.

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO7

  Wheelchairs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many wheelchairs have been issued through the NHS or social services departments in each of the last seven years. [178496]

  Dr. Ladyman
  These figures are not held centrally.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Access to State Education
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will set out the educational provision and access to state education within the UK for

  Eligibility for further education

  EU citizens

  Non-EU citizens with work permits

  Non-EU citizens with student visas

  Asylum seekers

  Young people

  Young people aged 16 to 19

  Eligible for public funding if: EU national and resident in EEA for three years or UK passport holder. Otherwise, liable for tuition fees at overseas rate.

  Eligible for public funding if: resident in England for three years; or if accompanying parents with work permits. Otherwise, liable for tuition fees at overseas rate.

  Ineligible for public funding. May access FE at overseas student tuition fee rates.

  Eligible for public funding if supported by NASS or similar, or in the care of local authority. Otherwise, liable for tuition fees at overseas rate.

  Adults

  Adults eligible for public funding may be required to contribute to the costs of their learning. There is a fee assumption that adult adults will contribute 25 per cent. of the basic cost of the course. This fee contribution may be varied at the discretion of the college. Fees for adults on low incomes may be waived.

  Eligible for public funding if: EU national and resident in EEA for three years Otherwise, liable for tuition fees at overseas rate

  Eligible for public funding if resident in England for three years. Otherwise, liable for tuition fees at overseas rate.

  Ineligible for public funding. May access FE at overseas student tuition fee rates.

  Eligible for public funding if supported by NASS or similar. Otherwise, liable for tuition fees at overseas rate.

  FE Learner Support Funds

  All eligibility constraints on Learning Support Funding (LSF), for learners 16–18 who are undertaking state/ publicly funded courses have been removed. All learners enrolled on a LSC funded sixth form or FE course will have access to LSF including funding for transport, child care, residential and hardship.

  EU citizens aged 16–19 are eligible for FE Learner Support Funds if they have seen ordinarily resident in the UK for a three year period and have settled status in the UK. These students aged 19 plus are eligible for FE learner support funds if: (i) The student has been settled in the UK (i) The with no restriction on the period of stay) (ii) Elie student must have

  Non EU citizens with work permits are not eligible for FE Learning Support Funds.

  Non EU citizens with s are not eligible for FE Learning Support Funds.

  Asylum seekers aged between 16 and 19 are entitled to apply for help with essential course related expenses such as transport, equipment, books and materials. Those 19 plus with pending cases are not eligible for FE Learner Support Funds until ELE/ Exception Leave to Remain has been granted and provided they satisfy the three year residency

  906W
  (a) EU citizens, (b) non-EU citizens with work permits, (c) non-EU citizens with student visas and (d) asylum seekers pending determination of their cases. [177820]

  Alan Johnson
  For children, local education authorities have a legal duty to ensure that education is available to all those of compulsory school age (five to 16 years) within their area appropriate to age, abilities and aptitudes and any special education needs they may have, irrespective of the child's immigration status or rights of residence in a particular area.

  All groups specified can study within FE and HE institutions in the UK subject to available places and meeting admissions criteria.

  Eligibility for funded provision among these groups varies for FE and HE. In FE and HE, EU citizens who have been ordinarily resident in the European Economic Area (plus Switzerland) for three years before their course starts are eligible for home fee status. In FE, work permit holders who have been here for three years or more and asylum seekers who are in receipt of NASS benefits are eligible for home fees status, the other groups mentioned by the hon. Member are liable for tuition fees at the overseas rate. In HE, non-EU citizens with work permits or student visas and asylum seekers pending determination of their cases are not eligible for funded provision. However, people recognised as refugees by the UK Government are entitled to home fee status.

  Eligibility for FE Learner Support Funds and HE student support also vary. Further information setting out these variations in more detail is as follows.
  907W

  Eligibility for further education

  EU citizens

  Non-EU citizens with work permits

  Non-EU citizens with student visas

  Asylum seekers

  been ordinarily resident in England or Wales and settled in the UK for the three years before the beginning of the course (iii) No part of the residence must have been mainly or wholly for the purposes of receiving an education.

  requirement or refugee status has been granted.

  Eligibility for higher education

  EU nationals

  EU nationals who have been resident in the EEA (or Switzerland) for three years before their course starts are entitled to be assessed for tuition fees as "home" students. The "home" rate of fees for 2004/05 is £1,150.

  EU nationals are entitled to means tested help with their tuition fees but not entitled to a maintenance loan or any supplementary grants unless they are EEA migrant workers or have settled status in the UK and meet the three year residence requirement in the UK and Islands.

  Non-EU citizens with work permits or student visas

  Non-EU citizens with work permits or student visas are generally classified as "overseas" students and have to pay the full cost of their tuition.

  Non-EU citizens with work permits or student visas are not eligible for higher education student support.

  Asylum seekers

  Asylum seekers pending determination of their cases are treated as overseas students. Those Asylum Seekers and their dependants who have been granted Discretionary Leave or Humanitarian Protection from the Home Office as a result of an asylum application or are formally recognised as a refugee by the UK Government may be treated as "home" students.

  Asylum seekers and their dependants do not qualify for higher education student support.

  Adult Learning
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the Learning and Skills Council on its recent decision to withdraw funding from adult learning courses which are not vocational. [177570]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have discussed with the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) its overall funding position for 2004–05. Adult learning funding through further education and our support for adult education services will continue to provide a wide range of learning from approved vocational qualifications to community based informal learning. As part of the normal annual planning cycle local LSCs discuss with learning providers the mix of provision that is required to meet the needs of local communities, learners and employers. Where there is a need for more vocational provision to meet the needs of learners and employers I would expect local LSCs and learning providers to re-direct resources to meet those priorities.
  908W
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what public funding has been spent on adult(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in Stoke-on-Trent North in each year since 1997. [177639]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated total spend on "Skills For Life" (the Government's strategy for literacy, language and numeracy needs of all post-16 learners from pre-entry level up to and including level 2) and on Key Skills (essential skills of communication, application of number and information technology), from April 2001 to July 2003, in the Staffordshire Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area is set out in the following table.

  £000

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  April 2001 to July 20011

  2,341

  788

  August 2001 to July 2002

  3,123

  1,006

  August 2002 to July 2003

  4,899

  2,063

  1 The figures for April to July 2001 include costs incurred from August 2000 on learning aims continuing into April 2001.

  From the information available to the LSC it has not been feasible to obtain estimates at constituency level or separate figures by subject without incurring disproportionate cost. Likewise it has not been feasible to obtain comparable figures for periods before April 2001 when the Skills for Life strategy was launched and the LSC was formed, but information shows it was considerably less than at present.

  Adult Learning Inspectorate
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the full-time equivalent headcount of the Adult Learning Inspectorate was in each year since 1999–2000; and how much funding was allocated to it in each year. [178210]

  Alan Johnson
  The Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) became operational in April 2001 and has been building up to its full responsibilities since then. The information requested is provided in the following table.

  Operating year

  Full-time equivalent staff

  Funding (£ million)

  2001–02

  189.5

  17.1

  2002–03

  225.5

  24.5

  2003–04

  254

  127.6

  2004–05

  2272

  330.4

  1 Estimated.

  2 31 May 2004.

  3 Forecast.

  909W
  Notes:

  1. Funding for 2003–04 is the forecast of expenditure.

  2. Funding for 2004–05 is the latest planned expenditure.

  Source:

  ALI resource budget and expenditure figures.

  The expenditure figure for 2001–02 is an update to the amount reported in the recent Departmental Annual Report, which contained an error. Corrective action is being taken.

  Adult Skills Provision
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to maintain adult skills provision at(a) Basic level, (b) Level 2 and (c) Level 3 in Weston-super-Mare. [176978]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government outlined their commitment to improving adult skills in "21st Century Skills" published in July 2003 and has set challenging PSA targets for skills improvement in basic skills and at Level 2.

  The West of England Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is responsible for funding adult education and skills in Weston-super-Mare area through the local further education college and other work based training providers. The college has been performing well and plans for the creation of a new sixth form centre, alongside improvements to the main campus, have recently been approved by the LSC.

  South West capital allocations 2001–02 to 2003–04

  £000

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  LEA

  Total allocations

  of which: ringfenced1

  Total allocations

  of which: ringlenced1

  Total allocations

  of which: ringfenced1

  Bath and North East Somerset

  4,607

  799

  11,227

  4,757

  12,198

  5,497

  Bournemouth

  4,657

  2,022

  3,353

  112

  5,066

  664

  Bristol, City of

  16,115

  6,999

  13,219

  1,584

  73,789

  60,745

  Cornwall

  16,897

  2,792

  24,109

  3,323

  99,902

  73,613

  Devon

  23,845

  3,498

  41,085

  7,043

  122,740

  79,797

  Dorset

  10,115

  873

  19,161

  5,205

  22,855

  5,434

  Gloucestershire

  21,165

  2,852

  22,917

  1,921

  28,486

  3,352

  Isles of Scilly

  183

  52

  198

  26

  285

  76

  North Somerset

  5,241

  1,199

  5,606

  472

  17,971

  2,408

  Plymouth

  5,876

  2,016

  10,936

  1,865

  16,397

  1,557

  Poole

  5,942

  4,210

  5,799

  2,729

  6,161

  582

  Somerset

  11,760

  1,268

  16,045

  1,283

  19,249

  587

  South

  Gloucestershire

  9,769

  945

  14,110

  4,713

  14,853

  359

  Swindon

  3,386

  215

  13,820

  905

  80,240

  63,063

  Torbay

  5,993

  2,700

  9,422

  398

  9,470

  173

  Wiltshire

  10,170

  626

  15,567

  466

  27,615

  3,983

  1 Includes allocations ring-fenced for the authority(including any PFI credits), but not funding direct to schools whether or not passported via the LEA. Ring-fencing may be either to a project or to meeting ministerial priorities.

  Obesity (Children)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he is taking to combat bullying that occurs as a result of childhood obesity. [177649]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Our free pack 'Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence' is designed to help schools deal effectively with all forms of bullying. The pack states: "Bullying can take many forms … This may be because of individual characteristics", and we recognise that
  910W
  Discussions with the college about its three year development have included plans for a 32 per cent. growth in the number of basic skills learners and plans to maintain their current good attainment at Level 2 and Level 3.

  The Strategic Area Review being carried out across the country will support continued collaboration between post-16 provision, the local education authority and the cluster of 11–16 schools in Weston-super-Mare.

  Capital Allocations (School Buildings)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much ring-fenced money for classroom building projects has been given by his Department to each local education authority in the South West in each of the last three years. [177195]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows this Department's total capital allocations for school buildings to local education authorities in the South West from 2001–02 to 2003–04. It shows both ring-fenced and total allocations.

  It is our policy to reduce the proportion of support that is ring-fenced for individual projects, and increasingly to allocate support direct to schools and authorities. This allows them to decide the priorities for investment. For example, through devolved formula capital, a typical primary school of 250 pupils will receive £25,500, and a typical secondary school of 1,000 pupils will receive £87,250 in 2005–06.

  regardless of how it is manifested, bullying is a serious problem which puts the emotional well-being and educational achievement of pupils at risk. The pack (which was updated in September 2002) is freely available to be ordered by all schools. All secondary and middle schools have received a copy as part of the KS3 behaviour and attendance training.

  In September 2003 I launched a new information film aimed at children and young people. The film encourages pupils who are experiencing bullying to tell someone who can help so they do not suffer in silence. I

  911W
  also announced an anti-bullying charter for schools. This has been drawn up in consultation with professional associations and voluntary sector partners, and it was launched in November 2003 at the first of a series of regional conferences, called "Make the Difference", for schools and other partners. The charter has been made available to schools. The conferences (nine in total) culminate with a final conference in Chorley on June 14.

  The purpose of the conferences has been to provide a forum for schools and related partners to share good practice. This has been facilitated by workshops and exhibitor stalls where attendees can gather a host of information on combating bullying.

  Circus Performers
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) whether there is a skills shortage in the North West Region for(a) clowns, (b) tightrope walkers, (c) jugglers, (d) stilts performers, (e) unicyclists and (f) other circus performers; [177132]

  (2) what his assessment is of the need to train people in circus skills in the North West Region. [177133]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) have the remit for assessing skills needs in their sector. The Creative and Cultural Industries SSC (CCISSC), which is in development, will cover circus performers. The SSC is currently reviewing the need for Creative Apprenticeships within the sector and as part of this review the needs of the circus industry will be assessed.

  Regionally, the NW Development Agency, working in partnership with stakeholders in the region, has the lead responsibility for developing and taking forward the economic strategy for the North West. The strategy has a strong sectoral focus concentrating on those sectors of importance and potential importance to the North West economy. Tourism is one of the priority sectors in the North West.

  While touring circuses bring pleasure to many, in determining the region's tourism priorities no assessment has been made of the contribution they make to the North West economy and there are no plans to do so.

  Education Funding
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost per pupil of education in(a) primary school, (b) secondary school and (c) sixth form in Greater London was in each of the last seven years, broken down by borough. [176831]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much, at today's prices, was spent on average per(a) secondary and (b) primary school in each of the last 15 years; and what the planned spending is in each of the next four years. [172933]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]The available information is contained within the following tables.
  912W
  Decisions on the allocation of resources in future years between each of the different sectors of education will be taken and announced later in the year.

  Average spend per (a) secondary and (b) primary school in each of the last 15 years

  Primary schools

  Net current expenditure (£000)

  Number of primary schools

  Average spend per primary school (£000)

  1987–88

  6,664,667

  19,319

  345

  1988–99

  6,435,677

  19,232

  335

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  —

  —

  —

  1995–96

  —

  —

  —

  1996–97

  —

  —

  —

  1997–98

  —

  —

  —

  1998–99

  —

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  10,248,425

  18,158

  564

  2000–01

  11,014,589

  18,069

  610

  2001–02

  11,804,357

  17,985

  656

  Pre-primary and primary schools

  Net current expenditure (£000)

  Number of primary schools

  Average spend pre- primary and primary school (£000)

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  1988–99

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  7,237,762

  19,728

  367

  1990–91

  8,081,161

  19,615

  412

  1991–92

  7,812,948

  19,488

  401

  1992–93

  9,077,080

  19,391

  468

  1993–94

  9,184,320

  19,237

  477

  1994–95

  9,372,113

  19,104

  491

  1995–96

  9,350,748

  19,029

  491

  1996–97

  9,319,716

  18,938

  492

  1997–98

  9,192,745

  18,847

  488

  1998–99

  9,706,790

  18,756

  518

  1999–2000

  10,637,498

  18,674

  570

  2000–01

  11,567,295

  18,577

  623

  2001–02

  12,540,414

  18,481

  679

  Secondary schools

  Net current expenditure(£000)

  Number of secondary school

  Average spend per secondary schools (£000)

  1987–88

  8,540,156

  4,153

  2,056

  1988–99

  8,496,111

  4,035

  2,106

  1989–90

  8,419,497

  3,976

  2,118

  1990–91

  8,990,987

  3,897

  2,307

  1991–92

  8,293,519

  3,847

  2,156

  1992–93

  8,908,650

  3,773

  2,361

  1993–94

  7,846,904

  3,629

  2,162

  1994–95

  7,636,242

  3,614

  2,113

  1995–96

  7,445,108

  3,594

  2,072

  1996–97

  7,341,423

  3,569

  2,057

  1997–98

  7,259,360

  3,567

  2,035

  1998–99

  7,426,109

  3,560

  2,086

  1999–2000

  9,668,610

  3,550

  2,724

  2000–01

  10,442,651

  3,481

  3,000

  2001–02

  11,441,503

  3,457

  3,310

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from local education authorities' Section 52 Outturn Statements submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's ROI statement previously. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance. Financial data is in £000's. Figures are adjusted to 2002–03 prices using the March 2004 GDP deflators.

  913W
  2. In 1987–88 and 1988–89 pre-primary expenditure was not collected on ROI. From 1989–90 onwards expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of the Section 52 outturn statements in 1999–2000. Preprimary expenditure does not match the number of pre-primary schools because it also includes expenditure on nurseries in the private sector, which are not included in the school count.

  3. Net Current Expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA. Between 1987–88 and 1992–93 NCE after recharges was not recorded on ROL In these years Net Recurrent Expenditure is used and consequently figures in those years may not be strictly comparable with future years.

  4. 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 in 1998–99.

  5. The number of schools is taken from the Annual Schools Census. Middle schools are included as deemed secondary.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent on education in Crosby in each year from 1992 to 1997. [177863]

  Mr. Miliband
  The inform Ilion requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than constituency level and as such the figures provided are for Sefton LEA:

  Net current expenditure

  £

  1992–93

  127,566

  1993–94

  120,072

  1994–95

  121,425

  1995–96

  127,284

  1996–97

  129,224

  1997–98

  129,018

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from Sefton LEA's ROI statement submitted to ODPM.

  2. In 1992–93 net current expenditure after recharges was not collected on ROI. In this year net recurrent expenditure is used and consequently figures for this year it may not be strictly comparable with those for future years.

  3. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA.

  Education Services (Essex)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching assistants were

  Total funding per pupil aged 3 to 1)

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Camden

  3,830

  3,850

  4,120

  4,490

  4,770

  4,900

  5,200

  Greenwich

  3,490

  3,550

  3,810

  4,200

  4,440

  4,540

  4,470

  Hackney

  4,020

  4,050

  4,370

  4,710

  4,950

  5,130

  5,400

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,750

  3,810

  4,050

  4,420

  4,700

  4,940

  5,140

  Islington

  3,720

  3,820

  4,070

  4,530

  4,850

  4,990

  5,190

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,580

  3,680

  4,020

  4,390

  4,710

  5,030

  5,280

  Lambeth

  4,000

  4,070

  4,320

  4,660

  4,890

  5,080

  5,240

  Lewisham

  3,690

  3,760

  3,970

  4,270

  4,540

  4,700

  4,910

  Southwark

  3,730

  3,800

  4,040

  4,360

  4,620

  4,790

  4,960

  Tower Hamlets

  3,970

  4,090

  4,460

  4,810

  5,130

  5,290

  5,510

  Wandsworth

  3,450

  3,480

  3,700

  3,990

  4,230

  4,280

  4,610

  Westminster

  3,640

  3,660

  3,950

  4,270

  4,510

  4.700

  5,040

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,890

  3.060

  3,180

  3,440

  3,670

  3,800

  3,970

  Barnet

  2,870

  2,930

  3.060

  3,240

  3,510

  3,600

  3,760

  Bexley

  2,730

  2,810

  2,900

  3,090

  3,270

  3,360

  3,490

  Brent

  3,300

  3,370

  3,540

  3,750

  4,030

  4,170

  4,380

  914W
  employed in state schools in (a) the County of Essex in each year from 1980 to 1997 and (b) the County of Essex and the unitary authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock in each year from 1998 to 2003. [173324]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is shown in the following tables. The first table shows the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) teaching assistants1 in maintained schools in Essex LEA in each January between 1992 and 1998. Information is only available from 1992 when teaching assistants data were first collected. The second table shows the number of FTE teaching assistants in Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock LEAs after local government re-organisation in April 1998, in each January between 1999 and 2003.

  It is expected that information on the number of teaching assistants by LEA for 2004 will be available in the near future. A table will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  1 Includes teaching assistants, special needs support staff and support staff for minority ethnic pupils.

  Essex

  Southend-on-Sea

  Thurrock

  Total

  1992

  620

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  670

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  900

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  1,270

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  1,430

  —

  —

  —

  1997

  1,700

  —

  —

  —

  1998

  1,830

  —

  —

  —

  1999

  1,610

  220

  200

  2,030

  2000

  1,740

  280

  290

  2,310

  2001

  2,070

  350

  330

  2,750

  2002

  3,110

  460

  430

  4,000

  2003

  3,450

  560

  530

  4,540

  Source:

  Annual School Census

  Education Spending
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much on average per child was contributed from public funds to the education of school-age children in each year since 1997 for which figures are available, broken down by local authority area. [172902]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained within the following table:
  915W

  Total funding per pupil aged 3 to 1)

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Bromley

  2,730

  2.800

  2,920

  3,120

  3,310

  3,370

  3,490

  Croydon

  2,950

  3,000

  3,150

  3,350

  3,560

  3,670

  3,780

  Ealing

  2,990

  3,130

  3,290

  3,570

  3,830

  3,900

  4,170

  Enfield

  2,980

  3,050

  3,210

  3,410

  3,670

  3,800

  3,930

  Haringey

  3,390

  3,450

  3,710

  4,010

  4,300

  4,420

  4,610

  Harrow

  2,840

  2,900

  3.020

  3,210

  3.450

  3,550

  3.780

  Havering

  2,720

  2,800

  2,890

  3,080

  3,280

  3,360

  3,490

  Hillingdon

  2,850

  2,920

  3,070

  3,260

  3,400

  3,490

  3,670

  Hounslow

  3,000

  3,090

  3,250

  3,480

  3,720

  3,860

  4,090

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,680

  2,740

  2,870

  3,080

  3,310

  3,370

  3,490

  Merton

  2,860

  2,910

  3,050

  3,300

  3,560

  3,570

  3,780

  Newham

  3,460

  3,560

  3,720

  3,990

  4,270

  4,380

  4,500

  Redbridge

  2,960

  3,000

  3,110

  3,290

  3,480

  3,550

  3,620

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,730

  2,740

  2,850

  3,070

  3,250

  3,310

  3.460

  Sutton

  2,860

  2,880

  2,990

  3,180

  3,370

  3,430

  3,580

  Waltham Forest

  3,250

  3,280

  3,460

  3,720

  4,000

  4,120

  4,230

  Birmingham

  2,750

  2,850

  3,040

  3,350

  3,580

  3,650

  3,820

  Coventry

  2,620

  2,730

  2,880

  3,130

  3,270

  3,330

  3,490

  Dudley

  2,340

  2,470

  2.600

  2,810

  2,950

  3,040

  3,180

  Sandwell

  2,590

  2,720

  2,870

  3,100

  3,290

  3,400

  3,580

  Solihull

  2,400

  2,480

  2,580

  2,790

  2,930

  2,980

  3,210

  Walsall

  2,510

  2,600

  2,760

  3,000

  3,140

  3,220

  3,360

  Wolverhampton

  2,620

  2,710

  2,890

  3,160

  3,340

  3,490

  3,630

  Knowsley

  2,870

  2,980

  3,160

  3,520

  3,780

  3,880

  3,970

  Liverpool

  2,830

  2,940

  3,120

  3,510

  3,740

  3,830

  3,910

  St. Helens

  2,510

  2,590

  2,710

  2,980

  3,210

  3,290

  3,520

  Sefton

  2,510

  2,600

  2,730

  3,000

  3,180

  3,260

  3,440

  Wirral

  2,570

  2,700

  2,820

  3,100

  3,310

  3,400

  3,540

  Bolton

  2,490

  2,580

  2,740

  2,990

  3,130

  3,220

  3,350

  Bury

  2,410

  2,510

  2,650

  2,870

  3,010

  3,100

  3,260

  Manchester

  2,910

  3,020

  3,260

  3,660

  3,880

  3,970

  4,130

  Oldham

  2,570

  2,660

  2,840

  3,070

  3,240

  3,390

  3,560

  Rochdale

  2,590

  2,680

  2,850

  3,120

  3,300

  3,440

  3,610

  Salford

  2,570

  2,690

  2,870

  3,220

  3,450

  3,510

  3,680

  Stockport

  2,380

  2,460

  2,590

  2,820

  2,960

  3,010

  3,170

  Tameside

  2,470

  2,560

  2,700

  2,930

  3,120

  3,210

  3,370

  Trafford

  2,450

  2,520

  2,680

  2,900

  3,070

  3,100

  3,260

  Wigan

  2,450

  2,530

  2,670

  2,890

  3,040

  3,100

  3,280

  Barnsley

  2,530

  2,620

  2,770

  3,000

  3,180

  3,270

  3,490

  Doncaster

  2,570

  2,660

  2,810

  3,030

  3,190

  3,270

  3,510

  Rotherham

  2,560

  2,620

  2,780

  3,070

  3,260

  3,320

  3,500

  Sheffield

  2,580

  2,650

  2,830

  3,140

  3,330

  3,390

  3,520

  Bradford

  2,650

  2,730

  2,930

  3,250

  3,480

  3,530

  3,640

  Calderdale

  2,500

  2,600

  2,770

  3,000

  3,140

  3,210

  3,380

  Kirklees

  2,540

  2,630

  2,800

  3,020

  3,190

  3,270

  3,440

  Leeds

  2,500

  2,580

  2,730

  3,020

  3,210

  3,300

  3,450

  Wakefield

  2,460

  2,520

  2,660

  2,910

  3,060

  3,140

  3,270

  Gateshead

  2,480

  2,630

  2,780

  3,080

  3,290

  3,360

  3,560

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,780

  2,800

  2,940

  3,250

  3,480

  3,550

  3,710

  North Tyneside

  2.460

  2.540

  2,670

  2,950

  3.140

  3,240

  3,410

  South Tyneside

  2,600

  2,700

  2,860

  3,150

  3,380

  3,450

  3,680

  Sunderland

  2,550

  2,640

  2,770

  3,040

  3,260

  3,330

  3,540

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2,410

  2,490

  2,640

  2,850

  2,970

  3,010

  3,150

  Bristol, City of

  2,540

  2,610

  2,760

  3,040

  3,220

  3,320

  3,500

  North Somerset

  2,460

  2,550

  2,700

  2,910

  3,010

  3,070

  3,200

  South Gloucestershire

  2,370

  2,450

  2,590

  2,770

  2,870

  2,920

  3,060

  Hartlepool

  2,550

  2,650

  2,790

  3,050

  3,240

  3,330

  3,580

  Middlesbrough

  2,680

  2,800

  2,980

  3.250

  3,490

  3,600

  3,820

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2,570

  2,660

  2.790

  3.070

  3,300

  3,370

  3,570

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2,520

  2,600

  2,760

  3,050

  3,280

  3,360

  3,560

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  2,670

  2,730

  2,890

  3,190

  3,380

  3,470

  3.660

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,440

  2,530

  2,660

  2,900

  3,040

  3,080

  3,170

  North East Lincolnshire

  2,570

  2,660

  2,820

  3,070

  3,250

  3,330

  3,420

  North Lincolnshire

  2,530

  2,660

  2,800

  3,040

  3,160

  3,220

  3,380

  North Yorkshire

  2,490

  2,570

  2,710

  2,940

  3,080

  3,140

  3,270

  York

  2,430

  2,510

  2,640

  2,890

  3,000

  3,040

  3.120

  Bedfordshire

  2,590

  2,650

  2,770

  3,030

  3,220

  3,280

  3.340

  Luton

  2,870

  2,900

  3,070

  3,290

  3,480

  3,590

  3,780

  Buckinghamshire

  2,660

  2,700

  2,820

  3,040

  3.210

  3,280

  3,380

  Milton Keynes

  2,790

  2,790

  2,910

  3,130

  3,300

  3,390

  3,510

  Derbyshire

  2,420

  2,500

  2,630

  2,850

  2,970

  3,050

  3,190

  916W 917W

  Total funding per pupil aged 3 to 1)

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Derby

  2,580

  2,670

  2,850

  3,070

  3,210

  3,310

  3,450

  Dorset

  2,550

  2,580

  2,690

  2,910

  3,040

  3,090

  3,160

  Poole

  2,540

  2,540

  2,630

  2,810

  2,950

  3,010

  3,110

  Bournemouth

  2,660

  2,670

  2,780

  3,010

  3,110

  3,150

  3,220

  Durham

  2,500

  2,600

  2,750

  3,010

  3,220

  3,260

  3,390

  Darlington

  2,480

  2,560

  2,720

  2,970

  3,130

  3,180

  3.320

  East Sussex

  2,670

  2,750

  2,870

  3,130

  3,290

  3,360

  3,450

  Brighton and Hove

  2,740

  2,820

  2,960

  3,220

  3,400

  3,470

  3,580

  Hampshire

  2,540

  2,600

  2,700

  2,910

  3,090

  3,150

  3,260

  Portsmouth

  2,690

  2,770

  2,900

  3,110

  3,320

  3,410

  3,530

  Southampton

  2,750

  2,840

  2,950

  3,180

  3,380

  3,460

  3,590

  Leicestershire

  2,450

  2,500

  2,620

  2,820

  2,940

  2,970

  3,050

  Leicester

  2.740

  2,830

  3,010

  3,260

  3,440

  3,550

  3,750

  Rutland

  2,440

  2,520

  2,690

  2,880

  3,050

  3,090

  3,280

  Staffordshire

  2,400

  2,460

  2,580

  2,800

  2,930

  2,980

  3,100

  Stoke-on-Trent

  2,510

  2,590

  2,720

  3,020

  3,250

  3,350

  3,590

  Wiltshire

  2,520

  2,580

  2,710

  2,920

  3,030

  3,090

  3,240

  Swindon

  2,560

  2,560

  2,670

  2,870

  2,990

  3,050

  3,220

  Bracknell Forest

  2,690

  2,740

  2,830

  3,030

  3,200

  3,280

  3,410

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,680

  2,760

  2,860

  3,110

  3,300

  3,360

  3,460

  West Berkshire

  2.520

  2,630

  2,740

  2,990

  3,160

  3,200

  3,390

  Reading

  2,650

  2,770

  2,900

  3,180

  3.350

  3,500

  3,640

  Slough

  3,050

  3,220

  3,370

  3,600

  3,820

  3,950

  4,090

  Wokingham

  2,460

  2,520

  2,610

  2,830

  3,000

  3,060

  3,240

  Cambridgeshire

  2,460

  2,540

  2,690

  2,890

  3,010

  3,070

  3,250

  Peterborough

  2,660

  2,740

  2,910

  3,130

  3,270

  3,360

  3,540

  Cheshire

  2,440

  2.500

  2,620

  2,840

  2,970

  3,020

  3,160

  Halton

  2,670

  2,720

  2,860

  3,160

  3,400

  3,490

  3,720

  Warrington

  2,420

  2,480

  2,590

  2,790

  2,930

  2,990

  3,100

  Devon

  2,610

  2,670

  2,760

  2,970

  3,090

  3,140

  3,260

  Plymouth

  2,640

  2,690

  2,790

  3,020

  3,130

  3,210

  3,290

  Torbay

  2,670

  2,690

  2,790

  3,010

  3,130

  3,180

  3,270

  Essex

  2,690

  2,740

  2,850

  3,080

  3,240

  3,300

  3,410

  Southend-on-Sea

  2,740

  2,780

  2,900

  3,140

  3,330

  3,400

  3,490

  Thurrock

  2,830

  2,890

  3,000

  3,220

  3,410

  3,520

  3,640

  Herefordshire

  2,640

  2,680

  2,810

  3,030

  3,150

  3,230

  3,400

  Worcestershire

  2,540

  2,530

  2,620

  2,840

  2,980

  3,030

  3,120

  Kent

  2,650

  2,730

  2,840

  3,080

  3,250

  3,310

  3,410

  Medway

  2,630

  2,700

  2,820

  3,040

  3,200

  3,290

  3,340

  Lancashire

  2,530

  2,610

  2,750

  2,990

  3,140

  3,200

  3,300

  Blackburn with Darwen

  2,680

  2,800

  3,030

  3,280

  3,470

  3,550

  3,790

  Blackpool

  2,550

  2,660

  2,780

  3,030

  3,180

  3,290

  3,490

  Nottinghamshire

  2,500

  2,540

  2,660

  2,890

  3,020

  3,080

  3,180

  Nottingham

  2,820

  2,880

  3,060

  3,350

  3,570

  3,700

  3,840

  Shropshire

  2,550

  2,590

  2,720

  2,930

  3,080

  3,150

  3,300

  Telford and Wrekin

  2,610

  2,670

  2,800

  3,050

  3,210

  3,240

  3,380

  Cornwall

  2,550

  2,670

  2,800

  3,030

  3,180

  3,240

  3,310

  Cumbria

  2,420

  2,560

  2,700

  2,950

  3,130

  3,190

  3,330

  Gloucestershire

  2,500

  2.560

  2,700

  2,920

  3,050

  3,110

  3,210

  Hertfordshire

  2,680

  2,720

  2,830

  3,050

  3,210

  3,270

  3,350

  Isle of Wight

  2,760

  2,840

  2,960

  3,230

  3,410

  3,470

  3,510

  Lincolnshire

  2,530

  2,620

  2,740

  2,960

  3,120

  3,190

  3,330

  Norfolk

  2,590

  2,640

  2,770

  3,000

  3,160

  3,230

  3,330

  Northamptonshire

  2,470

  2,540

  2,680

  2,890

  3,030

  3,090

  3,250

  Northumberland

  2,480

  2,570

  2,700

  2,950

  3,140

  3,180

  3,310

  Oxfordshire

  2,660

  2,690

  2,810

  3,050

  3,200

  3,270

  3,390

  Somerset

  2,510

  2,570

  2,710

  2,940

  3,070

  3,130

  3,250

  Suffolk

  2,550

  2,570

  2,690

  2,900

  3,050

  3,100

  3,180

  Surrey

  2,660

  2,700

  2,810

  3,010

  3,180

  3,240

  3,330

  Warwickshire

  2,420

  2,510

  2,650

  2,850

  2,980

  3,060

  3,220

  West Sussex

  2,670

  2,680

  2,770

  2,980

  3,140

  3,210

  3,310

  Notes:

  1. Figures reflect education Standard Spending Assessment/Education Formula Spending (SSA/EFS) settlement and revenue grants in DfES Departmental Expenditure Limits relevant to EFS pupils aged 3 to 15.

  2. Figures exclude EMAs and grants not allocated at LEA level and the pensions transfer to EFS and Learning Skills Council (LSC) for 2003–04.

  3. The pupil numbers used are those underlying the SSA/EFS settlement calculations plus PLASC 3-year-old maintained pupils and estimated 3–4 year olds funded through state support in maintained and other educational institutions where these are not included in the SSA pupil numbers.

  4. 1997–98 figures for LEAs subject to Local Government Re-organisation (LGR) in that year have been estimated, pro-rata to their post LGR figures.
  918W 919W
  5. 2003–04 and 2002–03 figures are provisional estimates as some grants have not yet been finalised/audited.

  6. Real terms figures are based on GDP deflators as at 26 March 2004 (2002–03 prices).

  7. Per pupil figures are rounded to the nearest 10 so may not sum.

  Examination Boards
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Romford of 4 May 2004,Official Report, column 1424W, on examination boards, how the £100 million will be allocated over the next two years in order to ensure the modernisation and safe delivery of the examination system. [177887]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]The money has been allocated to the examinations modernisation programme as follows:

  £ million

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Increasing examiner fees and improving marking quality

  24

  24

  Securing improved and consolidated physical logistics

  7

  6

  Reducing the administrative burden on exams offices

  5

  6

  Improving exams office procedures and equipment

  10

  7

  Improving use of technology in exams administration

  8

  3

  Examination Entries
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent by schools on examination entries in each year since 1997. [177884]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]In 2002–03, maintained primary, secondary and special schools in England spent £155 million on examination fees. This covers the costs of test and examination entry fees and any accreditation costs related to pupils, and includes GCSEs, A/AS levels and GNVQs.

  It was only in 2002–03 that the Department began collecting information in sufficient detail to answer this question. Therefore, no comparable data is available for previous years.

  Further Education (Staff)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time equivalent staff have been employed by further education colleges in each year since 1995. [177260]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is routinely published by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) in Staff Statistics. These volumes can be downloaded from the LSC website:
  http://www.lsc.gov.uk/National/Partners/Data/ Statistics/StaffStatistics/StaffStatistics.htm.

  A paper copy of the most recent edition of "Staff Statistics" will be placed in the Library.

  Learning and Skills Council (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills why the Learning and Skills Council on Merseyside has not informed the further education colleges of their 2004–05 budget. [177264]
  920W
  Alan Johnson
  The Learning and Skills Council has delayed confirming the allocation of budgets to further education colleges for the academic year starting in August 2004 while it concludes an assessment of its budget commitments in the financial year 2004–05. I expect that the LSC will shortly be in a position to conclude its allocation process.

  Learning and Skills Development Agency
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will list the work carried out by the Learning and Skills Development Agency on behalf of the(a) Learning and Skills Council and (b) Government; [177684]

  (2) if he will make: a statement on the budget of the Learning and Skills Development Agency. [177683]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Development Agency. Chris Hughes, the Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Gentleman with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Office for Fair Access
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask Vic Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the planned(a) full-time equivalent headcount and (b) funding allocations for the Office for Fair Access are in each of the first three years of its existence. [178205]

  Alan Johnson
  As we set out in the Regulatory Impact Assessment which we republished on 1 April 2004, we estimate the cost of the Office for Fair Access will average around £500,000 per year, which includes staffing needs. The Office has not yet been established and it is not possible at this stage to provide a full-time equivalent headcount.

  Overseas Universities (UK)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many overseas universities accredited outside if e UK were operating in the UK in each year since 1997, and if he will make a statement. [178147]

  Alan Johnson
  These figures are not kept centrally. Overseas universities accredited outside the UK are free to offer their own awards in the UK provided that they make it clear that in doing so they are not offering qualifications from a UK institution and that accreditation is from overseas. Overseas universities wishing to operate campuses in the UK must apply to the Privy Council Office for permission to use university title for that operation in the UK.

  Performance Tables
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost was of producing and publishing the most recent(a) primary school performance tables of achievements in Key Stage 2 tests, (b) secondary school performance tables of

  921W
  achievements in Key Stage 3 tests, (c) secondary school performance tables of achievements in GCSE examinations and vocational qualifications, (d) school and college performance tables of achievements in A/AS examinations and vocational qualifications, (e) pilot tables testing the calculation and presentation of a Key Stage 2-GCSE/GNVQ value added measure and (f) pilot tables testing the reporting of achievements in all approved qualifications at age 16 years. [177885]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]The costs of producing and publish ng the most recent (2003) school and college performance tables were as follows:

  £ million

  (a) Primary school performance tables of achievements in Key Stage 2 tests

  0.47

  (b) Secondary school performance tables of achievements in Key Stage 3 tests

  1.66

  (c) Secondary school performance tables of achievements in GCSE examinations and vocational qualifications

  (d) School and college performance tables of achievements in A/AS examinations and vocational qualifications

  (e) Pilot tables testing the calculation and presentation of a Key Stage 2-GCSE/GNVQ value added measure

  0.10

  (f) Pilot tables testing the reporting of achievements in all approved qualifications at age 16

  0.11

  Notes:

  1. The figures shown above are programme costs and do not include departmental staff costs.

  2. The costs for QCA's data collection are not included in the figures shown above.

  3. The secondary school performance tables of achievements in Key Stage 3 tests, the secondary school performance tables of achievements in GCSE examinations and vocational qualifications and the school and colleqe performance tables of achievements in A/AS examinations and vocational qualifications are managed as one exercise so there are no separate costings.

  Post-16 Education
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to increase the staying on rate of children over the age of 16 years. [177871]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are tackling the causes of low participation at post-16 through our 14–19 strategy by providing a more flexible, coherent and better quality 14–19 curriculum; quality advice and guidance; and additional financial support.

  This includes: offering greater flexibility at Key Stage 4 and more vocational subjects at GCSE; introducing an entitlement to an apprenticeship place for all 16 to 17 year olds with five GCSEs at grades A-G, including Maths and English, from September 2004; and providing impartial advice and guidance to 13 to 19 years olds through our national Connexions Service. We have also introduced Education Maintenance Allowances across the country from September 2004, after extensive piloting which showed a strong impact on participation rates, increased participation among the eligible group of 5.9 percentage points.

  The Working Group on 14–19 Reform, led by Mike Tomlinson, is seeking to tackle low post-16
  922W
  participation and achievement. In their interim report, published in February, they propose a diploma framework consisting of high-quality programmes and progression opportunities so that young people are motivated to continue learning. The final report is expected in the autumn.

  Probationary Teachers
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he has taken to counsel and support probationary teachers in the school environment; and how much money he has dedicated for such counselling and support. [178807]

  Mr. Miliband
  All Newly Qualified Teachers receive an individually tailored programme of guidance, monitoring, assessment and support for their induction. This involves a tutor and a 10 per cent. reduction to their teaching timetable. Funding for induction is part of Education Formula Spending, not separately ring-fenced.

  Pupil Costs (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much it cost to educate a pupil in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Staffordshire in 2003–04. [173285]

  Mr. Miliband
  The latest date for which this information is available is 2002–03 and is given in the table. The information requested for 2003–04 will not be collected by the Department until October 2004 but I will write to the hon. Member when it is available.

  2002–03

  Net current expenditure per pupil

  Primary Education

  2,680

  Secondary Education

  3,270

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from Staffordshire LEA's Section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  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 are calculated differently and include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers.

  3. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA.

  4. The NCE per pupil figures for primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained 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 Absences
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the relationship between levels of authorised and unauthorised absence from school. [174719]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]In general, there is a statistically positive relationship between authorised and unauthorised absence levels in schools. There is a tendency for schools with low levels of authorised absence to also have low levels of unauthorised absence and vice versa. The relationship is stronger for secondary schools than for primary schools and, in both sectors, there are numerous exceptions to the general rule.

  The latest detailed published analysis of the relationship can be found in the Department's Statistical Bulletin 13/01 "Pupil absence and truancy from schools in England, 2000/2001". Paragraphs 14 to 16 and Tables 4 and 5 of this Bulletin are particularly relevant. A copy has been placed in the Library. It is also available at www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SBU/b000309/index.shtml Furthermore, when concerted action is taken to tackle absences, it is usual to see an increase in unauthorised absences. This is due to schools taking a stricter stance on authorising absences leading to more absences being classed as "unauthorised". In turn, schools will see an increase in attendance levels: (i) as pupils and parents come to understand that certain types of absence will no longer be tolerated; and (ii) as this clearer identification of truants leads to speedier
  924W
  interventions and return to the classroom. More schools are adopting this approach: 2002–03 saw the highest level of school attendance on record—93.17 per cent.— with schools identifying more truants than previously, but with the average number of sessions missed by each secondary school truant falling to 15—a decrease of 25 per cent. since 1997.

  We have made it clear that in response to a consensus view among schools and LEAs, it is our intention to measure attendance once the period for the current national Public Service Agreement target ends.

  School Budget Deficits
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have reported a set budget deficit for this year. [177959]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not yet available. The Department is due to collect the data relating to 2003–"04 financial year from October 2004.

  Schools (Leyton and Wanstead)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the main improvements have been at each school in Leyton and Wanstead since 2000.[178192]

  Mr. Miliband
  the constituency Leyton and Wanstead covers part of both Waltham Forest and Redbridge local education authorities. Performance level information has been supplied for each school within this constituency.

  Table 1: Key Stage 2 test results of all pupils in maintained schools in Leyton and Wanstead parliamentary constituency

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above

  2003

  2002

  DfES number

  School name

  Type of establishment

  English

  Maths

  Science

  English

  Maths

  Science

  3172042

  Aldersbrook Primary School

  Community

  69

  67

  82

  91

  75

  93

  3172054

  Snaresbrook Primary School

  Community

  78

  80

  83

  69

  75

  87

  3173300

  Wanstead Church School

  Voluntary aided

  100

  81

  100

  94

  87

  97

  3173504

  Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic

  Voluntary aided

  Primary School

  89

  84

  100

  93

  93

  97

  3202008

  Barclay Junior School

  Community

  68

  70

  83

  53

  54

  74

  3202012

  Church Mead Junior School

  Community

  57

  57

  70

  61

  62

  80

  3202014

  Davies Lane Junior School

  Community

  43

  37

  55

  43

  36

  57

  3202022

  Newport Junior School

  Community

  63

  56

  70

  68

  49

  73

  3202065

  The Beaumont School

  Community

  47

  42

  53

  41

  35

  51

  3202067

  Dawlish Primary School

  Community

  87

  87

  100

  72

  67

  89

  3202069

  Gwyn Jones Primary School

  Community

  70

  77

  90

  86

  83

  91

  3202072

  George Tomlinson Primary School

  Community

  80

  66

  92

  77

  82

  97

  3202077

  Cann Hall Primary School

  Community

  65

  73

  93

  68

  85

  96

  3202079

  Jenny Hammond School

  Community

  75

  92

  100

  86

  86

  96

  3202084

  Mayville Primary School

  Community

  42

  60

  60

  —

  —

  —

  3203301

  St Joseph's Catholic Junior School

  Voluntary aided

  94

  89

  93

  93

  100

  100

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above

  2001

  2000

  DfES Number

  School name

  Type of establishment

  English

  Maths

  Science

  English

  Maths

  Science

  3172042

  Aldersbrook Primary School

  Community

  68

  56

  79

  83

  76

  89

  3172054

  Snaresbrook Primary School

  Community

  91

  88

  97

  82

  84

  91

  3173300

  Wanstead Church School

  Voluntary aided

  91

  88

  97

  94

  97

  97

  3173504

  Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Voluntary aided

  Primary School

  92

  80

  100

  93

  84

  98

  3202008

  Barclay Junior School

  Community

  69

  57

  78

  44

  44

  61

  3202012

  Church Mead Junior School

  Community

  54

  53

  75

  67

  78

  93

  3202014

  Davies Lane Junior School

  Community

  38

  37

  54

  61

  50

  60

  3202022

  Newport Junior School

  Community

  67

  49

  62

  51

  39

  51

  3202065

  The Beaumont School

  Community

  68

  62

  81

  71

  74

  81

  3202067

  Dawlish Primary School

  Community

  82

  82

  100

  74

  74

  88

  3202069

  Gwyn Jones Primary School

  Community

  88

  73

  82

  82

  65

  85

  3202072

  George Tomlinson Primary School

  Community

  67

  61

  92

  69

  67

  64

  925W

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above

  2001

  2000

  DIES Number

  School name

  Type of establishment

  English

  Maths

  Science

  English

  Maths

  Science

  3202077

  Cann Hall Primary School

  Community

  62

  70

  85

  74

  79

  93

  3202079

  Jenny Hammond School

  Community

  83

  93

  97

  —

  —

  —

  3202084

  Mayville Primary School

  Community

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3203301

  St Joseph's Catholic Junior School

  Voluntary aided

  98

  98

  100

  83

  85

  92

  Note:

  3202017 Downsell Primary is not included on the table as it recently amalgamated and previous results relate to the Junior School.

  Table 2: Key Stage 3 assessments tests results of pupils in all maintained schools in Leyton Wanstead parliamentary constituency

  Percentage achieving level 5 or above 2003

  2003

  2002

  DfES number

  School names

  Type of establishment

  English

  Maths

  Science

  English

  Maths

  Science

  3174021

  Wanstead High School

  Community

  70

  74

  74

  79

  71

  67

  3204059

  Tom Hood School

  Community

  44

  56

  56

  46

  63

  50

  3204061

  Connaught School for Girls

  Community

  73

  61

  58

  79

  77

  80

  3204062

  George Mitchell Community

  Community

  School

  32

  44

  42

  —

  99

  97

  3204064

  Norlington School for Boys

  Community

  43

  68

  58

  35

  41

  38

  3204069

  Leytonstone School

  Community

  58

  65

  61

  0

  0

  0

  3207011

  Belmont Park School

  Community Special

  25

  75

  75

  56

  50

  63

  Percentage achieving level 5 or above 2003

  DfES number

  School names

  Type of establishment

  2002 KS2-KS3 VA measure

  2003 KS2-KS3 VA measure

  3174021

  Wanstead High School

  Community

  100.1

  99.6

  3204059

  Tom Hood School

  Community

  99.6

  99.7

  3204061

  Connaught Schools for Girls

  Community

  101.8

  101.8

  3204062

  George Mitchell Community School

  Community

  100.1

  97.8

  3204064

  Norlington Schools for Boys

  Community

  99.9

  99.1

  3204069

  Leytonstone

  Community

  100.8

  99.5

  Table 3: GCSE/GNVQ results of 15 year old pupils in all maintained schools in Leyton and Wanstead parliamentary constituency

  Percentage of 15 year old achieving five or more grades A* -C

  DfES number

  School name

  Type of establishment

  2003

  2002

  2001

  2000

  3174021

  Wanstead High School

  Community

  56

  51

  5

  54

  3204059

  Tom Hood School

  Community

  40

  45

  42

  38

  3204061

  Connaught School for Girls

  Community

  64

  64

  59

  48

  3204062

  George Mitchell Community School

  Community

  33

  20

  24

  33

  3204064

  Norlington School for Boys

  Community

  44

  44

  34

  39

  3204069

  Leytonstone School

  Community

  50

  48

  47

  42

  Percentage of 15 year old achieving five or more grades A* -C

  DfES number

  School name

  Type of establishment

  KS3-GCSE/GNVQ VA measure 2002

  KS3-GCSE/GNVQ VA measure 2003

  3174021

  Wanstead High Community School

  Community

  101.5

  99.2

  3204059

  Tom Hood School

  Community

  101.4

  99.3

  3204061

  Connaught School for Girls

  Community

  104.2

  102.6

  3204062

  George Mitchell Community School

  Community

  100.4

  105.4

  926W

  Percentage achieving level 5 or above 2003

  DfES number

  School names

  Type of establishment

  2002 KS2-KS3 VA measure

  2003 KS2-KS3 VA measure

  School

  3207011

  Belmont Park School

  Community Special

  102.7

  102.5

  Notes:

  2002 figures are based on data checked by schools as part of the performance Tables checking exercise.

  Priot to this schools did not have the opportunity to check and correct their underlying data and therefore figures prior to 2002 should not be released

  In 2002 pupils with missing results were included within the denominator for calculations while in previous years they were excluded

  Percentage of 15 year old achieving five or more grades A* -C

  DfES number

  School name

  Type of establishment

  KS3-GCSE/GNVQ VA measure 2002

  KS3-GCSE/GNVQ VA measure 2003

  3204064

  Norlington School for boys

  Community

  101.6

  101.2

  3204069

  Leytonstone School

  Community

  101.6

  100.8

  927W

  Table 4: Post 16 results 2000—2003 in Leyton and Wanstead parliamentary constituency

  School name

  2002

  2001

  2000

  Wanstead high school

  Average points per student for GCE and VCE results

  237.6

  —

  —

  Percentage of students achieving Intermediate VQ Qualification

  80

  —

  —

  Average points per student for combined A/AS/AGNV

  —

  14.3

  —

  Average points for fewer than 2 A/AS levels

  —

  —

  3.7

  Average points for 2 or more A/AS levels

  —

  —

  14

  Advanced GNVQs

  —

  —

  10.5

  Notes:

  GCE A/AS examinations and advanced GNVQs

  The basis for post 16 performances changed in 2001 and again in 2002.

  The 2001 and 2002 performance results cannot therefore be compared to previous years.

  2003 Post 16 Performance

  The basis for post 16 performances for 2003 has changed and cannot therefore be compared to previous years.

  However, Wanstead High School average point score at 215.9 average point score per pupil for GCE and VCE results is below both Redbridge LEA (249.0) and England averages (258.6).

  Sector Skills Councils
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of Sector Skills Councils in addressing the skills gap. [177375]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There has been significant progress in establishing the Skills for Business network of Sector Skills Councils with 18 councils now licensed or recommended for licence. The Sector Skills Development Agency has been working with the developing Skills for Business network to agree a performance monitoring and evaluation framework to evaluate its performance over time against its policy objectives. That framework is now in place.

  The first phase of the evaluation is now complete. It has shown that Sector Skills Councils are making good progress in analysing the skills gap in each of their sectors. The evaluation has provided baseline performance information so that the effectiveness of SSCs and the broader network can be tracked over time. The evaluation has further provided early information on emerging good practice and continuous improvement which will help to assess future impact.

  Sex Education
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent guidelines his Department has issued to schools on sex education. [177939]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department provided sex and relationship education guidance to all maintained schools in July 2000.

  Responsibility for determining sex and relationship education in schools rests with governing bodies and head teachers, having regard to the guidance.

  Skills for Life Strategy
  Mr. Simmonds
  T o ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the Skills for Life strategy. [177377]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are on track to meet our target of 750,000 adults with better basic skills by 2004 and will be reporting on progress towards this in the autumn. From April 2001 to July 2004, a projected 2.3 million learners will have taken up an estimated 4.6 million learning opportunities. We remain focused on achieving our PSA target of 1.5 million adults with better basic skills by 2007.

  We continue to engage employers, public sector organisations and others in initiatives within the Skills for Life strategy. The Skilled for Health joint project with the Department of Health continues to help adults gain a better understanding of their own health as well as improving their basic skills. The Link Up project, co-funded with the Home Office, recruited 6,410 volunteers as Adult Learner Supporters. The Learning and Skills Council Skills for Life Quality Initiative has provided Leadership and Management Training to 1,310 staff, provided 1,200 people with funding for new teaching qualifications and trained 1,266 teachers in the basic skills Core Curriculum.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Skills for Life strategy has met its target of 750,000 adults to achieve a national certificate by 2004. [177380]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are on track to meet our target of 750,000 adults with better basic skills by 2004 and will be reporting on progress towards this in the autumn. We remain focused on the achieving our PSA target of 1.5 million adults with better basic skills by 2007.

  Unique Learner Number
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what a unique learner number is. [177944]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department is exploring the idea of a unique learner number for every individual involved in lifelong learning. This would improve the flow of information between schools, further education and higher education. The aim being to simplify application processes and enable learning providers to improve the services they offer. We are considering the associated benefits, costs and privacy issues.

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what checks are made by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service to ensure that applications to university are not bogus. [178211]

  Alan Johnson
  The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) is the central agency through which applications for places at universities and colleges in the UK are processed. The Verification Unit was established in 1996 in order to raise awareness of
  929W
  fraud within its constituent institutions and to introduce measures to combat fraud in the applications processing system. The Verification Unit is committed to a policy of ensuring that applications received through the UCAS, the Social Work Admissions System (SWAS), the Nursing Midwifery Admissions Service (NMAS)
  930W
  and the Graduate Teacher Training Registry (GTTR) are from genuine applicants seeking places in higher education.

  Higher education institutions will also undertake their own verification checks before applicants are allowed to enrol.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Inspection
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband)
  I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of a new publication "A New Relationship with Schools". This document, produced jointly between DfES and Ofsted, follows the speech I made at the north of England education conference in January and sets out our intentions to simplify school improvement processes, reduce bureaucracy, and deliver an intelligent accountability framework. This new relationship will put a premium on ensuring effective and ongoing self-evaluation in every school combined with sharper edged. lighter touch, but no less rigorous external inspection. Ofsted consulted on the future of inspection proposals between 10 February and 8 April 2004. HMCI David Bell has now reached agreement with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the changes. The document sets out our intention, subject to the scrutiny and approval of Parliament, to change the inspection system with a range of complementary changes for schools. Based upon the responses to the consultation and the work with LEAs and schools, actively engaged as our partners, I have confidence that these changes will improve education for pupils and ensure parents and the public know even more about the schools their children attend.

  New Relationship with Schools proposals

  The DfES is currently developing detailed proposals for a new relationship with schools, which cover a group of interlocking changes that will affect school inspection, schools' relations with local and central Government, schools' self-evaluation and planning, data collection from schools and communications with schools. They aim to reduce bureaucracy, strip out clutter, and release greater energy in schools.

  Future of Inspection Proposals

  The new inspection system will mean shorter and more frequent inspections at shorter notice than at present. The proposed framework would allow two to five working days' notice before an inspection instead of the current six to 10 weeks. There will be a greater emphasis on school self-evaluation and a simplified approach to schools causing concern. The current approach to schools that need special measures will be retained and a new improvement notice for other schools where there are weaknesses will be introduced.

  In the trials of the new inspection process, the outcome has been a stronger link between school improvement and the reports produced by inspectors. Schools have welcomed the new system.
  24WS
  HMI will play a role in all inspections and inspection reports will be published within three weeks of an inspection, compared to four to five months at present. The proposals will reduce burdens on schools whilst ensuring that parents benefit from more frequent information about the quality and standard of education provided by schools. Overall the weight of inspection—with much sharper inspections, a smaller team, but at a greater frequency—will be roughly half the current weight.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regional Planning Guidance (West Midlands)
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  Regional planning guidance 11 (RPG11) sets out the spatial strategy for the sustainable development of the region, with a framework for the land use aspects of housing and transport infrastructure and economic development. The strategy gives priority to the regeneration of the major urban areas and the regeneration zones identified in the regional economic strategy. RPG11 also sets out proposals for the conservation, management and enhancement of the region's natural and cultural environment.

  I am pleased that the vision, objectives, and core strategy of RPG11 are largely as proposed in the draft RPG submitted by the West Midlands regional planning body (RPB) in November 2001. This reflects the effective partnership working which was led by the RPB and involved local authorities and a wide range of other stakeholders. Many of these stakeholders have continued to make valuable contributions through the consultation process. Many of the comments received through the consultations have made a very positive contribution to the strategy.

  The West Midlands regional assembly, now the regional planning body, will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that RPG11 is effectively implemented, monitored, and reviewed.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Sewage Treatment Works (Nuisance Control)
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  On 23 December 2002 the Government published a consultation on proposals for the control of odour and other nuisances from sewage treatment works. This included an option for a voluntary code of practice.

  Incidents of odour problems are relatively few compared with the number of sewage works throughout England and Wales, but when problems do occur they can have a significant and prolonged impact on local residents. For this reason an apparent lack of effective enforcement had to be addressed as a matter of urgency. The outcome of the consultation supports the use of the statutory nuisance regime to resolve such problems. I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a summary report of the responses to the consultation.

  In addition the position has been clarified by a recent High Court judgment which confirms that odours from sewage treatment works can be considered as a statutory

  25WS
  nuisance within the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As a consequence, local authorities have both a duty to investigate such a problem and corresponding enforcement powers. This means that abatement notices can be used to resolve long-term problems of odour from sewage treatment works. An appeal against this ruling has now been withdrawn.

  The consequence of the High Court decision is that we have a statutory tool to address sewage odour. The Government therefore propose to drop the reference to a "voluntary" code, a throwback from when the code was envisaged as an interim measure in the absence of a statutory regime. The code will equally address concerns raised within the responses to the consultation that the application of the statutory nuisance regime may lead to inconsistencies in its application and increased uncertainty for the sewage industry. Therefore, the Government are asking the sewage industry, its regulatory and professional bodies and organisations representing customers, the public and local authorities to co-operate in the production of a code of practice that will provide advice and guidance to support the successful resolution of odour problems from sewage treatment works. A draft code is to be the subject of full public consultation in summer 2004, and should be published by late 2004. Ofwat has indicated it will lend its weight to the code.

DEFENCE

  Mrs. Hulme and the Pensions Ombudsman v. the MOD
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  I announced on 19 November,Official Report, columns 39–40WS that the Ministry of Defence would not seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Mrs. Hulme and the pensions ombudsman v. the MOD. I also announced that, as appropriate, the Department would review previous decisions on entitlement to pensions where death-in-service or injury that resulted in invaliding was due to service and where armed forces pension scheme administrators have previously not accepted war pension scheme decisions on attributability; that awards would be backdated; and that the Department would consider compensation to reflect the effect of inflation on the value of pensions over the period of non-payment.

  I can now advise the House that those pensioners, widows, widowers or their estates who will receive backdated pension benefits as a result of this judgment, will also receive interest on those payments. Where the error occurred within the last six years, the interest will be based on the scheme's usual formula of simple interest. Where the error occurred beyond six years, interest will be based on a formula using the rate of RPI plus 2 per cent. compounded. This is consistent with the formula used in compensating those who were affected by the armed forces pension scheme tax and related pension errors, which I announced to the House on 15 December 2003.

  Work has begun on identifying the cases involved and we hope that back payments and interest will be paid within one year to those who were affected.
  26WS

  Defence Estates Corporate Plan
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  I have set out the following Key Targets for 2004–05 for Defence Estates, as set out in the Agency's Corporate Plan:Key Target 1
  To improve the condition of the defence estate for fitness for purpose and condition by:
  Delivering 1,640 Single Living Accommodation Grade 1 bedspaces under Project SLAM, and reporting on the provision of 4,307 bedspaces delivered under parallel projects, and improving service families accommodation by delivering 500 upgraded properties.
  Ensuring that at least 70 per cent. of MOD Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the UK meet the criteria for satisfactory condition.
  Key Target 2
  To provide an estate of the right size, by increasing the number of personnel on Core Sites by 4 per cent. by 31 March 2005, producing business cases to support the MOD Estate Rationalisation Plan by December 2004, and by achieving Accrued Estates Disposal Receipts of £661 million from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2008, including £126 million from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
  Key Target 3
  To improve customer satisfaction and service delivery, by decreasing customer dissatisfaction with Service Families Accommodation by a percentage point by 31 March 2005, compared to the outcome as at 31 March 2004.
  Key Target 4
  To implement key 2004–05 milestones for MOD estates change initiatives by achieving the contract award for the Housing Prime Contract by 31 July 2004 and the Regional Prime Contract (South-East) by 30 November 2004.
  Key Target 5
  To produce the necessary strategies and to establish target baselines in support of the DEFRA Sustainable Development In Government requirements.
  Key Target 6
  To integrate baseline information to inform the methodology for demonstrating value for money efficiencies from Prime Contracting, and to reduce the management margin of vacant housing to 10.7 percent by 31 March 2005.

  I am placing a copy of the new Defence Estates Corporate Plan in the Library of the House.

  Met Office Key Performance Target 2004–05
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The chief executive of the Met Office is responsible for providing meteorological and related environmental services, including climate change prediction, to a wide range of customers, including the armed forces, Government Departments and local authorities, civil aviation, shipping, emergency services, media, commerce, industry and the general public. The Met Office also undertakes research related to meteorology and climate.

  Over the last 12 months the Met Office completed the challenging relocation of its headquarters and operations centre from Bracknell to Exeter. It was one of the biggest moves of IT capability undertaken in Europe, with no interruption in output or customer service. Some 1,000 staff transferred to Exeter in a project that was completed on time, to budget and against quality standards set. The move to new premises supports new ways of working; and an advanced

  27WS
  technology and IT infrastructure, which will result in increased resilience and data reliability for the Met Office's customers.

  To reflect the established strategy of investment and growth, the Met Office has adopted a new target relating to growth. A new target has also been included to ensure that the Met Office is prepared for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on 1 January 2005.

  Previously the Met Office has had a target set against commercial contribution. This has become less relevant given that there is no longer a clear distinction between commercial work and public sector work. This target has therefore been discontinued.
  Key target 1
  To achieve an increase in value for the Numerical Weather Prediction Index (measuring forecasting skill) of at least 1.4 by 31 March 2005, from the level achieved at 31 March 2004.
  Key target 2
  To deliver an operating profit before strategic investments of at least £15.5 million in FY 2004–05, whilst making strategic investments of between £5.8 million and £6.8 million.
  Key target 3
  To achieve a return on capital employed of at least 3.5 per cent. in the FY 2004–05.
  Key target 4
  To achieve direct services growth in both Government and non-Government revenue of at least 4.1 per cent. in FY 2004–05 from the 2003–04 baseline. whilst maintaining direct services operating profit
  Key target 5
  To have in place, by 31 December 2004, basic procedures to answer requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and to review by 31 March 2005 the initial operation of the procedures to ensure that they are fit for purpose.
  Key target 6
  To develop, by March 2005, an efficiency measure which demonstrates the continuous improvement in value for money of the National Met Service (including the Public Met Service and relevant parts of the National Met Programme).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  UK Gas Quality Exercise
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  On 8 January 2004, in a written ministerial statement,Official Report, columns 13–14WS, I launched the second phase of a three-phase strategy addressing the issue of future changes in the quality of gas imports to the United Kingdom. I can now inform the House that as part of this phase my officials have successfully let two separate research contracts to address specific technical aspects of the potential remedial measures being explored.

  Phase 1 of the gas quality exercise, an independent scoping report commissioned by Government, was completed in November 2003. It confirmed that the Wobbe specification of certain anticipated gas imports to the UK is, before processing, likely to fall outside the current limits of the Health and Safety Executive's Gas Safety (Management) Regulations (GS(M)R). In light
  28WS
  of the expected increase in the UK's dependence on imported gas I launched phase 2 to identify an appropriate policy response.

  As stated in previous announcements, our broad policy options appear to be: the "default" option, to retain the current gas quality specifications, or to change the current specifications to more closely reflect the expected quality of future gas supply. Two separate research contracts have recently been let, under a competitive tendering process, to Advantica Limited, to address specific technical issues in connection with these two options. The first will identify the costs, benefits and risks of the options for processing future gas imports to ensure that they comply with existing quality specifications. The latter is the pilot for an exercise aimed at understanding the likely costs, benefits and risks of adapting the UK's gas appliance population to ensure continued safe operation under the delivery of gas with different quality specifications.

  I can tell the House now that there is no question of the Government recommending to the HSC, who are responsible for the GS(M)R, to implement an early change in the UK's gas quality regulations. The effective choice, for consideration in due course when the results of the research exercises are apparent, is expected to be between recommending no change at all versus the option of making no immediate change but implementing transitional measures that would provide the flexibility to introduce a change in the gas quality specifications at a much later date, perhaps towards the end of the next decade.

  My officials, together with HSE and Ofgem, will be working over the coming months to prepare the ground for a consultation exercise. Once this work is complete I shall make a further statement to the House.

  This exercise has been developed by the DTI as a member of the sustainable energy policy network (SEPN), which is working to deliver the Energy White Paper "Our Energy Future—Creating a Low Carbon Economy".

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Safety Cameras
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  An independent review of the first three years of the safety camera programme's operation 2000–01 to 2002–03, carried out by University College London and PA Consulting Group which I am publishing today, concluded that safety cameras significantly reduced speeding and collisions, and had cut deaths and serious injuries at camera sites by 40 per cent.

  These findings are based on the large body of evidence now available from three years of the programme's operation, and the 24 police and local highway authority safety camera partnerships which were participating in the national scheme by 2002–03, covering around half of the police authority areas of England, Wales and Scotland.

  I have placed a copy of the UCL—PA report in the Library. It will also be available on my Department's website.
  29WS
  The report contains details of each partnership's audited costs and receipts from fixed fines for 2002–03. I have also placed in the Library copies of the English and Welsh partnerships' responses to my Department earlier this year, confirming that they are operating in accordance with the rules and guidance for the programme.

  The sole objective of safety cameras is to save lives and reduce injuries—as it has always been, since the previous Government provided for the use of cameras in the 1991 Road Traffic Act.

  Road safety is a Government priority. Despite the UK having one of the best safety records among major countries, some 3,500 people are still killed and another 35,000 seriously injured each year on the roads. This level of deaths and injury is not acceptable, and excessive and inappropriate speed is a significant element in the problem. People who drive 25 per cent. faster than the average for a road have six times higher risk of collision. Excessive speed is a contributory factor in over a quarter of fatal collisions. Moreover, speed makes any collision worse, whatever its cause. Pedestrians hit by cars travelling at 20 mph have a 21.2 per cent. risk of being killed; a 20 per cent. risk at 30 mph; and a 90 per cent. risk of being killed at 40 mph.

  Safety cameras have a key role in tackling the problem. They cannot be the only way of helping to reduce speed, but they do make a major contribution. The key findings of the UCL—PA report are that:
  there was a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites ( "KSI casualties"), over and above the UK's general downward trend in killed or seriously injured casualties.
  the percentage reduction equated to 870 fewer people per year being killed or seriously injured at the 24 camera sites—including 105 fewer deaths per year;
  within the overall reduction in killed or seriously injured casualties, there was a 35 per cent. reduction in pedestrians being killed or seriously injured;
  there was a 33 per cent. reduction in overall collisions involving personal injury at camera sites—fatal, serious or slight—("Personal Injury Collisions"—PICs), again over and above the general downward trend in PICs. This equated to 4,030 fewer PICs per year for the 24 Partnership areas;
  the benefit to society of the avoided deaths and injuries in 2002–03 was £221 million, based on the standard Government values for road injuries—over four times the £54 million resource cost of the programme in 2002–03;
  there was a 32 per cent. reduction in the number of vehicles breaking the speed limit at camera sites. Average vehicle speed across all new sites fell by 7 per cent. overall;
  there was a larger, 43 per cent. reduction in excessive speeding—vehicles doing 15 mph or more above the limit;
  there was a clear correlation between the level of speed reduction at sites, and the level of reduction in collisions and casualties;
  independent research showed a high level of public support for the use of cameras. 79 per cent. of people agreed with the statement "The use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties".
  This evidence of the road safety benefits of safety cameras shows why local residents and pedestrians value them strongly, as hon. Members know from contact with constituents. The report also shows that the majority of motorists also support cameras. They
  30WS
  too are threatened by thoughtless drivers who are prepared to ignore speed limits and go through red lights.

  As well as the national results, the UCL—PA report also includes estimates for the percentage reduction in KSI casualties and PIC collisions for the individual partnership areas. As is to be expected, partnerships' figures vary—partly reflecting their different mix of urban and rural sites and different camera types. Also, collisions are by nature random events and their incidence varies from year to year. So the report should not be regarded as providing a "league table".

  We already expect partnerships to keep their camera sites under review and up to date with changing local circumstances. My Department will give guidance to partnerships on particular issues to consider in preparing and submitting their operational cases for the period ahead—in particular looking at camera sites where a good safety record has been achieved, to assess whether they need to be retained for maintaining effective compliance, or whether the site can now be safely stood down—and also at sites where there appears to be a continuing problem of high numbers of collisions notwithstanding the use of cameras, and assessing whether further or different action should be taken, including for example road improvements or engineering measure, traffic calming measures, road safety education of information programmes. In making these assess] vents, we will of course expect partnerships to take account of the views of both local communities, and those of road users.

  The UCL—PA report shows the high level of public support for safety cameras. An essential element in this is the availability of full information on camera sites. Partnerships provide a wide range of information, presented in a range of ways.

  But hon. Members and others with an interest in the safety camera programme are also interested in being able to access core information, set out on a common basis, covering all partnerships' sites nationwide.

  Earlier this year I asked my Department to review the operation of cameras at each site across each partnership area. Drawing on information provided by the partnerships, my Department has prepared tables covering each of the 35 partnerships in England and Wales now participating in the programme. Copies will be placed in the Library, and will be available on the Department's website. The tables provide information on the location of sites, the reason for their establishment, and summary "before and after" data on the numbers of people killed or seriously injured in collisions since the partnership joined the programme and up to 2002–03, including part-year data for sites which were established in the course of 2002–03. The tables will be updated each year.

  In total for England and Wales, at the end of March 2004, there were 5,215 safety cameras, comprising:
  2,364 fixed speed camera sites, at which cameras operate continuously or from time to time;
  2,153 locations at which mobile speed cameras are deployed from time to time;
  698 red light camera sites at which cameras operate continuously or from time to time.
  31WS
  These tables provide a full picture of the safety camera sites currently in operation. Hon. Members with questions about any camera in their constituency should contact the partnership concerned.

  Around half of the camera sites listed in the tables had been established prior to partnerships joining the national programme, under the guidance issued in 1992, in Department of Transport Circular 1/92 "Use of Technology for Traffic Enforcement: Guidance on Deployment". This guidance did not set any quantified collision criteria, asking only that partnerships should
  "have evidence that all additional cameras have been deployed in areas where historically there have been a high incidence of speed related collisions."

  The Government did not regard this generalised guidance which we inherited as adequate, and we have progressively developed detailed rules, guidance and criteria for the setting up and operation of cameras under the national programme, as currently contained in the handbook of rules and guidance for the operation of the national road safety programme for England and Wales, 31 October 2003, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Alongside setting the quantified criteria for site locations, the handbook of rules and guidance for the programme recognises the independent operational discretion which police forces must have to enforce the law, and provides also for "exception sites"—mainly "community concern" sites where there is evidence of speeding causing road safety concerns to local residents. The operation of exception sites is now subject to a maximum of 15 per cent. of a partnership's total "camera time". Exception sites do not require Government approval. But for information, the tables include fixed exception camera sites. Exception mobile sites are often temporary, and are not included in the tables. Information on exceptional sites is available from partnerships.

  The rules on camera sites' visibility and conspicuity that the Government introduced in 2001 apply to all speed cameras, including exception sites. The police however need the discretion in exceptional circumstances to mount "covert" operations to deal with exceptional problems. The police advice that the use of this discretion is rare—fewer than 10 instances a year.

  We encourage lower speed limits where these are appropriate in urban areas and in the vicinity of schools, including 20 mph zones, which have proved very successful in reducing collisions and injuries. For rural areas, the Government recommend that 30 mph should be the norm in villages. The current guidance to local authorities on local speed limits is being revised and updated, covering both urban and rural roads. We will consult road users and other stakeholders shortly on a revised circular advising on the setting of local speed limits.

  Penalties need to fit the crime. There is a significant problem with people prepared to exceed limits seriously and recklessly. Following the review of road traffic penalties, we made a commitment to create an aggravated offence to deal with these people, with a new higher fixed penalty when the legislative opportunity arises. This reflects serious public concern.
  32WS
  At the same time, many drivers feel that the present fixed three point minimum penalty, laid down in primary legislation is not necessarily the most appropriate or effective way to deal with less severe speeding. We therefore propose that, when the opportunity arises, legislation will reduce the minimum penalty to two points, with the detailed provisions for the offences to which two point and higher penalties would apply to be set in statutory orders. These would be subject to both formal public consultation, and to affirmative resolution in Parliament, to ensure full discussion with motoring organisations, road safety groups and others with an interest.

  Meantime, a number of police forces have been developing and offering drivers the option of speed awareness courses as an alternative to the formal legal processes, where this looks to be a more effective remedy. And at the national level, the Association of Chief Police Officers has announced that it is putting in place arrangements for a national programme for the use of speed awareness courses, which will ensure consistent and rigorous standards of courses. The Government welcome the police's wide thinking on the best way to achieve the result which everyone wants to see—that of drivers and riders with changed, safer and more considerate attitudes.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Indian Ocean Territory
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  I would like to inform the House of developments in relation to the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).

  In 1965, prior to Mauritius achieving independence in 1968, and with the agreement of the Mauritius Council of Ministers, the islands of the Chagos Archipelago were detached from Mauritius to form part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The territory was created to provide for the defence needs of both Britain and the United States of America. Subsequently, the plantations on which the population of the islands had depended for their livelihood were run down and closed; and the inhabitants—the Chagossians—were in due course relocated to Mauritius and Seychelles, from where they or their families originated. The vast majority of them automatically acquired Mauritian or Seychelles citizenship when those countries respectively achieved independence. In addition, the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 gave a large number of them British citizenship. This carries with it the right of abode in this country, which some of them have already taken up, and freedom of access to other EU countries. Following the relocation, Britain made £650,000 available for the express purpose of assisting resettlement. And in 1982 Britain made a further ex gratia payment of £4 million for the benefit of the Chagossian community in Mauritius.

  In November 2000 the High Court in the UK held in judicial review proceedings that a provision of the territory's immigration law that had previously precluded the Chagossians from returning to the territory without a permit was invalid. In the

  33WS
  circumstances which then obtained, it was decided not to appeal against that ruling, and the immigration law was amended to reflect it.

  Following the departure of the Chagossians in the late 60s and early 70s, the economic conditions and infrastructure that had supported the community of plantation workers ceased to exist. While the judicial review proceedings were still pending, the Government therefore commissioned a feasibility study by independent experts to examine and report on the prospects for re-establishing a viable community in the outer islands of the territory. The latest report of the study was delivered after the November 2000 judgment and it was then placed in the Library of the House. It concluded that
  " … whilst it may be feasible to resettle the islands in the short-term, the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to be prohibitive. Even in the short-term, natural events such as periodic flooding from storms and seismic activity are likely to make life difficult for a resettled population … Human interference within the atolls, however well managed, is likely to exacerbate stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effects of global warming. Thus resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time."
  Specifically with reference to climate change, the report advised that
  " … the main issue facing a resettled population on the low-lying islands will be flooding events, which are likely to increase in periodicity and intensity and will not only threaten infrastructure, but also the freshwater aquifers and agricultural production. Severe events may even threaten life."

  The report also highlighted the implications for resettlement on such low-lying islands of the predicted increase in global sea levels as a result of climate change.

  In effect, therefore, anything other than short-term resettlement on a purely subsistence basis would be highly precarious and would involve expensive underwriting by the UK Government for an open-ended period—probably permanently. Accordingly, the Government consider that there would be no purpose in commissioning any further study into the feasibility of resettlement; and that it would be impossible for the Government to promote or even permit resettlement to take place. After long and careful consideration, we have therefore decided to legislate to prevent it.

  Equally, restoration of full immigration control over the entire territory is necessary to ensure and maintain the availability and effective use of the territory for defence purposes, for which it was in fact constituted and set aside in accordance with the UK's treaty obligations entered into almost 40 years ago. Especially in the light of recent developments in the international security climate since the November 2000 judgment, this is a factor to which due weight has had to be given.

  It was for these reasons that on 10 June 2004 Her Majesty made two Orders in Council, the combined effect of which is to restore full immigration control over all the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory. These controls extend to all persons, including members of the Chagossian community.

  The first of these two orders replaces the existing constitution of the territory and makes clear, as a principle of the constitution, that no person has the right of abode in the territory or has unrestricted access to any
  34WS
  part of it. The second order replaces the existing immigration ordinance of the territory and contains the detailed provisions giving effect to that principle and setting out the necessary immigration controls. These two orders restore the legal position to what it had been understood to be before the High Court decision of 3 November 2000. I am arranging for copies of the orders to be placed in the Library of the House.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  British Soldiers (Prosecution)
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has made the following ministerial statement, 14 June 2004,Official Report, House of Lords, columns WS 22–24:

  "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.

  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 with the APA in London and I and LSLO officials met with 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), they 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.
  35WS
  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.

  In his recent statement, 8 June 2004, Official Report, House of Commons, columns WS 4–5, my right hon. 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. In relation to the remaining three cases with the APA, they are actively being considered at the moment.

  The APA is aware of at least four other cases which are likely to be referred to them in the very near future. This will make a total of eight cases out of the 75 which have been referred to them.

  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 who have asked the Metropolitan police for assistance in
  36WS
  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 whilst 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."

  Three of the four soldiers accused were informed of the charges against them on 14 June. I can therefore confirm that their names are: Corporal Daniel Kenyon; Fusilier Gary Paul Bartlam; and Lance Corporal Mark Paul Cooley and that the charges relate to incidents which allegedly took place on or about 15 May 2003 in a camp just to the west of Basra.

  The Attorney-General will give the name of the fourth soldier by written answer once they have been informed of the charges against them.

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.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Kishwer Falkner, having been created Baroness Falkner of Margravine, of Barons Court in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Wallace of Saltaire and the Lord Dholakia, and made the solemn affirmation.
Baroness Henig
Ruth Beatrice Henig, CBE, having been created Baroness Henig, of Lancaster in the County of Lancashire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton and the Lord Goldsmith.

Wind Power
2.49 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
What their response is to the paper from the David Hume Institute entitled Tilting at Windmills: the economics of wind power.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Tilting at Windmills report questions whether wind energy justifies its role in the Government's strategy. While the Government agree with a few of its points, the report makes many inaccurate statements; for example, that renewables are the Government's key policy for reaching their target for carbon reduction and that further investment in UK energy is ruled out; and the exaggerated claim that wholesale electricity prices will rise by 40 to 60 per cent over the next five years as a result of reductions in carbon emissions. It is not the Government who are tilting at windmills but the author of the report.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that response. Among other things with which he may agree in Professor Simpson's report, does he agree with his conclusion, which states:
"Because of the cost of providing additional stand-by generating capacity, it is unlikely that wind power will ever account for more than 20% of electricity generation through the National Grid. That being the case, its development can make no substantial contribution to a reduction in carbon emissions from power generation"?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thought that that was one of the more useless statements. A little
618
mathematics applied to that will tell us that if it provides 20 per cent of the generating capacity it will deal with 20 per cent of the generating capacity problem. That is a reasonable amount and worth doing.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, bearing in mind the high cost of this subsidised form of energy and the environmental desecration to many of the most beautiful parts of the British Isles, will the Minister respond positively to the recommendation of the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, given to Sub-Committee D on 10 March that more money should be found for research and that tidal and wave energy power could be a more significant renewable source of energy than wind power because wind power is intermittent and the moon rather reliable?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the situation is not, as the author of this report implies, that we are choosing wind power. Wind power has been chosen by the industry because it thinks that it is the cheapest method of achieving the renewables obligation. That is why it has chosen wind. So, it is not in the Government's gift.
As regards the comments of the Chief Scientific Adviser, that is a question of timescale. What he says may be true in the long term and it may be right that more money should be spent on research. That matter will be considered as part of the spending review, but as of now it is clear from the industry's response that the most economic way to do this is through wind power.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, has the Minister read the report, as I am sure he must have done, that Denmark, which for long has been at the forefront of wind farm technology, has decided that the game is no longer worth the candle—perhaps a slightly unfortunate metaphor in the circumstances? Have her Majesty's Government any plans to enter into discussion with our friends in Denmark to see how we might benefit from their experience before too much of our beautiful landscape becomes visually impaired? I declare an interest as a Welshman.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not know whether I can quote exact figures, but I think that the figure in Demark is in the order of 20 to 30 per cent of power from wind. That is a very substantial density for that small country. That is why Denmark is now saying that it will change direction and not significantly increase wind farming. I doubt whether that has much implication for the UK, where at this stage wind farms account for 2 or 3 per cent at the most.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, has my noble friend had the opportunity to read The State of the Nation 2004 report produced by the Institution of Civil Engineers and what it says about the energy situation? It points out very clearly that with the reduction in electricity generated by coal and nuclear power, by the year 2010

619
the mix will be such that we have precious little time to make up the energy gap from renewables. Is he happy with that state of affairs, or is he going to rubbish that report in the same way as he rubbished the one referred to by my noble friend Lord Williams?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I did not rubbish the report, I merely pointed out—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as the author of the report suggested that the Government's policy was not as ideal as he would like it to be, I simply pointed out that he had made a few mistakes in his report. As far as concerns the report of the Institution of Civil Engineers, one has to compare its figures with those set out in the energy White Paper. Noble Lords will see that they are considerably out of line with what we think is the most likely projection.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I shall deal with one or two items from the report. Does the Minister agree that nuclear power causes no greenhouse gases, but that at the same time, as a base-load generator, it contributes well to the security of supply? Does he further agree and accept that even considering decommissioning costs, a matter which is in the report the noble Lord just mentioned, nuclear power costs less overall than wind power and is very much more secure because it does not depend on the weather and the amount of wind at any one particular time?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, of course nuclear does not produce any greenhouse gases, but it has other environmental impacts. I find it strange that in the report there is a whole page which deals with the problems of birds flying into wind turbines while the environmental impact of nuclear power is dealt with in one line. We have to be serious about this: there are serious environmental issues associated with nuclear waste. We have to be able to deal with those before we go any further.
Nuclear costs were a matter of great debate. It is not at all clear what the cost will be for the next generation of nuclear power stations, not least because at this stage few have been built.
Lord Ezra: My Lords—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I think we should hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, although I gather that the Government disagree with most of what is contained in the report, what are their views on the contention that between now and 2010 emissions could increase, due
620
largely to increased usage of energy in the transport, domestic and power station sectors? Do they have any additional policies to deal with that situation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, obviously, one reason we disagree with the report is that it assumes that there is no government policy regarding energy efficiency. As the noble Lord knows, because he has asked questions about it, there is a considerable policy programme on improving energy efficiency. I am afraid I do not have the figures on how that relates to the increased emissions that will result from increasing economic activity, but I shall write to the noble Lord and let him have what figures we have.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords—
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think we should move to the next Question.

Litter: Marine Environment
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether effective action is being taken to reduce the amount of litter on beaches and in the sea.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government continue to attach priority to dealing with litter wherever it is found. On beaches the picture is a mixed one. A recent Marine Conservation Society survey showed a significant increase in the litter on beaches. On the other hand, a record number of beaches now qualify for the ENCAMS Seaside Award and the higher level Blue Flag status.
The UK is also taking action in a range of international forums to tackle and prevent the problem of litter in the sea.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I hope my supplementary question will not spoil his birthday today, on which I congratulate him.
The noble Lord said that the problem of litter on beaches is variable. Does he accept that beach litter has doubled since 1994, when the surveys were first undertaken? Would it not be unacceptable if the amount of litter on our streets had doubled? Dolphins and so on are dying because they have swallowed plastic bags and litter is having a severe impact on our marine environment. Does the Minister think that our tourism industry will be severely affected by the problem? Why are the Government not running a really strong "Take your litter home" campaign?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for drawing my ageing process to the attention of the House.

621
The Government are doing a number of things in terms of public education and in improving the way we deal with litter on beaches and elsewhere. It is true that the survey identified an increase in litter on beaches in aggregate, but it is important of course that where most people go—on the main amenity beaches and resort beaches—there has been a significant improvement. That is reflected in the fact that the UK now has 372 beaches with an ENCAMS Seaside Award and 122 beaches with the Blue Flag status, which is a very significant improvement in the main family beaches. Nevertheless, I accept that there is a problem on beaches as a whole and we need to continue to take measures to restrict the litter and to pick it up.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I should begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who I did not see earlier on, because he was sitting so unusually far back.
With regard to litter in the sea, is my noble friend aware that an offshore wind farm is proposed off East Anglia? The proposed offshore wind farm is rectangular: it is about a mile wide—which is about the distance from here to the Tate Modern—and about two miles long, which is more or less the distance from here to King's Cross Station. That is a substantial body of litter in the sea, and it is causing much concern among shipping interests, which regard this as an intrusion that is invidious to the movement of shipping in that part of the North Sea. Is my noble friend, whose birthday it is today, as happy about this as he is about his birthday?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on working his way into the first Question. The designation of various sites for wind farms at sea does not add to the environmental problems; it promises to make a major contribution to dealing with environmental problems. I know that noble Lords, having dealt with the Energy Bill as it went through this House, have some concerns about shipping, but given the size of the installation that my noble friend referred to, frankly it would be difficult for shipping to miss it.
As a contribution towards reducing carbon, and therefore the effects of global warming—albeit in a way that requires other policies to operate as well, as my noble friend Lord Sainsbury said earlier—offshore wind farms are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I sincerely hope that all shipping misses all wind farms. To come back closer to the shore, is the Minister satisfied that maritime local authorities are adequately resourced to deal with the increasing problem of litter on their foreshores?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that it is a question of resources. Clearly, some beaches still suffer from a lack of effort being put into clearing them. Of course, the key issue is how and why that litter gets there in the first place. Litter minimisation and
622
education are important, as well as the means to pick up and get rid of or recycle the litter that is strewn on some of our beaches.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is there is any hard evidence on how much of the litter on our beaches is deposited by people visiting the beach, and how much comes from shipping and other at-sea sources?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, precisely 36.7 per cent of all litter on all beaches comes from those who visit the beaches; in other words, the kind of litter that we normally refer to. Just over 14 per cent is fishing litter, which includes some general shipping litter. The rest relates to sewerage litter. More specific shipping litter including oil drums and so on are only about 2 per cent.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in that case, could my noble friend say how many ship operators have been prosecuted for dumping litter around our coasts in the past five years?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, dumping litter would probably be the wrong reference. In terms of spillages, there have been very few prosecutions, and that is something to which the Government, and governments more generally, should pay greater attention.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that there are enough areas in which rubbish and litter can be dealt with?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if the noble Baroness means in terms of the actual beach sites, one of the problems is that there are not enough areas where members of the public can put litter and from which it can be recycled or dealt with. If she means more generally whether the number of landfill sites is sufficient for this sort of litter, the answer is "yes". Of course, we have a policy on waste disposal that will have alternatives to landfill sites. It is the more dangerous forms of litter about which there continues to be some anxiety.

Parliament Square: Protests
3.5 p.m.
Viscount Tenby Viscount Tenby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to arrange for the removal of the long-standing displays in Parliament Square.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, it may be open to the local authority to take action under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which makes it an offence for anyone who does not have a waste management licence to deposit waste on land. We shall shortly be

623
consulting on developing police powers and ensuring that police are empowered to act effectively and proportionately in this area.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, although I hope that she does not mind me saying that it is unsatisfactory in certain respects. Does the noble Baroness agree that the right to demonstrate is fundamental in a mature democracy? If one of the prime sites for this purpose—in this case, the south side of Parliament Square—is occupied by one group and one individual for very many months, what chance do other legitimate groups have to make their protests known as well? Will the Government get their act together and get all the interested parties together to solve this mess as a matter of urgency?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree that in a mature democracy there must be a proper right to demonstrate. Noble Lords will know that the protest that has been taking place across from the House has proved rather difficult, not least because they have all—if I can use the noble Viscount's words back to him—got their act together and are working in concert. Noble Lords will know that Westminster Council sought an injunction in 2002. A decision was made in that regard that limited the effect. The Metropolitan Police has kept the position under review. There is a loophole, and we will look to see how it can be filled. The Government's act is intact.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness would be good enough to make clear what the Government's attitude is to untidiness and mess in the wrong places. Are we to believe that the Government accept a decent part of the natural regime over which they preside?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord knows well that the Government do not like mess. That is why we do not make it.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, will the Government be supporting the initiative of the London Borough of Camden on fly posting, for example, which seems to be a significant way forward in reducing litter on our streets?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Camden has taken advantage of the legislation that has been made available. It is a good example of what we can do when we work properly and with initiative.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, all charity ties apart, I find the whole thing disgusting and shameful. Why cannot it be moved to Speaker's Corner at Marble Arch, which is the right place for such things?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the sentiments of the noble Baroness, and a number of laws have been put into place to address
624
this issue. The noble Baroness will also know that those who wish to subvert the law are very skilful, and we must keep on trying to be one step ahead of them.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the need for more police powers. If two noble Lords are alarmed, harassed or distressed, why does she not use the powers under last year's Antisocial Behaviour Act to get the police to move these people on, thereby demonstrating the Government's commitment to free speech and freedom of assembly?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is not two Members of the House of Lords who need to act in concert but two individuals. One of the issues is that this concerns one individual, not two.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is that the loophole to which my noble friend referred?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is a difficulty because in the case that was brought against this individual in 2002, the judge declined to grant an injunction. The judge said that the obstruction for which the individual was responsible was not unreasonable and that the council had to take that into consideration before taking action against him. Noble Lords will know that we introduced stringent measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, many of which were resisted by the Benches opposite. We hope that they will be successful in dealing with such issues when two or more people behave in the way that we now wish to change.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that until new legislation is introduced the Government will continue with a sessional order, which will at least serve as an annual reminder that new legislation has not yet come into force?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, sessional orders will, of course, continue. I did not promise legislation. I said very clearly that we have to look at police powers to see whether they are currently sufficient and, if not, to consider what we need to do to augment them. We shall certainly do that.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, speaking in a purely personal capacity, do the Government recognise that a balancing factor is involved in these issues? Many visitors to this country are extremely impressed to see that people can express a profoundly unpopular position as close to Parliament as they do.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have taken that matter firmly into account. The noble Baroness is right: any new legislation would need to take into account the rights to freedom of expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness will acknowledge that there is a question of balance and proportionality. That is what we are trying to achieve.
Lord Monson: My Lords, equally as bad as the litter in Parliament Square is the noise pollution from the

625
use of loud-hailers. It is clear from a Written Answer that was sent to me that local authorities have the power to ban the use of loud-hailers. Why has this not been done?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, local authorities are given such powers in order that they may exercise their discretion and act upon them. We still have local government—we are proud to have local government—and we hope that local government will discharge its duty and not wait for central government to do so for it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, for how many years have the Government failed to deal with this problem?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have not failed to deal with it; we have dealt with it robustly, as have the authorities which are seized of the issue. What has happened in relation to the placards opposite is that individuals have taken advantage of the small chinks that currently exist and exploited them. We have been criticised in the past for being too active in this area.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is not the individual concerned obstructing the public highway?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, he is not. A route has been woven around each piece of legislation. I understand that an individual has been arrested on another matter but I cannot talk about that because it is sub judice. However, I can tell the House that a clear look is being taken at all the legislation to ensure that we have as much as we can conceivably create to make the net as tight as it should be.

Children: Confidentiality of Medical Information
3.4 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Under what circumstances it is justifiable to withhold from an adult with parental responsibility for a child of 14 information concerning that child's health and welfare.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the legal advice is that children who are competent to make decisions about their own treatment are entitled to have their personal health details kept confidential. Information they supply in the expectation that it will not be disclosed to anyone with parental responsibility should not therefore be disclosed unless there is a legal compunction to do so—for example, a court order—or an overriding "public interest" justification for doing so.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. I accept that there is a problem in that context. However, does she not agree
626
that, even where there has been serious stress between a teenage child and its parents, if that child is then in serious trouble, 99 times out of 100 the parents will rally round and support the child? Under those circumstances, is it in the best interests of a child to encourage her to cut herself off from her parents so that she will not have the support she needs when she goes through the trauma of abortion and the depression that so often succeeds it? Is it fair on those with parental responsibility—who can be taken to court and sent to gaol if their child fails to go school or is guilty of anti-social behaviour—to withhold from them extremely relevant medical information about their child?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that, as a government, we would always want parents to support their children as fully as possible and to have the information they need to do so. However, a balance of law and practice has to be struck between the rights of parents to know about the medical treatment of their child and the right to confidentiality of a young person under 16. Confidentiality is important because it can make a difference to the young person seeking medical advice in the first place.
The common law is set out in what has become well known as the Gillick judgment. That has established that if a young person is judged to be competent—that is, if he or she has sufficient understanding and intelligence to comprehend fully what is proposed—he or she can take a decision about treatment. That is well established in law. However, I should point out that both in that judgment and in the subsequent guidance that was issued, great stress was put on the need for health professionals to try always to get the child to involve the parents. That is something that we would all want to see.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, given that the Fraser guidelines which govern the operation of this kind of confidentiality were set up in 1986, can the Minister tell the House whether there has been any recent review of their operation or whether any such review is planned? I ask because, while I accept that in most cases it is highly desirable that a young girl's parents are in a position to support her in such a situation, there are very often legitimate reasons—for instance, the fear of domestic violence—that may make the girl wish that they do not know. It would be most comforting to know how this is working in operation. Secondly, is there any public interest justification whatever for a newspaper publishing the name of the young girl whose case instigated this Question?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as to the noble Baroness's first question, the guidance is to be reissued and updated very shortly. We promised to do that in the teenage pregnancy strategy. It is important to have complete clarity, not least in relation to Sexual Offences Act. The revised guidance will support a clear framework for health professionals to work to. It will include the issue of confidentiality, their duty of care

627
and ensuring—this is important—that they have the time and support to give to the young person to enable the right decision to be made.
As to the noble Baroness's second question, I obviously cannot comment on the case. However, I understand that in every instance proper protocols and procedures were followed by the health professionals and the school involved.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the situations that have been referred to are often, as the noble Baroness appreciates, extremely sensitive and difficult. Can she say what support is currently available to health professionals and others, such as teachers, to make these difficult decisions about disclosures of confidential information?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, since the passing of the Data Protection Act 1998, the health service has made a specific attempt to ensure that identifiable patient information is properly dealt with. Caldicott guardians—often senior professionals—were set up at that point to handle the whole question of safeguarding confidentiality. We have updated the guidance. Last November the department launched an information governance toolkit which provides a framework for bringing together all the requirements, standards and best practice that apply to the handling of personal information; it covers consent issues, the duties of common law confidentiality and the training that has to be provided. That contains a code of practice, and is a robust support.
The best advice to give teachers is contained in the guidance that goes out from the Department of Health to all people working in this field, including parents and young people.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it seems that we are faced with a conflict of rights. In this context, is the noble Baroness aware of the very considerable public concern that has arisen over the dispensing of the morning-after pill and the vast increase in sexually transmitted diseases? Will the Government trust parents rather more than they do now and not put at risk the relationship between parents and their children?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I agree with that. We have found, and the evidence is quite clear, that when parents are involved in openly discussing sexual relationships with their children, those children are much less likely to be pressured into having sex too early or irresponsibly. We very much want to support parents in that respect. Through an organisation called Parentline Plus, we are creating opportunities for parents who are embarrassed by this subject—parents often find it easier to talk about homework than sex—to come forward and get some advice about how best to do this. That is a very positive step forward and a positive response to the problems which the noble Lord identified.

EU: Draft Constitutional Treaty
3.21 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the latest draft of the European Union Constitution adequately limits competences and safeguards the areas for unanimous decision; and whether they will press for an amendment to achieve those ends.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government welcome the presidency's latest proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference—documents CIG 79/04 and 80/04—which are being deposited in the Library of your Lordships' House this afternoon. However, we will continue to press for amendments to meet our requirements, as set out in the White Paper on the IGC of 9 September last year, Cm 5934.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It underlines the total impossibility of Parliament giving any sort of meaningful scrutiny to this vital constitutional document if papers are deposited this afternoon when the target is to get a decision on Friday.
I do not believe that the Government should be quite so complacent about Parliament. The British people do not seem to support the rather sanguine attitude that the Government will do whatever is best. Will the Government therefore table an amendment along the lines of a draft that I have given to the Minister to establish confidence that the European Court of Justice will champion a strict interpretation of the European treaties and not collaborate in further "Euro-creep"?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is a little harsh on the question of depositing the papers. This is a constantly moving position, and these are updates from the most recent negotiation. The noble Lord will know that negotiations are currently under way through officials in Brussels but will continue later this week with Ministers.
The noble Lord has given me an amendment, as he suggested. It deals with the issues of competences and qualified majority voting. I remind him that the draft treaty makes it clear in paragraph 2 of Article 1.9 that,
"competences not conferred upon the Union in the Constitution remain with the Member States".
Nothing could be clearer than what is already written in the draft treaty on that point.

629
For discussions to move to QMV from a position of unanimity, a decision can be taken only unanimously. That is the point. In addition, the Government have also negotiated a parliamentary lock. We are in the middle of negotiations. I remind your Lordships that this is a very sensitive time, when we are trying to negotiate for what we have already set out as the Government's position.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recall that during the convention which negotiated this document, there were monthly meetings of a Joint Committee of both Houses which reported back, and that attendance from both Houses was, sadly, rather thin? Does she accept that while the unanimity question is of great symbolic importance, the number of occasions in the EU of 15 when the United Kingdom has found itself in a minority position have been extremely few, and that the number of occasions in a Community of 25 when we are likely to find ourselves in a minority position for any reason other than the lack of skill of our United Kingdom negotiators is likely to be minimal?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have discussed before how often we have been outvoted on QMV—twice in 2001 and once in 2002. However, I agree with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about those who are shouting very loudly about lack of consultation but who never took the many possibilities which were open to them for that consultation. I look at the Benches opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who is, unfortunately, not in his place today, was a very good attendee. In that he was remarkable, because that was certainly not the case when it came to his counterparts in another place.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, in the draft that is about to be put in the Library this afternoon, there is still included the so-called passerelle clause, which is designed to make it easier to move from a majority requirement to qualified majority? If so, will the Government undertake to have that removed as a red line?
On taxation, which is very relevant to that point, is taxation in the new draft still a matter for unanimity unless it is necessary for the workings of the single market—weasel words, which could lead to any abrogation of unanimity? Will the Government undertake to remove them as well?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have not seen the papers being placed in the Library of the House this afternoon. They were arriving in the Foreign Office as I left it earlier today. I know that the passerelle clause is still in the draft. The noble Lord raises his eyebrows and looks around as though this were appalling, but I am bound to say that the discussion on this has moved on considerably. As I made very clear in answering the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, not only would moving
630
from unanimous voting to qualified majority voting require a decision to be taken unanimously—so, in effect,there would still be a veto—but there is, in addition, what has been described as a parliamentary lock. That is a mechanism by which, within six months of a proposal being agreed, a national Parliament could object to such a proposal. So this Parliament's position would be safeguarded by what has been negotiated.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind the fact that as and when something is agreed, there is a desire around the country to have more information about what it all means? At present, the indications are that the document would be comprehensive but difficult to read. Would the Government consider a simpler form of documentation, which is not Brussels propaganda, whether from the Commission or the Council, providing information which the British people are apparently anxious to have at their disposal?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree that if a treaty is negotiated which we can present to Parliament and thereafter, if Parliament agrees, to the British people for a referendum, there will have to be clear explanations of what that treaty implies for the British people. That is one of the reasons why some of us on these Benches who had not been in favour of a referendum came to the conclusion that a referendum was the right issue because we would then be able to talk about the substance of what the treaty says and not about the processes. I welcome any opportunity to talk about the real substance of what a real treaty—when it has been finally negotiated and we have reached the final position—actually says.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, despite the Minister's clarity, does all this not confirm that this complex draft European constitutional treaty, due to be agreed on Thursday in Ireland, is still too complicated, given what was originally envisaged, and now has too many points of disagreement to fulfil its original aim? Does the Minister not agree that an alternative document—entitled, possibly, "Provisions for Enlargement"—and keeping strictly to that title, could be more acceptable?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness has been very kind in the way in which she has put her question. Fundamentally, her question is exactly the same as that which the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, continues to ask me: surely we should not start from this point and should we not be in an entirely different place on this matter? My answer is, no, certainly not. We are in the middle of very difficult, very complex negotiations. I would not dream of prejudicing the negotiating position of our officials and my colleague Ministers by saying, if I may say so, anything quite so daft from the Dispatch Box today.

Housing Bill
3.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Partnership Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 35,
Schedules 1 to 3,
Clauses 36 to 69,
Schedule 4,
Clause 70,
Schedules 5 to 7,
Clauses 71 to 79,
Schedule 8,
Clause 80,
Schedule 9,
Clauses 81 to 83,
Schedule 10,
Clauses 84 to 122,
Schedule 11,
Clauses 123 to 134,
Schedule 12,
Clauses 135 to 141,
Schedule 13,
Clauses 142 to 189,
Schedule 14,
Clause 190,
Schedules 15 to 17,
Clauses 191 to 199,
Schedule 18,
Clause 200,
Schedule 19,
Clauses 201 to 205,
Schedule 20,
Clauses 206 to 239,
Schedule 21,
Clause 240,
Schedule 22,
Clauses 241 to 244,
Schedule 23,
Clauses 245 and 246,
Schedule 24,
Clause 247,
Schedule 25,
Clauses 248 to 251,
Schedules 26 to 28,
Clauses 252 to 254.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
3.31 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): It may be helpful if I remind the Committee of the procedure on the Bill. First, I shall call the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to move Amendment No. 1. I shall then call, in turn, Amendments Nos. 2 to 11, which are amendments to Amendment No. 1. Proceedings on each amendment will be concluded before we move on to the next amendment. When Amendments Nos. 2 to 11 have been dealt with I shall put the Question on Amendment No. 1. I shall do likewise through the rest of the Bill.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—

FAILED ASYLUM SEEKERS: ACCOMMODATION
(1) At the end of section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (provision of accommodation for failed asylum seekers, &c.) add—
(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations specifying criteria to be used in determining—

(a) whether or not to provide accommodation, or arrange for the provision of accommodation, for a person under this section;

(b) whether or not to continue to provide accommodation, or arrange for the provision of accommodation, for a person under this section.

(6) The regulations may, in particular—

(a) provide for the continuation of the provision of accommodation for a person to be conditional upon his performance of or participation in community activities in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State;

(b) provide for the continuation of the provision of accommodation to be subject to other conditions;

(c) provide for the provision of accommodation (or the continuation of the provision of accommodation) to be a matter for the Secretary of State's discretion to a specified extent or in a specified class of case.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6)(a)—

(a) community activities" means activities that appear to the Secretary of State to be beneficial to the public or a section of the public, and

(b) the Secretary of State may, in particular—

(i) appoint one person to supervise or manage the performance of or participation in activities by another person;

(ii) enter into a contract (with a local authority or any other person) for the provision of services by way of making arrangements for community activities in accordance with this section;

(iii) pay, or arrange for the payment of, allowances to a person performing or participating in community activities in accordance with arrangements under this section.

(8) Regulations by virtue of subsection (6)(a) may, in particular, provide for a condition requiring the performance of or participation in community activities to apply to a person only if the Secretary of State has made arrangements for community activities in an area that includes the place where accommodation is provided for the person.
(9) A local authority or other person may undertake to manage or participate in arrangements for community activities in accordance with this section."
(2) In section 166(5) of that Act (regulations: affirmative instrument) before paragraph (a) insert—
"(za) section 4(5),".
(3) In section 103 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (support for asylum-seekers: appeal) as it has effect before the commencement of section 53 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41)—
(a) after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) If the Secretary of State decides not to provide accommodation for a person under section 4, or not to continue to provide accommodation for a person under section 4, the person may appeal to an adjudicator.", and.
(b) in subsections (6) and (7) for "section 95" substitute "section 4 or 95".
(4) In section 103 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (support for asylum-seekers: appeal) as it has effect after the commencement of section 53 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41)—
(a) for subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) This section applies where a person has applied for support under all or any of the following provisions—

(a) section 4,

(b) section 95, and

(c) section 17 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c.41).",.

(b) in subsection (4)(a) for "the other provision" substitute "another of those provisions", and
(c) in subsection (7) for "subsection (1)(a) or (b)" substitute "subsection (1)".
(5) In section 103A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (appeal about location of support) in subsection (1) (and in the heading) for "section 95" substitute "section 4 or 95".
(6) In an amendment made by this section a reference to providing accommodation includes a reference to arranging for the provision of accommodation.
(7) Regulations under section 4(5)(b) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (as inserted by subsection (1) above) may apply to persons receiving support under section 4 when the regulations come into force."
The noble Lord said: This new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the criteria to be used in determining whether to provide, or to continue to provide, accommodation to failed asylum seekers under Section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999. Noble Lords will be aware that this is commonly referred to as "hard case support". In particular the amendment allows the regulations to make the continuation of hard case support dependent upon a person performing or participating in community activities; to place the existing criteria for provision of this support on a statutory footing; and to provide for a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator against a decision not to provide support or against termination of support under Section 4.
We remain committed to the principle of offering support under Section 4 to those failed asylum seekers who are not in a position to leave the United Kingdom immediately in certain circumstances. Where a person cannot return home because there is no viable route, for example, then, provided that person is complying with redocumentation procedures and seeking to return voluntarily, we should not expect that person to be left destitute.
However, we believe that it is right to require persons in receipt of Section 4 support to give something back to the community in return for their board and lodging. That is why we cannot accept the amendments tabled by other noble Lords. We do not see this as a punishment and I want to make that absolutely clear. This is about a person occupying himself or herself usefully and not expecting to receive something for nothing.
So subsection (6)(a) of the new clause provides that the regulations made under the section may include a requirement for receipt of support to be conditional upon a person performing or participating in community activities. Community activities are defined as activities that appear to the Secretary of State to be beneficial to the public, or to a section of the public.
At present we are looking specifically for the work to be carried out in the immediate environment of someone receiving support. That might involve, for example, contributing to the upkeep or maintenance of their own accommodation. Additionally, we might wish to consider work on facilities situated close to their accommodation and which may be used by the failed asylum seeker. In short, the local community will see that failed asylum seekers are putting something back into their immediate environment; and the failed asylum seeker will be occupying himself purposefully during the time he is supported.
We envisage that the community activity scheme could be delivered by a range of partners in the public or private sector and we will explore closely the best

635
options. We want to draw on the experience of the New Deal in delivering the scheme while recognising that this scheme is different and applicable to a specific group; namely, failed asylum seekers. The amendment also makes provision for the scheme to be rolled out gradually throughout the United Kingdom.
We view this as an important part of our overall approach to social cohesion. People want reassurance that asylum and immigration are being managed properly. The measures in the Bill, coupled with the new measures that I shall move today, allied with our success in halving the number of asylum applications and the balanced approach to managed migration, are all helping to achieve that aim. Requiring people whose asylum claims have failed to participate in a community activity while we are supporting them enhances that approach further.
Although the requirement to undertake community activity is the principal focus of the amendment, we also believe that it is right to place the existing conditions for Section 4 support on a statutory basis. The amendment will allow regulations to provide for that. At present, to qualify for, and to continue to qualify for, support under Section 4, individuals must have been supported by the National Asylum Support Service or a local authority, have exhausted their rights of appeal, be destitute and have no other avenue of support.
They must then either have been given permission to proceed with a judicial review of the decision to refuse them asylum; be unable to leave because there is no viable route of return available; be complying with arrangements to obtain a travel document; be unable to leave the UK because of illness or late pregnancy; or there must otherwise be wholly exceptional or compassionate circumstances. If an individual failed or ceased to meet the conditions set out in the regulations, the provision of support provided to them may be declined or terminated.
I should underline again that people who are unable to participate in community activity would not be required or expected to do so. It follows, therefore, that if a person's circumstances change or, for example, they are unwell, we would review whether they should continue to be expected to perform the activity. We would not terminate support without first having examined fully the reasons for a person failing to comply with the conditions. These basic principles will be provided for in greater detail in the regulations made under the amended Section 4—specifically, under the regulation-making power contained in the proposed new subsection (5).
The amendment also provides for a new right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator against termination of support, and against a decision not to provide support in the first place. We believe that this is an important safeguard, making our overall approach to support under Section 4 more robust.
I am conscious that there is a considerable amount of detail to be worked through before such a scheme is up and running. The regulations which will provide the
636
detail will, in recognition of this and the importance of the issue, be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which we consider a further safeguard. It is the minimum that we can offer to your Lordships' House on this important issue.
In summary, people in receipt of support under Section 4, by definition, have no right to remain in the United Kingdom. There is no argument about appeals and other matters. They have failed. They have gone through the system however many times and the system has been tested and used. They have failed completely to become refugees, so they have no right to remain in the UK, but they cannot leave for various reasons.
We would not want them to be destitute and will support them while arrangements are made for their return or if it is not possible for them to return because of particular circumstances outside their control. However, we must recognise that there is a cost to the taxpayer of providing this support. Those failed asylum seekers who are able to participate in community activities should recognise that they should contribute to that cost. That is a modest request. They should give something back while they are waiting to return home. By asking people in receipt of support under Section 4 to make a short-term contribution—because that is all that it would be—we will continue the enormous progress that we have made in restoring credibility to the asylum system. This is a measured approach to a serious problem. It is in keeping with the Government's belief that with rights come obligations. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
Line 5, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (10),"
The noble Baroness said: First, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, back to the Home Office where he served so valiantly before. I am grateful to him for meeting Members from these Benches and from the Liberal Democrat Benches on Tuesday for an early, although at that stage rather limited, discussion on these matters. At that stage, I made it clear to the Government—and I make it clear in public today—that I intend to treat this recommitment in the nature of a discussion of principles—a Second Reading approach. Therefore, my amendments today seek information and explanation from the Government and I do not intend to press any of them to a Division.
The Government notified us on 25 May that there would be some new amendments on which they offered recommitment of the Bill. They said that it was the,
"Government's intention to bring forward a small number of new policy amendments".
At that stage, we were told only that some would refer to marriage. That letter certainly did not lead me or anyone else to expect this torrent of 13 new clauses plus other new amendments that amount to seven substantial policy issues to be considered. I cannot resist reminding the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that, at Second Reading in another place and in this House,

637
the Government maintained that this Bill was the third stage in their planned approach to tackling the problems of immigration and asylum. This late rush to add 13 clauses to what was a mere 37-clause Bill makes it clear that they are still making up these policies on the hoof.
I have made it clear that I am concerned that the Government's haste in drawing up these amendments at the eleventh hour means that they may be defective or cause unintended consequences. We must examine them carefully. I foresee that I will be able to support the Government almost entirely throughout the amendments from the point of view of the objective that they seek to achieve. My problem will be with whether the Government will be able to deliver.
I notice that the Refugee Council reflected such concerns in its statement issued last Tuesday, which states:
"We are concerned that the Government is tabling so many amendments at this late stage of the bill. Asylum bills do not have a good track record with late amendments—they are often ill-conceived and do not receive adequate parliamentary scrutiny".
That is also the view of the Refugee Women's Resource Project, Asylum Aid, which I thank for its briefing.
3.45 p.m.
My honourable and right honourable friends in another place will have only a limited opportunity to consider these amendments when they reach that House. Certainly, in the short time available to us last week, I tabled as many amendments as I could reasonably devise to signal to other noble Lords and the outside world the type of questions that we would pose. Of course, the Minister knew that from our meeting, but the other groups had not had that advantage. I thought that it was right at this stage to give a general idea of the approach that I would take to this Bill to save repeating it as regards each group of amendments heretofore.
The first new clause introduced by the Minister is likely to prove the most controversial. Which other countries in the European Union have a similar system of directed labour for those who have not been convicted of a criminal offence and for whom the penalty of failure to comply will be the loss of accommodation? I carefully note the Minister's use of the terminology that these people would be "occupying themselves usefully". Let us hope so.
Why is the Minister confident that the provision will not fall foul of Article 4.2 of the ECHR? What advice have the Government been given in that respect? Will the Minister clarify what will happen if the Secretary of State determines that a person will lose his accommodation? Does that mean that they are out on the streets, that they are in detention or simply put into different accommodation? We need to know the end result.
Amendment No. 2 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 11, which introduces a new subsection (10). My amendment proposes that the Government should pause before going ahead with imposing this
638
directed labour on failed asylum seekers. I entirely accept the proper emphasis that the Minister used in saying that these are failed asylum seekers who have come to the end of the road and should be leaving the country. It is not only the case that they cannot leave because some places are too dangerous to return to; on some occasions, the Government simply have not got their act together. We also know that there are difficulties of a diplomatic kind in getting people back to places such as China, which I understand. My amendment proposes that, before the Government go ahead with imposing this new system, they should consult those bodies with expertise in advising asylum seekers and those likely to be the contractors.
Earl Russell: Before we settle into too cosy an agreement that those in this situation have absolutely no chance of gaining asylum, I recollect cases in which they have gained asylum—largely through the good offices of Lord Williams of Mostyn—because their cases had been very ill served by two incompetent sets of solicitors and they had never been given a proper hearing. Let us not take too much for granted.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Earl makes a useful and instructive intervention. I am aware of the casework history that the Minister has—other noble Lords have referred to it in the past. I am taking at face value the fact that the people subject to this provision will be only those with absolutely no other avenue for appeal. However, I should be grateful if the Minister could answer the specific point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Turning to the amendment, I have listed a group of people who the Government should consult. As ever, the list is not exhaustive. It is only indicative and not one that I would wish to include in the Bill. I share the Government's concern that, if one does that, one leaves out people who should be included. I have included the Immigration Advisory Service, the Local Government Association, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Refugee Council.
I note that the Minister said that a lot of detail had to be worked out by the Government before they could come up with the regulations. That is an understatement. Therefore, what consultation do the Government intend to carry out before this directed labour is introduced? Who will be consulted? Will the Government add trade unions to the list? One wonders what their attitude to this scheme might be. They have proved to be somewhat sceptical in the past about the provision of work for prisoners, for example, on the basis that it takes work away from employees. One wonders whether they might have similar concerns about this proposal.
Do the Government intend to have a pilot scheme? In any event, when do the Government hope that the first scheme might be up and running? I would expect that the LGA would be able to advise the Government on the cost of managing the scheme. The Minister talked about these people giving something back to society. My concern is that the cost of managing this scheme could be far greater for the taxpayer than any

639
type of quid pro quo that they might get back as a result of this directed labour. We know that community activities are always difficult to manage, especially if people do not wish to do them.
The Minister will have a series of difficult questions to answer on that. I appreciate that he has done a considerable amount of work in the background. Naturally, we are taking these amendments one by one so that we can build up the picture. When we get to the later stage at Report it will be easier to have less of a staccato debate. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: That amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 4, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord McNally and myself. On these Benches we take a slightly more critical view of the Government than the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has done. While we agree with the points that she made, we wish to make our objection to these proposals quite clearly.
The purpose of our amendment is to remove the new subsections—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: May I have clarification? I understood from the procedure that although these amendments are grouped, we deal with each amendment in turn. I have therefore spoken only to Amendment No. 2, because I anticipated, from what the Chairman of Committees said, that he would then call each amendment in turn and that we are therefore currently debating only Amendment No. 2.
The Chairman of Committees: These amendments are grouped. I will call the amendments as one always calls all the amendments on the selection list, but if they are spoken to in a group, they will only need to be moved or not moved formally.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I apologise to the noble Lord because I have not then spoken to my other amendments. Obviously, it is up to noble Lords to speak to them. I will have to test the patience of the Chamber by being lengthy when I wind up. I assure the House that my comments on the other amendments will be remarkably brief.
Lord Goodhart: In that case, as I said, we have no objection to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, so I do not think there is any point in my speaking to them, but we object to new subsections (6) to (9) of Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. So all that will be left of the additions is the new subsection (5) which contains the general power to make regulations.
Subsections (6) to (9) confer a power to make it a condition of the provision of accommodation for a failed asylum seeker, that he or she should take part in community activities. The Government have not said that a failed asylum seeker will be paid for those activities other than being given free accommodation, and there is a clear inference that the failed asylum seeker will not receive any pay.
640
The Government are very unlikely to get much useful work out of the failed asylum seekers. Since these are people who have been refused asylum they will frankly have very little interest in benefiting the community from which they are about to be expelled. For the most part, they will be where they are for only a short period awaiting their removal from the United Kingdom. Because they will be both unwilling and a short-term workforce, they are unlikely to be given or to perform work of real value.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, there will be costs involved: somebody will have to set up a work programme and supervise the asylum seekers. One of the real questions is: is this a programme that will provide value for money, or is it a gimmick? We on these Benches believe that it is a gimmick, although it is worse than that. There is a real risk—and the noble Baroness touched on that—that it contravenes Article 4(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states:
"No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour".
If an asylum seeker is told to take part in specified community activities, and that the penalty for failing to do so is being chucked out of his or her accommodation on to the streets, that seems to be pretty close to forced labour and, arguably, the wrong side of the boundary.
That is different from the well known community service order which follows conviction and is therefore within the exceptions allowed by Article 4(3) of the European convention.
We believe that if the person's stay is very short, the Government's proposed amendment becomes absolutely pointless. If the stay is likely to be prolonged—as it can be for various reasons, including because their country of origin will not accept them back—it is surely better to allow the failed asylum seeker to take a paid job and to contribute to the economy, and to his or her own accommodation and maintenance in that way. We believe that the proposal is wholly inappropriate and should be withdrawn.
Lord Hylton: Did the Government consult the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees before producing their amendment? In the same breath, I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, that she might include the UNHCR in her list of bodies to be consulted.
It seems that the UNHCR takes a very poor view of the Government's amendments. It states:
"These proposed amendments … affect prospects of integration and withdraw rights previously afforded … counter to the spirit of the 1951 Convention".
The UNHCR goes on to state that it,
"cannot support the introduction of the proposed amendments because they diverge from the 1951 Convention's clear intention to ensure high standards of welfare for refugees, and because they are bound to have an adverse effect on the dignity and rights of refugees".

641
I thought it was as well to emphasise that point at an early stage in our discussions and I hope that the Government will have a reply to it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: We are treating this debate as a Second Reading debate, as we have to do. I am sure that the Minister will understand that we are confronted with 13 clauses and a lot of new ideas, quite suddenly, at quite a late stage of the Bill. We have to look at that very carefully indeed. That does not mean that we are against the idea, but we have to look at it carefully, as I think the Minister will appreciate.
I am very interested in the suggestion that totally failed asylum seekers should be expected to do something until they leave because I believe that the public will appreciate that. That may look like a gimmick to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but I am not sure that the public will see it like that. The only thing is that it must be made to work. That is very important.
I remember the measures taken during the time of high unemployment when I was a member of the Manpower Services Commission. There are quite a lot of problems in that approach. I will not recite them because I do not want to be gloomy to the Minister, but that approach is quite difficult.
Why does the Secretary of State have to make all these arrangements? The local area will have to produce the project, which will largely be done by local authorities or other bodies. If the whole thing has to go through the Secretary of State it may be even more difficult than it would otherwise be. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lady Anelay will come to these detailed points under her different amendments—it is difficult to tell in advance—but that is an important question. In subsection (8) on page 2 it seems that the Secretary of State has to make the arrangements or it does not count. Is that a necessary arrangement? I suggest to the noble Lord that he may be making difficulties for himself.
Does the clause apply to the whole United Kingdom? If it does, it does not seem to be drafted with Scotland in mind. I am not sure whether I am wrong, but I feel that Scottish Ministers ought to be brought into that. Has the new clause been drafted with the whole of the United Kingdom in mind? If it has, I draw attention to my noble friend's Amendment No.11, which names organisations, the Scottish counterparts of which would have to be consulted. I refer to the Scottish equivalent of the Local Government Association, CoSLA, and to the Scottish counterpart of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. We need to know whether that will be the case.
If the measure is drafted with Scotland in mind, has the Scottish Executive been consulted about this matter in full? I picture failed asylum seekers in Glasgow and how they would be dealt with. As the Minister knows, there are a lot of asylum seekers in Glasgow. I am trying to picture how they would be found community activities in which to participate. That is the area with which I am most familiar and where I have encountered the relevant problems.
642
Has consultation been fully carried out with the Scottish voluntary organisations to ensure that there is a willingness and an ability to operate the system? I am not against the system; I just see some problems. Answers to those questions would help me.
4 p.m.
Earl Russell: When the Minister spoke to his amendment he said he thought that people ought to put something back into a community they took something out of. It is an unexceptionable sentiment, but when he expressed it I suddenly realised that the whole of the new clause seeks to ward off a rod which the Government have pickled for their own back. Until Mr Blunkett's previous Bill, asylum seekers were allowed to work after six months. In return for being allowed to work, which many of them showed a great eagerness to do—very often they want to prove their usefulness—there arose a right to benefit if they were unable to obtain work or were unfit to obtain work. There also arose the right to protection and all the other rights that go with a functioning social security system.
What the Government did instead was to deprive them of the right to work altogether. By doing this, they were able to introduce the right to deprive them totally of support and thereby to engage Article 3 of the ECHR, with consequences that I do not think I need explain to the Minister—I believe that he is perfectly well aware of them. In fact, the Government created a mess because by taking away the refugees' chance to make a responsible contribution, they thereby enabled themselves to denounce them for not having done so. At the time I wondered whether that was the objective of the move to deprive them of the right to work. I am wondering even more now, but if that is so the Government have encountered a marvellous piece of poetic justice, because that was what let them in for the ECHR judgment.
I am also a little doubtful of the phrase that the failed asylum seekers are to take part in activities,
"that appear to the Secretary of State to be beneficial to the public".
I should not like to express an opinion on whether I am doing that at the moment. The Secretary of State's views on what is beneficial to the public are, like most of our views on that question, very much his own. I should have preferred a wording that was a good deal less personal. I should have preferred a wording such as, "may reasonably be regarded as beneficial to the public", because benefit to the public is a very, very difficult thing to define, and a very easy thing to argue about.
Rather than adopting any of these amendments—many virtues though they have—it would be a much more elegant solution to this whole problem simply to go back to restoring the right to work and to let it come into force from day one. Then these people could

643
undertake responsible behaviour like normal people, and that is what most of them want to do. If we try to stop them, we create more problems than we prevent.
The Countess of Mar: I declare my interest as a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I am absolutely astonished that these amendments have been tabled at this late stage. It is not as though these problems are new. We have known about bogus marriages for 10 or 15 years, I should think; at least, I have known about them during the time that I have served on the tribunal. We have known about the accommodation and the work problems during all that time. To introduce the measure at this late stage in the Bill is, frankly, an abuse of Parliament. I do not know why it has been done. I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he could explain that.
Will the noble Lord also tell the House how much money is being spent currently on social security benefits and housing allowances for failed asylum seekers? We need figures. There are many reports in the Daily Mail and other newspapers about how these people are draining our coffers, but we need to know by exactly how much they are draining them, and the size of the problem. I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he could tell us that.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord made it clear to the Committee that the people we are discussing had reached the end of the line, and that there were no conceivable grounds on which they sought to remain. However, on an almost daily basis we see examples of people who have a legitimate right to say that they could not go back to the relevant country. There was an article in a newspaper this morning about Somalis who were being surreptitiously sent back to Mogadishu because the Home Office has implemented an undocumented change in policy. Whereas formerly Somalis were not forced to return, now they are being shipped back in spite of the fact that fighting has resumed in Mogadishu and in many other parts, and that the peace deals that were being negotiated in Nairobi seem to have broken down for the fifteenth time.
However, that is not an isolated example. We all know what is happening in the eastern DRC, in Bukavu. Some people in Harmondsworth who come from Bukavu have been refused asylum. They are being held in Harmondsworth pending their shipment back to a war zone. Therefore, it is not true that once someone has reached the end of what the Home Office has provided by way of appeal, there is no merit in his application to continue to remain.
The citizen's advice bureaux tell us that they believe the new clause will not work as the Minister suggests but that it will encourage people to engage in illegal activities to support themselves, or, worse still, to engage in crime. I hope the Minister will recognise that that is at least a risk of the proposal, and that he will explain how he proposes to guard against it.
644
As regards who should be consulted, I agree with those who have suggested a widening of the list proposed by the noble Baroness, but there is a further organisation that I should like to add to it. It was suggested to me by the proposal of my noble friend Lord Goodhart that we were on the boundary of risking the provisions on forced labour which we so often condemn in other countries. We had a debate recently on Burma, I think at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. That was not the first time that he has raised Burma. Here we are embarking on a scheme which, as my noble friend says, is tantamount to forced labour. I want to know whether the Minister and the Home Office have consulted the ILO. If they have not done so already, will they engage in consultations with the ILO and will they make a statement to the House that the ILO does not disapprove of what they are trying to do?
Lord Rooker: Certainly by the time the draft regulations come before your Lordships' House for affirmative resolution I shall have an answer to that final question. However, it is not one that I can possibly answer today simply because, as I said when I introduced the new clause, there is an awful lot still to do. This will not happen overnight because the regulations have to be drafted. Therefore, there is a fair degree of work still to do.
Notwithstanding the fact that the noble Baroness did not complete her introduction, I will do my best to answer the amendments and the points that have been raised. I did not choose the way the clauses would be introduced. All the changes are important, but this one is fairly substantial and is worth spending time on.
The last thing I want to do is be critical of your Lordships, but I have heard the phrases "asylum seeker", "refugee" and "failed asylum seeker" used interchangeably relating to the same person. We are not talking about refugees or asylum seekers, but about people who were asylum seekers, have gone through the process and not succeeded in becoming a refugee—they are failed asylum seekers.
We all know that different rules apply for different classifications of person. When someone makes the grade, as it were, and gets refugee status, they have equal rights with all of us in this country. We are not talking about those people, or those who, having made a claim for asylum, are awaiting decisions on whether they will succeed in becoming a refugee; we are talking about those who have gone through the process, failed, and have no right to remain in the UK. In some cases, if we could have removed them, we would have done so, just as we are removing several thousand people a quarter. The fact is, in certain circumstances there are certain countries we do not send people back to, and in other cases, because of the situations I gave as examples to start with, it is not possible for them to leave at that particular time. Therefore, in the mean time, to avoid them becoming destitute as "hard cases" under Section 4, they receive help by way of accommodation, board and lodgings.
Earl Russell: Five minutes ago I just happened to be looking at what UNHCR has to say on this subject. As I understand it, its argument is that the fact that it is unsafe to return home turns the person into a refugee by giving him a "well founded fear of persecution" if he returns home. That is my understanding of the argument, but one hears both sides, and if that argument is false I will listen with interest to the Minister's explanation of why it is so.
We have got into a confused situation here. The word "refugee" has changed its meaning because of a single remark made obiter by Lord Justice Simon Brown in the case of ex parte B in 1996, which, the Minister will remember, was a judgment that did not cover the Government with glory. Lord Justice Simon Brown was persuaded by Treasury Counsel to apply the word "refugee" not as is done in the UNHCR handbook, and as had hitherto been done by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, to all those who are applying for asylum, but only to those whose claims had been successful. I do not think that that single obiter remark by Lord Justice Simon Brown should be taken as a stable and permanent basis of law. A degree of uncertainty would become the Minister in these matters.
Lord Rooker: Yes, I am uncertain, but it is absolute news to me that the mere fact a person cannot be removed back to a country automatically qualifies them to become a refugee under the UN Charter. I have just come back to this as a policy issue, and I have never heard that before. I have never seen anything like that when I was the Minister responsible for the conduct of the policy, and I have not heard it since, so I do not accept that point, although I am willing, as always, to take advice.
First, I shall do my best to deal with some of the points relating to the amendments that were tabled, because I have notes for those that may assist the noble Baroness. Then I shall work through the points noble Lords have made, as I hope that I can answer most if not all of the questions.
Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, I can explain in more detail how the provisions might work. Amendments Nos. 7 and 10 seek to state specifically that voluntary organisations may be involved in the provision of services, and in managing the arrangements and participation of community services. I can confirm it is our intention not to be prescriptive about the types of organisation that could be involved in the management and provision of community services. We would be happy to see the voluntary and community, public and private sectors involved in this way, and so we have sought to word the government amendment so that this is what is provided for. We greatly value the expertise and experience of the voluntary and community sector, especially in the field of asylum and immigration, of which there is enormous experience in both the legal and practical aspects right across the country. However, we do not think it is necessary to single out voluntary organisations in the primary
646
legislation. We believe that the wording as currently drafted is sufficiently wide to enable the voluntary organisations to be involved in this way.
4.15 p.m.
We have mentioned local authorities specifically within the draft clause simply because the statutory limitations on their role require that specific power be given to them, and that is given by proposed new subsection (9). They will be able to participate if they wish to do so, but there is no need to do the same for voluntary organisations in this way. Their participation need not be provided for in statute, as it is part of the consequence of local government legislation.
I can also reassure the Committee that our general approach to implementation of these provisions is not that any group or body would be required to undertake the management or provision. Instead, we would wish to encourage partners in a relevant area—a local authority, for example—to volunteer their involvement, on the basis that it would be of value to their local community.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 11 would require draft regulations to be subject to six months' consultation with specific interested parties before they are laid before Parliament. It was suggested in particular that consultation should take place with the Local Government Association, and there was reference to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Immigration Advisory Service and of course the Refugee Council. As I have said, we want to utilise the relevant expertise, and I certainly hope I can provide the necessary reassurance about consultation.
We fail to consult at our peril in this area. We think there are likely to be a number of organisations able to offer advice on the scheme, and we want to make use of them. This is important as it will be a partnership arrangement, not the Home Office, that runs this in detail. We do not think there is any added value in a statutory requirement to consult the specific groups mentioned. Furthermore, we could not possibly agree to such a long period of consultation. The Cabinet Office code of practice on consultation, which seeks to increase involvement in public consultations and imposes a proper amount of time to respond, recommends a period of three months, so in any event, six months would be way out of line.
The regulations will be subject to affirmative procedures, so there will be an opportunity to debate them in detail. I accept that they cannot be amended, but nevertheless they can be debated at some length in both Houses. Amendment No. 8 requires for allowances to be paid to voluntary organisations and local authorities in relation to their involvement in, and management of, community activities.
It might be that there is a misunderstanding of the purpose of subsection (7)(b)(iii). At present we are looking specifically for the work to be carried out in the immediate environment of someone receiving support, or on facilities situated close to their accommodation that may be used by the failed asylum

647
seeker. However, we do not want to rule out the possibility that individuals may participate in activities slightly further away from their accommodation, and that might be feasible, for example, if the person were assisting in tasks at a particular support group. This subsection would give the Secretary of State the power to pay the reasonable travel expenses of such a person in recognition that they will not be in receipt of a cash allowance. Subsection (7)(b)(ii) provides for the Secretary of State to enter into contracts with local authorities or voluntary organisations, and through this provision they would receive the payments as necessary.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 9 would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the criteria for the provision of accommodation under Section 4 and require such regulations to make the provision of support conditional on the performance of community activities and other conditions. With the government amendment, we are regularising the operation of Section 4 support and ensuring that its receipt can also now be dependent on the performance of community activity. There is nothing to be gained by turning it into a duty to make regulations. We are legislating primarily to do that.
Amendment No. 5 would remove the discretion of the Secretary of State to provide accommodation to a specified extent or a specified class. I can appreciate that it appears to be a rather broad provision, but the amendment may have consequences that noble Lords would not want. I shall try to explain why. We do not consider that it would be appropriate to set out every detail of the arrangements in the regulations, and it is necessary, therefore, that the Secretary of State should retain an element of discretion in the application of the scheme, within the limits set out by the regulations. He will not be able to act on a whim and must be reasonable at all times.
One of the principal reasons for the provision is to allow the Secretary of State to take account of failed asylum seekers in receipt of Section 4 support—hard case support—who will not be able to take part in community activities. For example, a person can qualify as unable to take part, if they are unfit to travel. Common sense tells us that in those circumstances, it may well be the case that the person is not able to perform community activities. Subsection (6)(c) allows the regulations to permit the Secretary of State to exempt such a person from a requirement to do that, and we may need to offer different varieties of activity in particular places, depending on the local circumstances. It would not be appropriate for that level of detail to be included in regulations, and so the discretion provided for by new subsection (6)(c) is necessary.
I must make it clear that the extent of the discretion must be set out in the regulations, which will, of course, be approved by the House. The regulations themselves are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The extent of the discretion will be scrutinised by the House in due course.
648
Amendment No. 6 would amend the definition of "community activities" to mean activities that,
"the Secretary of State has reason to believe are beneficial".
as opposed to activities that,
"appear to the Secretary of State to be beneficial".
In considering what sort of specific activities should be carried out as a condition of receiving accommodation under Section 4, we do not, at this stage, want to be restrictive. Community activities will not be limited to one task to be performed by everyone concerned. We want to utilise any available skills of the persons affected and will also seek views and preferences about the nature of the activities that would be most suitable for the individual.
I do not believe that, in practice, there would be any difference between the wordings. If it "appears" to the Secretary of State that an activity is beneficial, we can also say that the Secretary of State has "reason to believe" that that is the case, so the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 4 would prevent the Secretary of State making the performance of or participation in community activities a condition of receiving Section 4 support or hard case support. It would do that by removing subsections (6) to (9) of the new clause proposed by the Government. I have set out—clearly, I hope—the reasons why we believe that it is right to require failed asylum seekers before they leave the United Kingdom and while they receive Section 4 support to perform community activities as a condition of such support. We do not see that as a punishment for not leaving the United Kingdom, and it would not be right to draw such an analogy. It is not incompatible with a person's civic responsibilities to participate in the sort of community activity proposed.
Earl Russell: Has the Minister taken legal advice on the amendment? What about the extent of its compatibility with Article 4.2 of the European convention or with the judgment of Lord Justice Laws on Article 3, which, although, I understand, it is the subject of an appeal, is still at present the law, pending any further judgment?
Lord Rooker: I will be able to explain that, when I come to the notes relating to the specific points that were raised by noble Lords in the debate. At the moment, I am using the notes that were prepared in response to the amendments on the Marshalled List. I shall deal with them first and then deal with the issues raised in the debate. I hope that, given the nature of the recommitment, that will be best way of doing things.
As I said, I hope that I have set out the reasons why it is right to require the failed asylum seeker to perform community activities as a condition of their support—board and lodgings—under Section 4. We do not see it as a punishment, and it is not incompatible with a person's civic responsibilities.
Persons receiving Section 4 support are in a particular situation. Their asylum claim has been determined, and they have been found not to qualify. Where they have no other avenue of support from

649
family or friends and meet other conditions, such as being unable to return home immediately due to the lack of a viable route, it is clearly right for us to offer them basic board and lodging. We do not accept that it is unreasonable to require such a person to give something back to their immediate community in return. More generally, we want all people to play an active part in their community, and we see that as part of that agenda.
We need to make it clear to everyone—the citizens of this country and the taxpayers—that the asylum and immigration systems are properly managed. We must recognise that there are general concerns about people benefiting from the taxpayer's support without doing anything in return. That is what we want to tackle and why we believe that it is a proportionate measure. There will be good opportunities that will benefit the asylum seeker and the immediate community. There are numerous examples of work to be carried out in our towns and cities, such as the maintenance of gardens or supporting services to minority groups, including groups of asylum seekers, that will be of obvious benefit to individuals when they return home, as well as improving the community that they are living in for a short time here.
We face enormously difficult decisions on asylum and immigration, but we must make those decisions, if we wish to preserve social cohesion in this country. We must take that on board. We must tackle the something-for-nothing culture, something that was implicit in some of the points made this afternoon. No one has said that we should let people take something without putting anything back, but one could take that to be the implication.
Lord Goodhart: The Minister talked about, for instance, people looking after gardens. Does he envisage that that might involve people taking over work that might otherwise be done by paid council employees? If so, what would the reaction of the trade unions be?
Lord Rooker: Off the top of my head, I must say. "No". It is not the intention of the operation to put anybody out of work. At present, we have more people working in this country than we have had in the history of our economy, but we are still short of people to do the jobs. Hence, the managed migration programme.
Yesterday, the Social Exclusion Unit published a report on mental health and social exclusion. Some of the projects that I have visited are getting people back into work. People with mental health problems are quite capable and want to work in the economy. In the past, it would have been said that we could not let them do furniture restoring, driving, gardening or mechanics because that would put other people out of work. Yet, such schemes work well at bringing people back into work. So, the short answer to the noble Lord's question must be "No". We do not envisage such a situation.
The Countess of Mar: If there are so many job vacancies, would it not make more sense to let such
650
people do the jobs, become taxpayers and contribute to the whole community, even if only for a brief period?
Lord Rooker: No. I shall explain why shortly. Such a move would undermine the whole asylum system in this country. We must be clear about this: we are talking about a specific group of people. We are not talking about asylum seekers or refugees; we are talking about failed asylum seekers.
I hope that I can go through all the points that were raised. I may not have all the answers, but I shall try to go through all the points. Noble Lords can, of course, come back to me, and we will have adequate opportunity for that on Report.
I know that legal advice is a thorny issue. It has been raised more than once recently in the House. The Government do not disclose advice, and we do not say whether we have received it in the first place. We are fully satisfied that Amendment No. 1 is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. We are confident that it meets the parliamentary requirements.
A noble Lord said that it was an abuse of Parliament. It cannot be an abuse of Parliament for the Government to come to Parliament with amendments to legislation and to recommit those amendments to a Committee stage and then Report stage of a Bill allowing further discussion. That is what Parliament is for. There is no abuse of Parliament.
4.30 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. All these matters have been around for a long time. We are depriving the other place, which we are told is the elected Chamber, of the chance to go through all the stages as we are doing. Why have the Government done that? Why did they not put it in at an earlier stage? They knew that it was necessary.
Lord Rooker: First, we did not know that at the time. Secondly, I reject the notion that it is an abuse of Parliament. The other place will have adequate time—rightly so, because when the Bill goes back it will have a substantial chunk of amendments sent from the Committee here. There has to be proper scrutiny in the other place. It is responsible for its procedures and we are responsible for ours. That is another debate.
Some of these issues have been around for a long time. It might be argued that some of the issues I shall come to when moving later amendments should have been dealt with last year or the year before. There are good reasons why they were not, but there are good reasons now in the current circumstances why the action can be taken in this package of measured responses to situations that have arisen. Some of them have been forced on the Government to address again simply because of decisions in the courts; one of which is a major decision of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House, to which I shall come later.
I was asked which other countries provide purposeful activities. Other countries—not all of them—provide purposeful activities, particularly in

651
reception centres, but by definition one assumes that those are reception centres for asylum seekers and not for failed asylum seekers. Finland does so, but there are different rules for different countries. Our rules are not the same as to what happens if someone cannot, or refuses to, comply with the requirement.
I turn to the issue relating to—I use a euphemism—"forced labour". A noble Lord used the phrase "slave labour", which contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights. Our argument is that failed asylum seekers cannot expect to receive something for nothing. We are satisfied that we can require them to participate in activities consistent with our obligations under the ECHR. The regulations will be drafted consistently with those obligations.
The activities would be of benefit to the immediate community but would not go beyond what we would regard as the individual's normal civic duty. If someone fails to comply, the person would have the support removed from them—that might be an argument. We remain satisfied that our requirements in this clause are fully compatible with the ECHR. It would be open to the person whose support was withdrawn to reapply immediately for support under Section 4 and to agree to abide by the conditions. As I have said, an appeal process will be set out in the regulations.
I was asked if there would be a pilot scheme. I think that I said in introducing the clause that the scheme will be rolled out gradually to take account of the different circumstances around the country. In other words, it will not be rolled out overnight over the whole country. It will be rolled out over the country, so it will be a quasi-pilot scheme to that extent.
I do not take it personally, but the accusation against me was that the scheme was a gimmick rather than value for money. We think that it can be made to secure value for money and it is not a gimmick. However, it has to be seen in the context of the wider reforms in the asylum system. Part of this Bill that has been considered in Committee for a considerable period over the past month or so will show that, so it is part of the context of those wider reforms.
We have halved the number of applications and have removed a record number of failed asylum seekers. Any increase in costs needs to be seen in that context and that of the wider value for community confidence and cohesion in ensuring that this category of people are serving the community while they are here receiving support from the taxpayer.
I cannot give further details of the cost at present because I do not want to prejudice any procurement operations. The cost of running the National Asylum Support Service is over £1 billion per year. That is not related to this group of people; it obviously concerns a smaller group of people, but the idea that we are penny pinching and not spending considerable sums of taxpayers' money does not stand up to examination.
Because of the way in which the Government have posed the issue, there is the seductive question: why not let them work for their support? The noble
652
Countess, Lady Mar, asked about why we should not let them become taxpayers. We are dealing with a small group of failed asylum seekers and that would not work if we did not introduce such a system for all asylum seekers. I will come to the point about the six-month rule in a moment. We must maintain a distinction between immigration and asylum. The asylum route is not there to circumvent the immigration rules for economic migration. That is not the purpose of the asylum system.
If people wish to come and work in the UK, they should apply for entry under one of several managed migration routes designed specifically for that purpose. People in receipt of support under Section 4 will be leaving the UK in the near future when a route back to their country becomes available, so it would not be appropriate for them to join the labour market. Allowing even asylum seekers to work undermines the rest of the managed migration system. If ever one wanted to give a pull factor to asylum and the traffickers, that would be the way to do it. We are not going down that route, however seductive it might appear. There is a problem here: it is seductive but would be disastrous in its consequences.
Earl Russell: What evidence does the Minister have that the pull factor exists outside the Government's imagination? In particular, how is the information disseminated by which the pull operates?
Lord Rooker: It goes rather wider than the clause, but it goes down the chain. We know that over the years as various changes are made to the asylum system, different routes and techniques for entering the country appear. Different charges are made by the traffickers. There is a tariff. As I said to the Committee when I was "day-to-day" Minister, there is a tariff of charges for people to be facilitated in trafficking from around the world into various countries in the European Union. Traffickers operate in a market. More money is made in trafficking people than in trafficking drugs.
Because we want to explore and advertise—which we do more than ever before—the managed migration routes for immigration, we hope, and the evidence is, that fewer people are coming in as economic migrants under the guise of asylum seekers. More information is given about routes into the country for managed migration for the purposes of work than ever before. We have gone out of our way to advertise that there are ways of coming into the European Union, and particularly into the United Kingdom, for work. One does not need to go to a trafficker in human beings and then claim asylum as a way of getting into the UK to work.
Earl Russell: Will the Minister give us an example of one change in the market that he describes that came about as a result of a change in government policy?
Lord Rooker: I will, but not off the top of my head. I shall take advice, because there will be known examples in the department. The implication of the

653
noble Earl's question is that there is no evidence. One has only to look at the examples of people who work in the country illegally and who, when discovered, claim asylum automatically, because that is the information we have been given. They arrive here with the solicitors' cards in their pockets, because that is how the operation works to enter the labour market. There is plenty of evidence for such illegal activity. It is not as though the issue has arisen recently—it has been with us for quite a while, and has been growing.
I shall come to the other points raised by Members of the Committee, starting with the consultation with the United Nations high commissioner and compatibility with the convention. I regret to say that I cannot remember who asked about it; I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. No consultation has taken place yet, but we are fully aware of the expertise that can be offered by many of the groups. We will consider carefully who to consult. Believe you me, we shall not be short of consultees. I should repeat that we are talking about people who have not been found to be refugees. Therefore, the question of rights of refugees does not arise. They are not refugees. The policy is a measured approach to ensure that people in receipt of hard case support give something back to society.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked whether the provision applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. The answer is yes. Immigration remains a reserved matter. We have not yet conducted consultation on the provision, but of course will consult interested bodies in the devolved administrations. I hope that that answers her question.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That is extremely interesting, because there are huge implications for the Scots Parliament and Scottish organisations. I suggest that the noble Lord consults with the utmost speed. It is extraordinary to have brought the provision forward without consultation, because all the functions involved other than the immigration function—as he said, that is of course a reserved matter—are devolved. As he well realises, the community activities will have to be put into action by various Scottish bodies. Consultation should happen fairly quickly.
To what sort of number of failed asylum seekers, roughly, will the proposed new clause apply? I am trying to get the scale in my mind, so that I can then imagine the scale in Scotland.
Lord Rooker: On the last point, I have a figure in mind from discussion yesterday with officials and reading briefs, but I would like confirmation of it in case I have the wrong figure. It is not a large figure; we are talking about people in receipt of Section 4 hard case support—board and lodging. We are not talking about all failed asylum seekers. A load of failed asylum seekers do not seek support; they live with friends and relatives in the community. The figure I have in mind is about 500.
654
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked why we ended the employment concession in July 2002. It had become somewhat irrelevant by the time that we abolished it, due to the speed with which we were delivering initial decisions. At that time, 85 per cent of decisions were made within six months of application. While the concession was in operation, it acted as a pull factor for unfounded applications, as well as giving the misplaced impression that all asylum seekers could work. That was the other issue; one gets rumours around various communities, and it is very difficult once a rumour is up and running and has legs to, as it were, chop them off. After the changes, the speed with which decisions were being made by 2002 was very substantially increased from the speed of those before I came into this House in 2001, as I know from dealing with my constituency in my former role. Decisions had sometimes taken years; the situation was appalling.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about people unable to go back. We are prepared to offer support for those who meet the criteria for Section 4 support. That is the whole point, really. It is not as though we have invented new criteria. Section 4 hard case support is there. We are not trying to stop people in the relevant circumstances, but merely requiring them to give something back in return.
Lord Avebury: I was making the point that people such as the Somalis were formerly considered unable to return to their countries of origin but now, because of a surreptitious change in policy by the Home Office, were being forcibly returned. They were included in the classification that the Minister outlined in introducing the proposed new clause as those who had been right through the system, had no possible merit, and were to be cut off from all benefits.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: If I remember rightly, at one point people could not be removed to Somalia. A couple of years ago there were no government, administration or anything like that to receive them. I shall take advice on the matter again—I am not making policy up on the hoof—but I understood the situation to be that although there was no national government in the country, parts of it had a good, competent, local civil administration. The issue was whether there was a route back into those areas. At some points there was not, but at others there was. When there was, it was right to return people to those areas.
Earl Russell: Has the Minister consulted the Foreign Office on the subject of Somalia?
Lord Rooker: The Bill is government legislation, and all government departments agree with it and the changes. It has been through the full machinery of government. It is not a Home Office one-off operation; we simply happen to be the ministry dealing with it. Every department of government agrees with the proposal. I cannot quote from the individual letters, but they whizz round Whitehall in sack-loads.

655
I was asked about the citizens advice bureaux considering that there would be an increase in illegal working or crime. We do not accept that. As I indicated, we are talking about people in receipt of Section 4 support. They are not permitted to work. I have also given the Committee an estimate of the number of people affected—about 500. They are getting board and lodging anyway, so will not be destitute in the sense of being out on the streets with no support at all. Therefore, there is no excuse for them to go into illegal working, and certainly no excuse for criminal activity. I do not accept that, simply because someone does not get what they want, they turn to crime or illegal working. They have no right to be in the United Kingdom, but the country, the Government and the taxpayer take the view that people should not be left destitute in those circumstances, hence the hard case support.
I may have missed out one or two questions, but I hope that I have covered many, if not all, the points raised.
The Countess of Mar: The noble Lord mentioned a comparison with the New Deal. Will he remind us how much each job found under the New Deal cost?
Lord Rooker: I will in due course when I get the advice, because I do not know off the top of my head.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am very grateful to the Minister for treating the proposed new clause with such care in his answers. He obviously gave a considerable amount of detail in replying to my amendments, and has saved the Committee having to suffer an awful lot more from me; I shall be able to be relatively brief. Obviously, I shall consider very carefully what he said before we look at any amendments that might be tabled for Report.
The Minister started by saying that there was a lot still to do in preparing the regulations. That is the understatement of the year so far, but I take it in good part. I am glad that he referred several times to the consultation exercise to be undertaken. I was taken to task, quite rightly, by other Members of the Committee for having too short a list of organisations that should be consulted. In my defence, I said that I knew that I would be caught on that and that other organisations should be involved. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the UNHCR, which I thank for managing to get to Members of the Committee, at midday today, its full response on the issues. It is pretty remarkable that organisations have turned round their responses within six days of seeing the Government's printing of the proposals.
There is certainly much work to be done in the consultation. The Minister referred in passing to the breaching of directed labour. I have not called it anything else; to me, it is simply directed labour, which I do not think a pejorative term.
656
The Minister says that there will be an appeals process, but there is much work to be carried out in deciding what constitutes a breach. Those of us who have sat as magistrates know that in the circumstances of a community penalty a breach is brought before a court. Some probation services will say someone is in breach after one failure to comply with the full requirements, others will take longer. The regulations may well weigh a tonne by the time that we see them, because it will be a delicate procedure to apply properly and fairly for the 500 people who might be affected.
The Minister said again that the Government want failed asylum seekers on hard case support—and he was right to emphasise that particular group—to give something back to society. I would not quarrel with that, nor, I suspect, would most of the failed asylum seekers. The difficulty will be deciding which activities would be appropriate for them to carry out. It is my understanding that people on hard case support are already allowed to do voluntary work, so the Government are making their own life difficult by taking matters one step further.
Finally, there have been comments about the cost of managing this system for those 500 people. It will certainly be difficult to obtain any value back for the community. I hope that the Government manage to achieve that, but I suspect that they will not because management costs are always high when directing and managing small groups of people who may be unwilling to comply, because one cannot replicate successes and avoid failures. Some of the people who do this work may well be willing to work—for example, my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth mentioned people from Zimbabwe who will be returned, but who would be keen to work while they are here. I suspect that they would accept voluntary work or directed labour. The difficulty will be that many people will not be so willing and when we see the regulations this House may wish to look at them in great detail and with great care. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): It may help the Committee if I remind it that the noble Baroness has begged for leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2. When we have taken Amendments Nos. 3 to 11 in order, I shall call Amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 2, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 4, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 5 to 11, due to pre-emption.
[Amendment No. 4, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 11, as amendments to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 1 agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—

ACCOMMODATION FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS: LOCAL CONNECTION
(1) At the end of section 199 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (local connection) add—
"(6) A person has a local connection with the district of a local housing authority if he was (at any time) provided with accommodation in that district under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (support for asylum seekers).
(7) But subsection (6) does not apply to the provision of accommodation in an accommodation centre by virtue of section 22 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (use of accommodation centres for section 95 support)."
(2) Subsection (3) applies where—

(a) a local housing authority would (but for subsection (3)) be obliged to secure that accommodation is available for occupation by a person under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (homeless persons),

(b) the person was (at any time) provided with accommodation in a place in Scotland under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (support for asylum seekers),

(c) the accommodation was not provided in an accommodation centre by virtue of section 22 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (use of accommodation centres for section 95 support), and

(d) the person has neither—

(i) a local connection with the district of a local housing authority (in England or Wales) within the meaning of section 199 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) as amended by subsection (1) above, nor

(ii) a local connection with a district (in Scotland) within the meaning of section 27 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26).

(3) Where this subsection applies—

(a) the duty of the local housing authority under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) in relation to the person shall not apply, but

(b) the local housing authority—

(i) may secure that accommodation is available for occupation by the person for a period giving him a reasonable opportunity of securing accommodation for his occupation, and

(ii) may provide the person (or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance in any attempts he may make to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation."

The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will be familiar with the Government's policy of dispersing asylum seekers to appropriate areas around Great Britain in those cases where the asylum seeker is in need of accommodation. These dispersal areas are carefully selected and asylum seekers who, in due course, are granted leave to remain are encouraged and helped to settle in their dispersal area. This is an important policy and, among other things, helps to reduce
658
pressures on social housing and local government services in areas where these are already very stretched, particularly in London and other areas of the south-east. As noble Lords will appreciate, the dispersal policy started with the introduction of the National Asylum Support Service, where in some London boroughs and councils in Kent services were on the verge of total collapse, simply due to people remaining in the areas where they had first arrived. So the pressure has been taken off them and we do not wish for that to return.
Under the homelessness legislation—that is, Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, which extends to England and Wales—local housing authorities have a duty to secure accommodation for applicants who are eligible for assistance, have become homeless through no fault of their own and who fall within a priority need group. Broadly speaking, the priority need groups include applicants who have dependent children, or who are pregnant, or who are vulnerable in some other way.
Former asylum seekers who have been given leave to remain in the UK will be eligible for homelessness assistance. If they find themselves in a position where they require homelessness assistance, the question of priority need will depend on the individual circumstances of each case. In those cases where the local housing authority is satisfied that a former asylum seeker has a priority need, a duty to secure accommodation will be owed by the authority to the former asylum seeker. An underlying principle of the homelessness legislation is that the duty to secure accommodation for an applicant should rest only with a local authority in whose area that person has a local connection. I am referring to general homelessness, not homelessness relating to immigration, asylum seekers or others—that is the normal homelessness legislation that applies to every citizen in this country. Although authorities are not required to consider the issue of local connection when considering homelessness applications, they have a power to do so. In cases where the applicant has no local connection with the area of the authority to which he or she is applying for assistance, but does have one somewhere else, the local housing authority can refer the case to the local housing authority in that other area—that is, where a local connection is established. A local connection can be established with an area because of normal residence of choice, employment, family associations or special circumstances. It may even be the area of one's birth, so there is no choice in the matter.
When an applicant has no local connection anywhere in England, Wales or Scotland, the authority receiving the application must accept the duty. This means that such a person can effectively choose which authority will owe them the duty to secure accommodation. Earlier this year, the Law Lords, sitting as the Appellate Committee in the cases of Al Ameri v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and Osmani v The London Borough of Harrow, held that under the homelessness legislation, as currently drafted, residence in an area which is pursuant to the provision of accommodation by the Home Office under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is not capable of establishing a

659
local connection with that area because it is not the residence of choice. That is the matter relating to the dispersal by the National Asylum Support Service.
That clarification was helpful because there had been some uncertainty over the matter. However, your Lordships will appreciate that the current position does not help to achieve the Government's policy, which is that, for the purposes of the homelessness legislation in England and Wales, asylum seekers should automatically establish a local connection with an area when they are dispersed there by the Home Office and provided with accommodation under Section 95 of the 1999 Act. This is to ensure that the local housing authority in the dispersal area has the responsibility to secure accommodation for them, where a main homelessness duty is owed. Otherwise, we risk returning to the pre-NASS situation of enormous pressure on London and other nearby authorities.
There is one important caveat—it is not the Government's policy that asylum seekers will establish a local connection with an area if they are accommodated there in an accommodation centre. This is because it has expressly been our intention that successful applicants processed through these centres should not be expected to settle in the locality. Accommodation centres will provide a move-on advice service to assist successful applicants with relocation and we are working on procedures to ensure that people receive offers of suitable accommodation, which will normally be in another part of the country.
5 p.m.
Amending the local connection provisions in Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 will have effect in cases where asylum seekers are dispersed to a district in England or Wales but not in cases where they are dispersed to a district in Scotland and, having been granted leave to remain, seek homelessness assistance in England or Wales. That is because, under Scottish homelessness legislation—that is, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987—asylum seekers do not establish a residence of choice, and therefore a local connection, with a district if they are resident in accommodation provided under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
Such a difference between the local connection provisions north and south of the Border means that it would not be possible for an English or Welsh housing authority to refer a homelessness case back to a Scottish local housing authority as, under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, the applicant would not have established a residence of choice, and therefore a local connection, by virtue of his residence in NASS-supported accommodation. The conditions for referral would be met for the purposes of Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 but they would not be met for the purposes of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. That means that the Scottish authority would not be required to accept such a referral.
The proposed new clause seeks to address that by providing that the main homelessness duty in England and Wales—that is, Section 193 of the Housing Act
660
1996—would not apply in a case where a former asylum seeker had been dispersed to Scotland and subsequently made an application in England or Wales unless he had established a local connection somewhere in England, Wales or Scotland.
Although the Section 193 duty would not apply in England and Wales, the local authority dealing with the case would have a new power to secure accommodation for such a period as to give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to secure accommodation. It would also have a power to provide the applicant with advice and assistance.
Perhaps I may take the opportunity to observe that the duty to secure accommodation under the homelessness legislation can be onerous for local housing authorities, particularly in areas where the housing market is overheated, where there is a shortage of affordable accommodation and where homelessness levels are high. I remind Members of the Committee that the homelessness legislation is not the main route into social housing; the route is via an allocation made under an application for social housing under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996.
In the cases addressed by subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause, homelessness assistance would be available to applicants in Scotland. In fact, it would be open to applicants to seek assistance from any Scottish district and not just from the district where they had been provided with the NASS accommodation under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. And it is open to all former asylum seekers who are granted leave to remain to apply for an allocation of housing under Part 6 of the Housing Act in any district of their choice in England and Wales. Therefore, like any other citizen, they can go on to a council's waiting list.
However, the homelessness route is different in that a local connection needs to be established. The amendment seeks to provide that, where people seek the homelessness route, the local connection will be the one created by the NASS dispersal scheme around the country. People may argue that that is not compatible with other schemes, but it is designed to ensure that we do not return to the policies that existed beforehand under which unacceptable pressures were placed on London, the Home Counties, the Kent authorities and East Sussex. Therefore, to that extent, the amendment seeks to comply with the judgment which clarified the law in the courts. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I tried to pay great attention to what the noble Lord said. It is a very complicated issue. I read in the press that an asylum seeker who seeks asylum in Scotland will not be able to opt to find accommodation outside Scotland. Is that correct?
Lord Rooker: With respect, I cannot answer a question which is based on something that may have been read in the press. There has been a judgment in the highest court in the land—the Appellate Committee of this House—relating to the local connection. The Scottish Parliament

661
legislated, as it is entitled to do under housing legislation, and that has caused a slight dislocation in the situation between England, Wales and Scotland.
It is not a question of an asylum seeker doing something; it is a question of whether an asylum seeker has been dispersed under the National Asylum Support Service programme. Many asylum seekers have been dispersed to Scotland and to Glasgow, in particular, where they received a very warm welcome. The question is: does the mere fact that they were in NASS accommodation while they were asylum seekers provide them with the necessary local connection to say, if they have permission to remain in the UK, "I now want to claim homelessness because I now have the right to do that". That is not the situation. The local connection is not established because they were living in Glasgow or elsewhere in Scotland in NASS accommodation. They can still be placed on the local authorities' waiting lists anywhere in England, Scotland or Wales, as, indeed, can anyone else who seeks social housing. Here, we are dealing with the homelessness route into housing.
Lord Avebury: I fully understand the reasoning advanced by the Minister that people in NASS accommodation in a particular local authority area should logically seek to avail themselves of the homelessness provisions in that area. But can the noble Lord explain how that will operate in practice? A number of countries became members of the European Union just the other day and the people who had formerly been asylum seekers from those countries and who were living in NASS accommodation were suddenly required to vacate their accommodation. They did not have time to make arrangements for alternative housing and many of them would have become homeless.
Therefore, can the noble Lord tell me what the sequence of operations would be when people come to the end of the process, they receive a decision and are then told that they are no longer eligible for NASS accommodation? How much time will they be allowed to find alternative housing? The noble Lord said that the normal route is to put oneself on a waiting list, but that takes a long time. Therefore, will most of the people in this category need to avail themselves of the homelessness provisions?
If that is the case, how will that be dealt with under the requirement in the Homelessness Act 2002 for local authorities to have a strategy which enables them to foresee the likely level of homelessness that will arise over the next few years? Any local authority with NASS accommodation in its area will know that a certain proportion of people will be successful and therefore may require assistance under the Homelessness Act. Yet they could not have foreseen that this legislation would be brought forward when they formulated their strategies in 2003, and they will not have to reformulate those strategies for another three years.
Lord Rooker: With respect, the noble Lord has the issue completely upside down. The amendment is designed to help those authorities and not to put a burden on them. They know that they have NASS accommodation. Let us say that, for example, a northern city—I am reluctant to mention specific towns—has NASS accommodation. The one thing that is certain for local government in London boroughs is that they will not receive genuine, lawful homelessness applications from someone living in that northern town because there is no local connection. If they did receive such an application, they would say to that person, "Sorry chum, your local connection is where the NASS accommodation was". There, the local authority would know that it had NASS accommodation and that would form part of its homelessness strategy.
Every local authority has a homelessness strategy. The beauty of it now is that they have the NASS accommodation but they know that they will not be required to receive homelessness applications from other authorities for people leaving NASS accommodation. That is to the great advantage of housing policy, local government and the housing of former asylum seekers.
Lord Avebury: I did not explain myself very well. In the local authority in the north where there is NASS accommodation, the persons who are successful will ultimately look to the local authority in question either under the Homelessness Act or because they placed their names on the list there. However, in view of the short-term need where they have to vacate NASS accommodation, it will almost invariably be via the homelessness route despite what the Minister said, and the local authority will not have been able to foresee that that duty would be laid on it under this legislation at the time that it formulated its homeless strategy. So, it will have a strategy which does not take into account the particular duty which Parliament is now laying on it.
Lord Rooker: First, it will in due course and secondly, some of our northern towns and cities welcome this because it stops the depopulation of the area.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise briefly to formally support this new clause. I appreciate that there are perhaps difficulties which flow from it, but none so much as will flow from the dispersal policy being completely scuppered. I recognise, as the Minister said, that the Government had to react to judgments in two cases.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy was right to ask for clarification of the position in Scotland, as she did in the previous clause, which may well have to be redrafted. This is not the same position. However, I was glad to hear from the Minister a further explanation of how this clause will operate.
Lord Hylton: It seems to me that the Government may need to rethink the clause heading in Amendment No. 12, which is, "Accommodation for asylum seekers". As I understand it, we are referring to those asylum seekers who have been recognised as refugees and have a genuine right to remain here. There are two particular factors I should like the Government to think seriously about because they affect the integration of recognised refugees into the general fabric of this country. The first concerns language difficulties. The second concerns the effects of the suffering through which these people have passed, sometimes in their own country and sometimes on the way. Often, they are quite severely damaged and therefore likely to have difficulties in establishing themselves here. That will, in turn, affect where is the most suitable place for them to live, whether it be in the place where they have just left NASS accommodation or in another more suitable place.
Lord Rooker: I shall briefly respond to the noble Lord. That is quite right but in some ways the situation should not be too different from what it is now. The amendment has been forced upon us by a judgment of the courts to clarify a degree of uncertainty.
NASS is very careful about where people are dispersed to. There is a lot of experience now compared to when NASS first started, in terms of language difficulties and support mechanisms. I suppose that a more correct heading for the clause would be "Housing via Homelessness" because that is what we are talking about; that is, the homelessness route to housing for former asylum seekers given leave to remain in the UK. It may be that they are on indefinite leave to remain rather than refugees but either way they have leave to remain in the UK. They are not the same classification of people as we discussed in the earlier clause. I fully accept what the noble Lord said about the support systems that are needed, but that is no different from today. We are just clarifying that the route via homelessness gives the local connection legally as NAS accommodation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does the Minister think that it would be a good idea to reconsider the title of this clause? As he has just said, it is misleading.
Lord Rooker: I shall take advice, but I can probably absolve the Home Office from this because as far as I know parliamentary counsel dream up titles for clauses. However, as this issue has been raised, naturally we shall consider it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 13 I must inform the Committee that the procedure will be the same, give or take, as for the first group of amendments, that is, Amendments Nos. 1 to 11. As soon as Amendment No. 13 has been moved and the question has been put for the first time, the chair will call Amendment No. 14 and, when that
664
has been dealt with, Amendment No. 15 and similarly Amendment No. 16. We shall then revert back to Amendment No. 13.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—

REFUGEE: BACK-DATING OF BENEFITS
(1) Section 123 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (back-dating of benefits for refugees) shall cease to have effect.
(2) Accordingly (and without prejudice to any other implied repeal, revocation or amendment) the following (each of which concerns the treatment of refugees) lapse—

(a) in the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987–1967)—

(i) regulation 21ZB,

(ii) paragraph 18A of Schedule 1B, and

(iii) paragraph 57 of Schedule 9,

(b) in the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 (S.R. 1987/459)—

(i) regulation 21A,

(ii) paragraph 18A of Schedule 1B, and

(iii) paragraph 57 of Schedule 9,

(c) in the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987/1968)—

(i) regulation 4(3C),

(ii) regulation 6(4D), and

(iii) regulation 19(8),

(d) in the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 (S.R. 1987/465)—

(i) regulation 4(3C),

(ii) regulation 6(4D), and

(iii) regulation 19(8),

(e) in the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987–1971)—

(i) regulation 7B,

(ii) Schedule A 1,

(iii) paragraph 62 of Schedule 4, and

(iv) paragraph 51 of Schedule 5,

(f) in the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 (S.R. 1987/461)—

(i) regulation 7B,

(ii) Schedule A1,

(iii) paragraph 63 of Schedule 4, and

(iv) paragraph 49 of Schedule 5, and

665

(g) in the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/1814)—

(i) regulation 4D,

(ii) Schedule Al,

(iii) paragraph 61 of Schedule 4, and

(iv) paragraph 51 of Schedule 5.

(3) An order under section 35 bringing this section into force may, in particular, provide for this section to have effect in relation to persons recorded as refugees after a specified date (irrespective of when the process resulting in the record was begun)."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 13 introduces a new clause, entitled, "Refugee: back-dating of benefits". In moving Amendment No. 13 I shall speak briefly to government Amendments Nos. 41 to 43. This group of amendments seeks to abolish back payments of income support and related benefits to refugees. Since the creation of the National Asylum Support Service in April 2000, those asylum seekers granted refugee status have been able to apply for a back-dated payment of income support equal to the 30 per cent differential between the cash element of asylum support and income support back-dated to when they made their claim for asylum.
However, given that those in receipt of asylum support receive other benefits in kind, such as payment of utility bills and household items, the Government believe that this is no longer necessary. Those approximate roughly to the 30 per cent differential, which does not apply to children because 100 per cent income support is paid in respect of children.
This amendment, therefore, seeks to repeal Section 123 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The relevant supporting regulations made thereunder will also cease to have effect on the repeal of Section 123. For the sake of clarity and certainty we are taking the opportunity to revoke those regulations expressly in this legislation. With the money saved in this way, the Government intend to introduce a new integration loan for which refugees will be able to apply. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 13, Amendment No. 14:
Line 46, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (4),"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 14 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. Here, the Government are replacing an entitlement to benefits with a discretionary loan system which is outlined in the next new clause. The purpose of my amendment is simply to require the Government to put in place the regulations that will launch the loan scheme before they cut off the current entitlement to back-dated benefits.
I had several questions to ask on that, which were pre-empted by a letter which arrived hot foot from the Government—one of the many thousands the noble
666
Lord referred to whizzing around Whitehall—at midday today. It makes a passing reference at this point. The Minister states:
"We will be working to bring about the abolition of backpayments and to bring the new loan scheme into effect as soon as possible. I would not expect there to be any significant delay between the end of the old system and the beginning of the new one".
I would hope that there would not be any delay at all. The point of my amendments is to ask: why should there be a gap through which people might fall? These are people who have been adjudged to be refugees who will be integrated into society. They will have been through a period when they certainly will not have had much in the way of money, even if they have been supported by friends or family, and every penny will count.
I am puzzled as to why the Government have said in a rather complacent way, "Do not worry. The gap will not be too big anyway". Why should there be any gap?
While I am on my feet and with regard more generally to the new clause which the Government are introducing, the UNHCR, which was referred to earlier, managed to get a briefing to us today, for which we are grateful. On this clause it states:
"UNHCR cannot support the introduction of the proposed amendments because they diverge from the 1951 Convention's clear intention to ensure high standards of welfare for refugees, and because they are bound to have an adverse effect on the dignity and rights of refugees".
Have the Government had the opportunity to see that response from the UNHCR which objects to the making of these amendments? If so, what is their response to its view? I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I did not receive the letter from the Minister which the noble Baroness mentioned, although I have received the one from the UNHCR.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It might be a good idea if I were to assist the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The letter I hasten to add was addressed not to me but to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Even though the letter sought to answer most of the questions that. I had put, I have not yet had a letter. I was lucky to see the letter addressed to the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It did not sound as though the letter from the Minister added very much to the sum of human wisdom, because we already knew, as he had explained previously, that the intention of the new clause was to remove the entitlement to back payments of income support and related benefits to asylum seekers ultimately granted refugee status.
The provision under which asylum seekers used to receive or have received back payments was originally in Section 11(2) of the 1996 Act introduced by the Tory government in July 1996. That was replaced by Section 123 of the 1999 Act. The idea was that if a person was finally recognised as a refugee he would have been entitled to income support, but the NA SS cash payments were set at 70 per cent of that amount. So the

667
end result was that the person received the differential of 30 per cent when his application was granted. Thus he was restored to the financial position that he would have been in if his claim had been recognised immediately—except, of course, that he would not have had interest on the money which he had been lending the taxpayer meanwhile.
Lord Rooker: He also had all the NASS support, his utility bills paid and household effects bought, which anybody else would have had to buy out of income support. The noble Lord is giving a one-sided view of the issue.
Lord Avebury: I think the Minister was not listening to me. I said that the value of the NASS support was equivalent to 70 per cent of the amount of income support and that it was the balance of 30 per cent that was dealt with by the back payment, which the noble Lord now says is partially covered by the utility bills which he would have had paid on his behalf.
In any case, because asylum appeals are now being dealt with in less than six months, the amount of back payments is much less than it was in previous years. For a single person, the back payment at the end of six months would be about £500, and very few payments exceed that amount. These payments compensate the genuine refugee for a period when he is in very hard circumstances and during which, as we have just heard, he is not allowed to work. It would enable him to purchase small capital items, such as shoes, clothing, household items and children's toys which NASS payments do not cover.
We are told that the trigger for this proposal was an article in the Sun in March, in which the seven year-old backdating law was erroneously described as a "loophole" and Mr David Davis, whose party enacted the back payments in 1996, is quoted as saying:
"Why is it we have to find out what is going on with our money through a Sun exclusive?".
The article also wrongly stated that half of those who claimed asylum in 2002 were eligible for backdated payments. Disregarding the 23 per cent who were given exceptional leave to remain, who were not eligible for those payments, the IND estimates that only about 10 per cent of applications in that year resulted in the granting of asylum with a further 10 per cent being granted it on appeal.
So, of the 20 per cent finally recognised as refugees, not all would have come below the minimum income level for benefits and thus would have been ineligible for payment. The Sun claimed that these payouts were costing us millions. I know of no government statistics on the number or the amount of the payments. The Whitehall editor of the Sun, to whom I made inquiries about this, told me that they themselves had no figures. If we assume an average of £250 on a three-month wait and 16,000 successful appeals this year, the cost would be about £1 million. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord would comment on that arithmetic.
668
The Sun article quoted an unnamed government source as stating that large sums go to those with very large families. The Minister has explained that children receive 100 per cent of income support and therefore they would not qualify for back payments anyhow. A qualifying couple would currently get a weekly NASS payment of £61.11, so I calculate that if they won an appeal after four years—and bear in mind that almost all applications are now being dealt with in a very much shorter space of time—and if we assume that the rates had been the same throughout that period, the back payment would be something like £6,000 with no additional payment for any children.
Article 23 of the Refugee Convention provides that contracting states shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their own nationals. As with all articles protecting the rights of refugees, they include those whose claims are under consideration.
The amendment breaches the right to non-discrimination in benefit provision for refugees, and we object to it in principle. It is a mean populist measure and contrary to the letter and spirit of Article 23.
It is only fair that asylum seekers should be able to pay off their debts when they get their status, and not to substitute a government loan for them, as we will discuss in the next set of amendments. Moreover, since the cost of backdating is directly proportionate to the length of the determination procedure, it must be falling as the backlog falls and appeals are heard with less delay.
The Government say that,
"with the money saved by abolishing back payments",
they will introduce a new, discretionary refugee integration loan. We shall come on to that in a few minutes. We believe that retaining back payments of unpaid welfare support for all those granted refugee status would be an even more powerful tool for encouraging refugee integration.
Lord Rooker: Unfortunately—and I knew this as the noble Lord was speaking—we have no statistics of back payments paid by the Department for Work and Pensions. On the basis of the number granted asylum and the average wait for decisions of six months, we estimate that the cost of back payments is about £11 million per year.
I set that alongside a figure I used earlier on. I know the noble Lord does not seek to mislead, but he gives the impression that we are not doing anything. NASS support—taxpayer support—to asylum seekers is running at £1.1 billion per year. That is not income support or all the other support. It is over £1 billion per year. So the idea that we are being mean-spirited and unfair frankly does not stand up.
Perhaps I may briefly respond to the noble Baroness's amendments and a couple of other questions. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 propose that the back payments should not be abolished until the refugee integration loan scheme comes into effect.

669
Obviously, we shall come to that new clause in a moment. It is the Government's intention that the money saved by abolishing back payments of income support will be used to fund the new refugee integration loans. However, we do not consider it appropriate to place an obligation on the face of the Bill that back payments cannot be ended before the loans are put in place. That would tie things down to an unacceptable degree. We will work to bring about the abolition of back payments and bring the new loan scheme into effect as soon as possible. As the letter says, I would not expect there to be any significant delay between the end of the old system and the beginning of the new one. That is a commitment; it is not intended that there should be a massive gap between the two.
5.30 p.m.
Amendment No. 16 proposes that back payments should continue to be made to anyone who becomes a refugee "immediately before" the commencement date. I understand that noble Lords may be concerned about people who make their claim for asylum before commencement of the clause and who would otherwise have been eligible to apply for the back payment. However, the amendment as drafted would have the effect of negating the clause. If the amendment were accepted, it would provide that a person recorded as a refugee after the section comes into force shall be entitled to receive such benefits as he would have been entitled to receive if he had been recorded as a refugee immediately before the section comes into force. In other words, everyone would be treated as having been recorded as a refugee immediately before, regardless of when they actually were recorded.
I recognise that the purpose of this amendment is to provide transitional protection to those who have already claimed asylum. However, the clause will apply not only to those who claim asylum after the clause comes into effect, but to those with outstanding asylum claims. The Government do not consider it necessary or appropriate to phase in the provision. Given that the value of National Asylum Support Service in-kind support and cash support is broadly equivalent to what would have been received had the asylum seeker been in receipt of income support, there is no need for transitional protection.
I will repeat that for the benefit of the noble Lord, because three or four times he has consistently given the view that we are not supporting asylum seekers equal to other people—we are. The NASS in-kind support—that is accommodation, utility bills, household effects and cash support—is broadly equivalent to what would have been received had the asylum seeker been in receipt of income support. To that extent, we are not discriminating, and we are certainly not being unfair. We believe that the best approach to commencement of this clause is to have a single, clear date and to make sure it is fully understood by all those to whom it may apply. We can and will ensure that this is done by publicising the commencement date to asylum seekers, their advisers, and to refugee and community stakeholder organisations.
The question of the UNHCR report was raised. The Government have not seen the report, but the answer that we will give regarding allegations that the back payments are necessary to comply with Articles 23 and 24 of the 1951 Refugee Convention is this: so far as is relevant, Article 23 requires refugees to be given the same treatment in relation to public relief and assistance as is accorded to UK nationals. Article 24 contains similar provisions in relation to wages and related social security benefits. I do not think that anyone looking at the figures of the NASS benefits in kind—the 100 per cent support to children arid the 70 per cent cash support—could argue that they are not broadly comparable. We believe that the package of support for asylum seekers received from NASS—or local authorities under the interim provisions meets the equal treatment requirement of the Refugee Convention. I do not have another answer, therefore I hope that that matter is concluded.
Lord Avebury: If it does meet the requirements of the Refugee Convention, the Minister should discuss that with the UNHCR, because it is obviously not convinced. In the 1999 Act, when the levels of NASS support were decided, it was always explained that the amount of support was equivalent to 70 per cent of what a person would have received had he been on income support. That was the whole rationale at the time when the Tories introduced the back payments for the 30 per cent. If the arithmetic is different from that, the Government should have come along with a comprehensive explanation of how much the average utility bill is, how much the accommodation is worth, and so on, so that we could see a detailed make-up, which the Minister says comes to 100 per cent of the amount that the person—
Lord Rooker: I do not have the figures to hand, but to be honest, some people take the view that it would be cheaper to pay asylum seekers income support, let them get on with it, find their own accommodation, pay their own utility bills, and get their own household effects. The argument goes that it would be cheaper for the British taxpayer. I am sure that the noble Lord is not arguing for that. The present system leaves asylum seekers in a broadly comparable financial situation to UK citizens. In fact, there are others who argue that they would be better off. This is not the time to unravel this. We do not see a justification for continuing the back payments. It is not as though the money will be going back to the Treasury. We will use the money to fund the new loan scheme, which we will discuss in greater detail shortly.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord does not have to convince only me; he must convince people outside this Committee, and in particular the UNHCR, which as we have heard believes that the arithmetic is wrong. If the noble Lord can produce a set of figures that will satisfy the UNHCR, well and good, and we can come back to this. I hope that he will be able to do that before Report stage, so that we have much more detailed information than we have at the moment.

671
The noble Lord has given us some help in that he has told us that the cost of the back payments amounts to £11 million per annum. I take it that that is from the last full year for which figures are available, 2002–03. The noble Lord can correct me if I am wrong. If that is the case, that is a reducing figure, because the number of asylum seekers since the end of the financial year 2002–03 has fallen sharply. We may be talking about an amount of half that, because the number of asylum seekers has come down by 50 per cent as the Government have proudly stated.
We are talking about a sum of £5.5 million that will be saved by this amendment. That amounts to 0.5 per cent of the total of NASS support which, as the noble Lord has told us, amounts to £1 billion. For the sake of saving £5.5 million, the noble Lord is erecting a new mechanism that will be costly and burdensome in terms of bureaucracy. I would like to know how much that will cost. What will be the cost of administering the system that will replace the back payments? Does the Minister think that that is justified as a means of saving this comparatively small amount?
Lord Rooker: I did say that the statistics were not kept. The figure of £11 million was given on the basis of the numbers granted asylum and the average waiting time for a decision of six months. The estimate for 2002 was approximately £11 million. That was an estimate based on statistics; I want to make that absolutely clear. I will come back, and we will discuss the loan scheme, but only in general today. Clearly, I am required to come back with further and better particulars of the scheme. We must have value for money. Some £5 million can be saved and used for something else. It will not go back netted to the Treasury, it will be used to fund the loan scheme. It is not a cut in overall support.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his further explanation, particularly for responding to the concerns of the UNHCR. Naturally, we will go back to it to see what further briefing it wishes to bring forward as a result of the noble Lord's words.
I make it clear that I do not object to the change in procedure that the Government are seeking to enforce by removing backdating of benefits and having a discretionary loan system. How could I? As I mentioned to the Minister, I remember all too well when we on these Benches introduced the social fund we were landed on from a great height by the Labour Party, which has now converted to our view. The important thing is to ensure that loan systems are properly funded, and the organisation is transparent and workable.
In one breath the Minister tells us that the money saved from abolishing backdated benefits will fund the new loan system, and in another breath he tells us that the statistics about those funds are not kept. I am grateful to him for bringing forward the amount of £11 million a year as the estimated cost. No doubt we,
672
and the Government, will want to look more carefully between now and Report at what size of fund it will be reasonable for the Government to be able to set up.
I was concerned to hear repeated what was in the letter in regard to the gap between ending the back-dating of benefits and starting the loan scheme. I accept entirely what the Minister said—that it would not be appropriate to have on the face of the Bill my amendment which required the regulations for the fund to be in force before back-dating ended—and I appreciate that that does not normally happen in legislation. However, what normally happens then is that the Minister goes on to say, "I am going to give an assurance that we will not get rid of the backdating until we have in place the regulations to implement the scheme". He has not given me that assurance on this occasion. I hope that by the time we get to Report stage he will have had a conversion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 14, as an amendment to Amendment No. 13, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 15 and 16, as amendments to Amendment No. 13, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 13 agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
"INTEGRATION LOAN FOR REFUGEES
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations enabling him to make loans to refugees.
(2) A person is a refugee for the purpose of subsection (1) if the Secretary of State has—

(a) recorded him as a refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951, and

(b) granted him indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)).

(3) Regulations under subsection (1)—

(a) shall specify matters which the Secretary of State shall, in addition to other matters appearing to him to be relevant, take into account in determining whether or not to make a loan (and those matters may, in particular, relate to—

(i) a person's income or assets,

(ii) a person's likely ability to repay a loan, or

(iii) the length of time since a person was recorded as a refugee),

(b) shall enable the Secretary of State to specify (and vary from time to time) a minimum and a maximum amount of a loan,

(c) shall prevent a person from receiving a loan if—

(i) he is under the age of 18,

(ii) he is insolvent, within a meaning given by the regulations, or

(iii) he has received a loan under the regulations,

673

(d) shall make provision about repayment of a loan (and may, in particular, make provision—

(i) about interest;

(ii) for repayment by deduction from a social security benefit or similar payment due to the person to whom the loan is made),

(e) shall enable the Secretary of State to attach conditions to a loan (which may include conditions about the use of the loan),

(f) shall make provision about—

(i) the making of an application for a loan, and

(ii) the information, which may include information about the intended use of a loan, to be provided in or with an application,

(g) may make provision about steps to be taken by the Secretary of State in establishing an applicant's likely ability to repay a loan,

(h) may make provision for a loan to be made jointly to more than one refugee, and

(i) may confer a discretion on the Secretary of State.

(4) Regulations under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

The noble Lord said: I have some notes but they do not go into detail. I shall have to do that on Report and when we come to the regulations.
As I said, the money saved by abolishing the current back payments will be used to introduce the new integration loan for which refugees will be able to apply. Amendment No. 17 seeks to introduce the integration loan, to be funded out of that money. So it will not be new money; it will be funded out of the current back-payment system.
We want to move away from the current system under which payments are made to all refugees, calculated according to the amount of time spent awaiting an asylum decision. Under the new system, the Government will be able to target loans to those refugees who are most in need of help to establish themselves in their new lives in the United Kingdom and, ultimately, to facilitate their successful integration into society.
We are aware that many refugees who have sought protection and asylum in this country have skills and talents which are certainly needed in the United Kingdom. In providing the loan, the Government will be seeking to ensure that the refugees can quickly establish themselves in the United Kingdom, enabling them to fulfil their potential and contribute to society and the economy. By recovering the money loaned, the system has the potential to become a tool for facilitating refugee integration, not only for refugees today but for those who will need our help in the future.
We are committed to administering the loan in the most cost-effective way possible and we are currently conducting detailed work across departments—including the Department for Work and Pensions and, obviously, the Treasury—to establish how the loan
674
might best be delivered. I am not in a position to give that information today. At this stage it seems likely that the money disbursed by the Home Secretary will be recovered via mechanisms already established by the Department for Work and Pensions for collecting money owed either to that department or a third party.
That is about it at this stage. I hope to have more information on Report but, quite clearly, a considerable amount of work needs to be done in establishing the loan system. I should say to the noble Baroness that I suspect that even at Report stage I may not be in a position to give her the answers she has requested about one scheme not ending before the other starts. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 17, Amendment No. 18:
Line 3, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 18 as an amendment to Amendment No. 17, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 to 23, which are also amendments to Amendment No. 17.
There was such a refreshing blast of honesty from the Minister that it nearly knocked me off my feet. The Government are saying, "We do not know what we are doing", which is what I was accusing them of in my opening remarks. I appreciate that the system will be difficult to set up, but I had hoped that the Government would have thought a little more about a system that will need to deliver support to the vulnerable refugees we want to integrate into the country.
The Minister said that he could not go much further now because the Government are having discussions with the DWP—I hope that they are because some of this will be complicated to implement—and we hope that he will come forward with more information on Report. He has warned me today that he cannot give me the answers. I would never warn the Minister, but I would advise him that it might be helpful if I at least put the questions so that they are on record. The Bill team can then advise the Government whether there is any hope of having the answers by the Report stage or even earlier by letter.
Let me briefly explain the individual amendments. Amendment No. 18 is the old friend of all opposition parties. It seeks to change "may" to "shall". It reflects our approach in the debates on the abolition of backdating benefits. If the Government intend to replace back-dated benefits by loans, it is clear that, having done so, there should be a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations ensuring that there is a loan system in place. It would be very odd if the Government did not wish to do that.
Amendment No. 19 returns to the familiar theme of requiring the Secretary of State to take actions that are based on objective rather than subjective grounds. In the debate on an earlier group of amendments the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the importance of this. People need to know the reasons for the decisions of the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause provides that regulations shall specify matters that appear to the Secretary of

675
State to be relevant when he is deciding whether or not a loan should be made. Such a decision clearly needs to be made on objective grounds.
Amendment No. 20 has been tabled in order to ask the Minister to explain why the Government have restricted so closely the list of criteria in subsection (3)(a). The list illustrates the reasons why someone may not get a loan. My amendment seeks to establish that the Government should also take into account the refugee's family responsibilities—that is, whether or not he or she is responsible for a child or a dependent adult. I am rather surprised that that obvious provision was not on the list. What is the reason for that omission?
Amendment No. 21 seeks to delete subsection (3)(d)(i), which gives the Secretary of State the option to charge interest. What are the Government's intentions? Will some people be charged interest and others not? Will the rate of interest be different for different recipients of loans? At what level do the Government expect to set the rate of interest? Will it be a commercial rate of interest, or will it reflect what happens currently within the DWP?
Amendment No. 22 seeks to delete subsection (3)(i). This is an extraordinary part of the clause because, as far as I can see, it gives the Secretary of State a discretion to do whatever he likes. It looks as though the Government have grown tired of trying to work out how a loan system should work, have given up and have put a catchall into the clause in order that they can make up policy as they go along. I hope that that is not the case, but what is the purpose of subsection (2)(i)? If the Committee were to pass such a statutory instrument, we would be giving the Secretary of State a blank cheque.
Amendment No. 23 seeks to add an extra subsection to the list to ask the Government about the way in which they intend to administer loans made under subsection (3)(h), which makes it possible for the Secretary of State to grant a loan jointly to more than one refugee. How would a legal requirement for this to be repaid by a specific person be imposed? The amendment simply requires the Secretary of State to specify which refugee has the legal responsibility to repay the joint loan. It could be that the Government intend that a joint loan would place joint liability on all those who benefit from it, so that if one dies the remainder have to pay up. Is that the case?
More generally, the Government need to give more information. For example, where do refugees apply for loans? Physically, where do they go? Which budget will reflect the annual costs of loans made and repaid? In the debate on the previous group of amendments, the Minister said that the abolition of the back-dating of benefits would be used to fund this loan system, so will that amount of money be reflected in the Home Office budget or the DWP budget?
With not much hope of getting any answers after the refreshing opening remarks of the Minister, I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: Without being clairvoyant, I think I can predict what the Minister's answer to the noble
676
Baroness will be. He will say, "Wait and see what the regulations say. We will bring them forward as soon as possible".
The Minister has explained that the new clause introduces the refugee integration loan which will be available to all new refugees and would be linked to need, unlike the existing lump sum payments which depend on the length of time someone had been waiting in the queue. The Government claim that this will be a more equitable system and that it has the potential to become a powerful tool in facilitating refugee integration.
We welcome the idea of refugee loans. We think it is an excellent idea to make them available to new refugees who might not necessarily be creditworthy. But to establish a whole new set of regulations for determining need, checking the applicant's income and assets, evaluating his ability to repay, and so on, is cumbersome and expensive, as I said in the debate on the previous amendment. We do not consider that the Home Office is qualified to enter the banking business. We suggest that perhaps it should examine the idea of offering guarantees on loans which would be taken out by refugees from the ordinary banking system. Have the Government discussed these proposals with the banks, and what do the banks think about the Home Office going into competition with them?
How much has been spent by the Home Office so far in designing this loan scheme? How much will it cost to set up the mechanisms which are specified in the new clause? How much will it cost to vet and approve the applications when the scheme is up and running, a task which could very well be undertaken by the ordinary banking system?
In the end, most or all of the money saved could be swallowed up in the administrative costs incurred by civil servants who know nothing about banking, meritorious as they may be in other respects. The Bank of Queen Anne's Gate has an ominous sound to it, and this scheme, hastily cobbled together to please News International, should be reconsidered.
Will the calculation begin from the time when the back payments are abolished? If so, will potential applicants have to wait until the fund has built up to a certain level of capital? After one year, for example, if the fund has reached £5.5 million, will the Home Office press the button and say that nine people can start applying for loans? Incidentally, I have no greater hope of receiving answers to these questions than the noble Baroness had, but I am putting them on the record so that the Minister can think about them and come back to me later. If that were the case and the loan scheme does not effectively get under way until the saving in the back payments has reached a certain minimum level, then there will be quite a long gap between the ending of one scheme and the beginning of another. If the Minister says that the level of capital has to be at least £5.5 million, we are talking about a year's delay before the system gets under way. That

677
could be avoided if the Minister will consider instead guaranteeing loans that are funded through the ordinary banking system.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It seems to me that, having done away with the back payment scheme, it would be absolutely wrong for the Bill to include an optional loan scheme when it leaves this House. Proposed subsection (1) states:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations"
to establish a loan scheme. Amendment No. 18 in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay would provide that he must establish such a scheme. I should have thought that noble Lords would be wise to accept that amendment now, because an optional loan is simply not on.
Moreover, we do not know what the optional loan scheme is. I do not think that the Bill should leave this House while it includes proposed subsection (3)(i) which states that regulations under subsection (1),
"may confer a discretion on the Secretary of State".
That provision should not be in the new clause, and I hope that we will not allow it. It seems quite extraordinary. My noble friend said that it was like signing a blank cheque—that is literally what it is.
Lord Hylton: It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some indication of whether there will be a maximum amount of loan for which an individual or a family can apply. Will there be some kind of ceiling, perhaps equivalent to the maximum amount of rebate of benefits which an individual could previously have claimed or been accorded? The noble Lord, Lord. Avebury, asked whether everybody who is accepted as a refugee would be eligible, or will it only be those who pass through NASS accommodation? These are quite important considerations.
Lord Rooker: Colleagues have been quite generous in the expectations they have of me. I asked some of these questions myself the other day, and I will be getting the answers in due course. I do not have them tonight, but I have a few points to make on the amendments which have been tabled.
Amendment No. 18 would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to make the regulations. We are committed to helping refugees establish themselves in the UK and, as such, to introducing the loan scheme as soon as practicable. However, we do not think that there is anything to be gained by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to make the regulations enabling him to make the loans. We intend to bring in a loan scheme.
Amendment No. 19 seeks to amend the definition of the matters the Secretary of State may take into account in determining whether to make a loan so that it will mean that he has reason to believe that they are relevant rather than that they appear to him to be relevant. Again, we do not think that in practice there would be any significant difference between these two forms of wording. Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a matter is relevant, we can also say that the
678
Secretary of State has reason to believe that that is the case. We do not think that the amendment is necessary. I am happy to look at all these points, because this is a new clause in a Committee on Recommitment. We will be going over everything again between now and Report.
Amendment No. 20 would insert an extra category of,
"whether or not that person is responsible for a child or dependent relative",
to those matters the Secretary of State may consider in determining whether to make a loan. At this stage—I am digging myself into a pit here—we do not wish to be prescriptive about the matters that may be taken into account when considering whether to make the loan. We particularly want to ensure that those matters which may be taken into account will not militate against refugees who may not have had the opportunity to build up a history of creditworthiness. Careful consideration and detailed work will be required successfully to balance the administration of collecting loans with the features particular to new refugees as a group who have been in the country for only a relatively short period and who have not had access to other forms of credit. It is important that we do not limit ourselves at this point to taking specific points into account when determining whether to make a loan.
The matters listed in the Bill are not to be perceived as an exhaustive list of matters that the Secretary of State will definitely want to include in regulations as those things he wants to take into account when considering whether to make a loan but rather a list of examples of matters the Secretary of State may wish to take into account. I do not consider, therefore, that it is necessary to add a further example to this list.
Amendment No. 21 seeks to remove the words "about interest" from the list of provisions the Secretary of State may make with regard to repayment of a loan. Again, this is not intended to be an exhaustive list of matters about which the Secretary of State will definitely make provision. I want to reassure noble Lords that the Government do not intend at this stage that interest will be payable on loans. As a matter of general principle, we do not intend that interest will be payable. But it is important that the Secretary of State has the flexibility to make provision about interest, in the event that it is needed at any time in the future. It is purely a safeguard.
Parliamentary time is not always available when one needs it, but the Home Office appears to acquire substantial chunks. I cannot use the excuse that we may have to wait a long time for primary legislation. However, we have the opportunity to do that in setting up the primary legislation for the loan and, therefore, it makes sense to put the matter in. At this stage, we do not intend, as a matter of principle, that interest will be payable.
Amendment No. 22 seeks to remove the power for the regulations to confer a discretion on the Secretary of State. It is anticipated that the Secretary of State will have a discretion whether or not to grant a loan in a

679
particular case. It is important that, while the regulations will set out the matters that must be taken into account in determining whether or not to make a loan, the ultimate decision of whether a loan is to be made is for the Secretary of State. A loan cannot be guaranteed to any refugee. That is not the purpose of this provision. It is not "loans for all". Of course, the Secretary of State in exercising that discretion, will have to act in accordance with the regulations and with the general public law principles, although he has to be reasonable.
6 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Subsection (3)(i) states:
"may confer a discretion on the Secretary of State".
Surely, it should say "make a loan". It is a very open-ended statement; it sounds like discretion to do anything.
Lord Rooker: The discretion will be defined by the words in this clause of the Bill—they will be in a section of the Act. The discretion has to be considered in the context of the clause.
The point about couples is not unimportant. Amendment No. 23 seeks to establish that where a loan is made jointly to one or more refugees, the Secretary of State shall make provision about which refugee is responsible for repayment of the loan. It is commonplace that a couple who borrow money for purposes that benefit both, such as the purchase of furniture or a mortgage, do so as a joint venture. It seems equitable that, when people borrow money to establish themselves together in a new life which they share, the responsibility for repaying the money that has helped them is shared. Therefore, it is not necessary to limit the responsibility for repaying the loan to only one beneficiary.
I have been able to give slight but not total amplification. We have a long way to go in explaining how the system will work, when it will be set up and whether there will be a limit on how much a refugee can borrow, which one noble Lord asked about. One pertinent question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury: given that the money from the loans will come from stopping the back-dated payments and given that there is not, as I understand it, to be any new money, how long will it be before a fund is established by which the loans can be paid out? I shall have to return with an answer to that. The scrutiny is all about that.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall not prolong the agony—an agony for those on this side of the House—on this group of amendments much longer. We want to ensure that refugees who need to be settled here will have certainty about what support they may receive. The Minister has said that he will do his best to return with answers at Report stage. I remind the Minister that time is short. Report stage will be on 28 June and
680
I understand that Third Reading is scheduled for 6 July. It sounds as though the Home Office will be even busier than ever.
It is right for my noble friend Lady Carnegy to elaborate on some of the amendments on which I had been somewhat brief. In particular, she referred to the issue of subsection (3)(i) and the matter of discretion. The Minister sought to reassure us by saying that by looking at the Government's new clause we should read (3)(i) together with subsection (1), which states:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations enabling him to make loans to refugees".
Yes, we know that the discretion to act is within the terms of regulations governing such a loan. As I read it, the difficulty is that the discretion that appears at the end of subsection (3) in (i), means that the Secretary of State can make regulations literally allowing him to do whatever he chooses, ignoring the rest of what has gone in between. That is where I have difficulty.
Lord Rooker: I am more than happy to give it further consideration.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 18, as an amendment to Amendment No. 17, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 23, as amendments to Amendment No. 17, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 17 agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"PERSON SUBJECT TO IMMIGRATION CONTROL: PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE: ENGLAND AND WALES
(1) This section applies to a marriage—

(a) which is to be solemnised on the authority of certificates issued by a superintendent registrar under Part III of the Marriage Act 1949 (c. 76), and

(b) a party to which is subject to immigration control.

(2) In relation to a marriage to which this section applies, a notice under section 27 of the Marriage Act 1949 (c. 76)—

(a) may be given to the superintendent registrar of a registration district specified for the purpose of this paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State,

(b) may not be given to the superintendent registrar of any other registration district,

(c) may be given only if each party to the marriage has been resident in a registration district for the period of seven days immediately before the giving of the notice (but the district need not be that in which the notice is given and the parties need not have resided in the same district), and

(d) shall state, in relation to each party, the registration district by reference to which paragraph (c) is satisfied.

(3) The superintendent registrar shall not enter in the marriage notice book notice of a marriage to which this section applies unless satisfied, by the provision of specified evidence, that the party subject to immigration control—

(a) has an entry clearance granted expressly for the purpose of enabling him to marry in the United Kingdom,

(b) has the written permission of the Secretary of State to marry in the United Kingdom, or

(c) falls within a class specified for the purpose of this paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a person is subject to immigration control if—

(i) he is not an EEA national, and

(ii) under the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) he requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not leave has been given),

(b) "EEA national" means a national of a State which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2nd May 1992 (as it has effect from time to time),

(c) "entry clearance" has the meaning given by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77), and

(d) specified evidence" means such evidence as may be specified in guidance issued by the Registrar General."

The noble Lord said: I am sure that noble Lords will be aware that over a period of years and certainly recently there has been a good deal of concern regarding the possibility that the number of marriages taking place in the United Kingdom, where there is no intention of entering into a subsisting relationship, but where the purpose is solely to circumvent our immigration control, is on the increase.
This is not an area in which it is easy to collate evidence. We have asked for many figures as I did when I was at the Home Office. However, the pattern of behaviour which is being reported to us by registrars through the channels that have been put in place under Section 24 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and through other intelligence sources, indicates that sham marriages, as a means of circumventing existing immigration controls, are increasing.
To date in 2004 the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has received 2,251 Section 24 reports from registrars. That is a significant increase over the 2,700 reports received in total in 2003. Immigration and Nationality Directorate officials believe that this is due both to an increase in the sham marriages taking place and renewed confidence in registrars by the level of action taken against these offenders.
In the last financial year, in following up registrar reports and other intelligence sources, UK immigration enforcement teams in London have carried out operations at over 60 weddings resulting in the arrest of 110 individuals. Those operations have not only resulted in the removal from the United Kingdom of illegal immigrants, but 37 of those arrested during the operations were charged with criminal offences. Those figures are indicative of the significant scale of the current problem where immigration offenders, who wish to remain in the
682
United Kingdom, see the abuse of existing UK marriage laws as an easy option to get around existing immigration controls.
The UK Immigration and Nationality Directorate has continued to take operational counter-measures to combat this area of abuse, which intelligence suggests is on the increase. Marriage applications received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have been made subject to additional scrutiny, which has resulted in the detection of increased levels of fraudulent settlement applications, many involving forged supporting documentation. Registrars are also reporting increased levels of fraudulent documentation being presented in support of notifications for marriage at UK register offices.
It has become clear that organised criminality is becoming increasingly involved behind many of the applications received. Immigration enforcement action has also been stepped up specifically to target marriage abuse. Last month more than 200 suspected sham marriages were visited by immigration officers as part of an organised, high level enforcement operation. I repeat that several of those resulted in the arrest of over 100 individual offenders. A further 28 marriages did not proceed, following enforcement intervention.
It is clear that where there is abuse of our existing immigration controls we must move to stamp it out. We have to acquire the evidence, which is not always easy. We must ensure that our immigration system is robust in preventing those engaging in sham marriages from bending the rules to the detriment of those entering this country legally through managed migration channels. It is the Government's view that legislative changes are needed to strengthen our capability to deal with this abuse where it occurs and to protect the integrity of our marriage ceremonies.
The amendments that we are bringing forward today are in pursuit of this aim and are specifically designed to tackle marriage abuse at the earliest opportunity; that is before a sham marriage has taken place, after which it can become increasingly difficult to remove those seeking to circumvent current immigration controls by this means.
The first amendment introduces two new requirements for persons subject to immigration control who wish to marry in the UK. The definition of "subject to immigration control" for these purposes is given in subsection (4) of the first amendment, and applies to those who are not European Economic Area nationals and who require leave to enter or remain in the UK.
The first requirement, set out in subsection (2), is that notice of such a marriage can be given only at a registration district that has been designated for this purpose by regulations made by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the relevant Registrar General. The purpose of these centres is to restrict the capacity to authorise marriage involving non-EEA nationals to designated register offices. That will enable us to Focus our enforcement efforts on a more concentrated area, and also allow intelligence and expertise on marriage abuse to be built up in these dedicated centres.
This is not an easy area for government intervention. We do not wish to lay down rules that would make it harder for genuine couples to enter into marriage. Home Office officials are working closely with registrars to ensure that our proposals achieve the necessary balance between facilitating the vast majority of genuine marriage applicants and tackling abuse. A joint Immigration and Nationality Directorate and registrars group has been set up and will seek to strike a balance between the number of centres required to support a focused, targeted enforcement effort and a minimum of undue inconvenience to non-EEA nationals who will be required to travel to give notice of their marriage. I do not know the figure involved, but we are thinking of about 50 at the present. There is no set figure.
These new requirements may lead to an initial increase in the use of forged documents being used to facilitate sham marriages. Registrars, however, may refuse to take notice of a marriage when they believe that a forged document has been used and the Immigration Service will provide enhanced training and support to registrars to help them detect such documents.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has expressed concern to my officials at the possibility of a person who does not look like an EEA national being discriminated against following the introduction of these new procedures for the notification of marriages in the UK involving non-EEA foreign nationals. I reassure her that that is not the case. Clear instructions already exist for registrars in support of their statutory function under Section 24 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to ensure that they avoid any discriminatory practices in carrying out their duties. These instructions will be updated in the light of the new requirements. The factors taken into account by registrars when considering reporting a suspected sham marriage must be obtained by direct observation or during the questioning of the parties involved. Determination of nationality is on the basis of documentation produced and not based on the appearance of the parties involved.
Current instructions to registrars make it clear that particular care must be taken to treat all parties equally and without discrimination and that a person must not be treated less favourably on grounds of his or her race, colour, ethnic or national origins, nationality or citizenship when carrying out any function that involves providing a facility or service to the public. Section 24 reports are submitted to the Home Office only on the basis of reasonable suspicion that a marriage is a sham and will be based on a combination of factors, such as the degree of interaction between the couple and doubts about the authenticity of supporting documentation produced, together with the registrar's observation of a couple's behaviour.
6.15 p.m.
The second new requirement, set out in subsection (3), is that notice of a marriage given by persons subject to
684
immigration control shall be accepted by the registrar only when that person has been specifically authorised to marry in the United Kingdom. That authorisation will be either in the form of an entry clearance granted expressly for the purpose of enabling the person to marry in the UK, or in the case of those already here, by written permission of the Secretary of State.
The criteria by which such authorisations will be given in-country will be set out in detail in administrative guidance, but we envisage at this stage that it will be refused in cases when the individual is here unlawfully, when the individual has leave to remain in the UK for less than six months, and when it is reasonable for that person to return to their country of origin and apply from there for entry clearance in order to marry. That is not unusual. Lots of my former constituents went home to wait in the queue to marry and did not to seek to jump the queue. Subsection (3)(c) also gives a power to the Secretary of State to exempt certain classes of individuals subject to immigration control from this requirement. That will give us the flexibility to respond to any change in circumstances or patterns of behaviour in this area so as best to ensure that the regime is appropriate and proportionate at any given time.
The introduction of designated register offices and the requirement for entry clearance or a Home Office certificate of approval would provide a complementary two-pronged approach to tackling marriage abuse. To begin with, non-EEA foreign nationals who are present in the UK could give notice of a marriage only upon production to a registrar of either a certificate of approval or proof of entry clearance as a fiancé or marriage tourist—or proof that they fall within any exempted categories. When they do not satisfy those criteria, they would need to return home and apply for entry clearance from abroad to return to the UK or go to another European Union country in order to get married. That would have a similar effect to the "no switching" rule applied to third-country nationals marrying British nationals, and would also cover marriages to EEA nationals, where levels of marriage abuse are increasing.
The introduction of a certificate of approval requirement, in addition to the entry clearance process, would provide an early interaction between non-EEA foreign nationals seeking to marry in the UK and immigration officials, who would be able to examine the validity of the identity and immigration documents provided to ascertain whether the person should be required to apply for entry clearance for the purpose of the marriage. The introduction of this measure is therefore likely to provide a significant deterrent against those intending to enter into a sham marriage for immigration purposes. The chances of couples coming into contact with immigration officials will be much higher, which will not be welcomed by those who are not genuine, and will make them less likely to seek to engage in a sham marriage to avoid immigration controls.
All non-EEA foreign nationals would then be required to give notice of an intended marriage at a designated register office, where the Immigration Service will be in a position to target its intelligence

685
and enforcement effort in order to reinforce capabilities to tackle abuse of the immigration system via the sham marriage route. As there are significant difficulties in taking action against a suspected sham marriage involving a third-country national and an EEA national after the marriage has taken place, the two measures combined will make it more difficult for them to enter into a sham marriage in the first place.
The final part of the first amendment contains consequential amendments to the Marriage Act 1949 and the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 and also deals with the manner in which the Secretary of State shall be able to exercise the powers that I have just described. The second amendment deals with the question of the cost of the certification process set out in subsection (3)(b) of the first amendment. We believe that it is reasonable for the cost of the process to be recoverable by the Immigration Service. Although we certainly wish to ensure that any additional burden on genuine couples of any of these provisions is kept to a minimum, we believe that, in the context of a genuine marriage, the payment of a fee is not unreasonable. The actual fee will be set out at a later date, but is likely to be comparable to the fee payable for leave to remain applications, which is currently £155 by post and £250 in person.
Although people will be required to go to the designated register office to give notice of the marriage, once they have secured the permission to marry, they are free to marry anywhere they choose. They do not have to marry at the designated office. It is purely the giving notice of the marriage at the designated office.
Lord Avebury: Would this be one of the purposes for which a loan might be granted?
Lord Rooker: I could not possibly answer that question. Marriage is not cheap anyway, so the extra cost of this certificate will not break the bank for people who genuinely wish to marry.
The Government will continue to pursue a policy of managed migration to the UK, with procedures in place which allow us to facilitate genuine applications from those from whom our society derives real benefit—social and economic. That includes those who wish to enter into a genuine marriage with a United Kingdom citizen or an EEA national and settle here. The ability to maintain an effective immigration control is crucial in promoting community cohesion, and good relations between people of different nationalities and ethnic groups within the UK.
Abuse of the marriage laws under which people are able, or perceived to be able, to circumvent the immigration rules creates mistrust, fosters resentment between different groups and certainly undermines the integrity of the institution. We are confident that these amendments will help to protect the institution of marriage within the UK, while enabling us to maintain appropriate secure immigration controls. I very much hope they will be supported. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, Amendment No. 25:
Line 30, after "Kingdom," insert—
"( ) is lawfully resident in the United Kingdom and has been so resident for a period exceeding 6 months,
( ) has been given leave to remain in the United Kingdom for a period which has not expired and exceeds 12 months or is indefinite,"
The noble Lord said: The Minister has told us that it has become clear through intelligence and other channels that abuse by those seeking to enter into sham marriages as a means of circumventing immigration controls is on the increase. He disclosed some of the evidence on which that assertion was based. I am particularly grateful to him for giving the figures of notifications by registrars under Section 24 of the 1999 Act, but I made a search to see if I could find these figures on the Home Office website and I was unsuccessful. Perhaps when the noble Lord winds up he will say what mechanism he envisages for ensuring that these figures are regularly reported and available to Parliament in the normal course of events, so that we do not have to wait until the Minister stands up at the eleventh hour on an amendment which he has just tabled to a Bill to enable us to scrutinise the rate of increase to which the noble Lord referred. I would like to have had the figures from the 1999 Act onwards so that we could see how these reports are increasing.
I also ask the noble Lord to give some idea whether registrars, having become used to the obligation to report suspicious marriages under Section 24, have been doing so more regularly than they were at the time of the 1999 Act. It could be that the rise in the figures is partly due to a greater assiduity by registrars or the perception by registrars that they should report cases where there is any conceivable doubt. I am rather borne out in that conclusion when I compare the figures that the noble Lord gave: for example, the 2,251 reports which have been made so far in this calendar year under Section 24, with the 37 criminal offences which have been detected as a result.
The 37 offences do not seem to be a very large haul from the 2,251 reports of suspicious marriages. If I were a registrar, and looking at this obligation, I would make a report when there was the slightest doubt so that some investigation could be conducted. I would be erring on the safe side. So perhaps that figure is not a true indication.
Lord Rooker: I appreciate what the noble Lord says. Indeed, I said as much in my notes. There might be some indication that registrars are doing more reports because they know something is being done about it. There may have been a reluctance before Section 24 came in—that if suspicions were reported nothing would be done about it. There was no mechanism. There is a mechanism now. That is similar to other issues: has the incidence increased, or has the reporting of the incident increased? Not quite the same thing.
Lord Avebury: The Minister has made a good point. He reinforced what I said: that registrars may not have considered it worth bothering to make a report under

687
Section 24 until they saw—as he put it—that there was some indication that the Government would do something about it.
The Government say that by requiring all non-EEA nationals to give notice of a marriage in a designated register office, the Immigration Service will be able to focus its enforcement and intelligence efforts on a reduced number of centres, in order to reinforce the capability of tackling abuse of the system via sham marriages. The Home Office press release of 8 June said that this amendment will require non-EEA foreign nationals to demonstrate that they have entered the UK lawfully and had permission to be here before giving notice of an intended marriage at a designated register office. The amendment goes much wider and provides that a person subject to immigration control is not to be married unless he satisfies one of four conditions.
The first, as I understand it—although it is not clear on the face of the amendment—is that he gets married according to the rites of the Church of England following the publication of banns of matrimony, or following the grant of a licence from the ecclesiastical authority. Secondly, that he has been granted entry clearance for the express purpose of getting married in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, that he falls into a class which is to be specified by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord has not given us any indication of how that power is to be exercised. Fourthly, he has the written permission of the Secretary of State. Those are the only four circumstances in which he can lawfully get married.
The amendment discriminates against anyone who is a member of a religion other than the Church of England, because the restrictions will not only affect marriages that take place in register offices, but also Jewish or Quaker weddings, or weddings which take place in any venue apart from a Church of England church or chapel. That potentially breaches Article 4 of the convention on the status of refugees because it will prevent a refugee who is not a member of the Church of England practising his or her religion in so far as he will not be able to take part in a ritual which is central to most religions.
It looks to us as if the amendments as drafted extend the prohibition on marriage to anyone who is subject to immigration control, who has not been granted entry clearance for the express purpose of getting married in the United Kingdom. Subsection (3) merely provides the Secretary of State with the power to specify which other people will be permitted to marry. Persons subject to immigration control include those with indefinite leave to remain; refugees; Commonwealth working holidaymakers, in the UK for up to two years, and work permit holders who may be resident in the country for even longer; overseas students and others on short-term stays, including ordinary visitors. If the Government want to restrict the right only of overstayers and illegal entrants to marry, why not confine the clause to persons here unlawfully, rather than extend it to all EEA nationals as a whole?
688
If cases are to be scrutinised individually to see whether there are grounds for suspicion that the marriage is being entered into for the purpose of evading immigration law or rules, then presumably every couple will have to undertake some kind of test where officials will have to look at the intentions and motives of the parties. I fear that the infamous "primary purpose" rule, which was abolished by the Government in 1997 soon after taking office, will be resuscitated in another guise.
How can the Government forbid an asylum seeker from marrying, considering that if that person is eventually granted refugee status, the decision on status merely recognises that he or she is and always has been a refugee?
Has the Secretary of State thought of the effect of the restriction on the status of women and children, when a pregnant woman is forbidden from marrying the father of her child? That will have very serious consequences for the social, economic, legal and moral status of the woman and her child in the wider community. It also runs counter to all the Government's efforts to support and encourage family life and the protection of children.
Subsection (3)(b) provides that the Secretary of State may give a non-EEA national permission to marry. We need to know how that is to be exercised. No doubt there will be criteria laid down in the regulations—the Minister gave some hint of that—but we need to have some idea of the Government's thinking if we are to do our job properly. Where a Secretary of State is given discretion over a matter that will profoundly affect the lives of thousands of people every year, Parliament would not be doing its job properly if it were to hand them a blank cheque. I wonder if the JCHR is seized of the matter, and whether it would express an opinion on whether these proposals are compatible with Articles 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to marry and the right to non-discrimination in the exercise of ECHR rights respectively. To force a couple to remain separate or to live together in contravention of their community's social and religious rules, to deprive a child of his father, and to discourage someone from practising her religion in the interests of immigration control cannot be in the public interest.
We acknowledge that there are sham marriages and that measures need to be taken against them, but we object to the Government's pernicious habit of introducing major amendments at the eleventh hour to deal with problems that could well have been foreseen at an earlier stage, allowing for proper consultation with the agencies concerned.
We have not seen the whole of the evidence on which Home Office estimates are based, nor the research which is said to have been conducted by the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services, but I am sure that if that information, together with an analysis of the five years of reports submitted to the Secretary of State over the five years since the 1999 Act, had been published, a better solution could have been developed, avoiding the possibility of ECHR breaches, and of interference with legitimate marriages. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I should like to speak to my Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, which are grouped with the amendments that we are discussing. I begin by making the obvious point that the trade in sham marriages for the purposes of obtaining residence here is obnoxious. We are all agreed on that.
The Minister talked about the difficulty of assessing the number of sham marriages that occur. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that we needed to know about the evidence and what consultation had been carried out which indicates that there is a significant problem, and that the measure we are discussing constitutes the appropriate way to try to resolve it.
Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, teased the Committee by quoting at length from the Sun. I shall quote from the Evening Standard, but rather more briefly. An article in today's Evening Standard reports the comments of Mark Rimmer, a service director for registrations of births, deaths and marriages, who,
"believes rising numbers of foreigners are organising the ceremonies in a desperate bid to stay in Britain … He claimed racketeers setting up the fake marriages were now operating nationwide".
He also claimed that,
"one in five marriages in London [are] bogus".
That seems an extraordinary claim, but it is made by someone who has tried to operate the system with integrity. It is difficult if registrars are put in a position where they feel that they do not have the proper authority to stop sham marriages going ahead.
We accept that there is a problem but we need to know the scale of the problem and, consequently, how the Government should try to attack it. We know that the problem has existed for some time. The amendment has come at the eleventh hour and some of its provisions seem rather daunting. The Minister said that last week I asked about the sensitivity with which the measures would be implemented. I understand perfectly well that approaches to marriage, and the reasons for marriage, may be different in different cultures. We must not discriminate against people who arrange their marriages for different reasons in different ways. I asked whether there would be a race equality impact assessment. I was pleased to learn at lunchtime that one has been carried out since last week. However, as I received the rather lengthy document only at lunchtime I have read it but not yet properly considered it. We shall have a chance to do that before Report.
The Minister's explanation of the measure today does not seem to match the hyperbole of the Home Office press releases that have been issued since April in which the Government said, "There is a dreadful problem, but we have the answer and here it is", as they said in the press release of 8 June to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred. However, the Minister appeared to say that the new proposal will create an extra tier of bureaucracy—the "super registrars"—in an as yet undefined number of districts, and that these "super registrars" would work closely with the
690
Immigration Service to try to feed off each other's expertise and spot, and, they hope, stop, sham marriages.
When the Government first said that they would bring forward proposals, they referred to two major points. The press release of 22 April states that both parties would need to attend one of the specialist register offices in person to obtain authorisation. However, I cannot see that requirement in the new clause. I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate where that provision is located. The same press release also stated that there would be,
"changes to marriage laws to empower registrars to refuse to conduct a marriage suspected to be carried out for the purposes of illegal immigration".
That, again, does not appear to be included in the new clause.
I note that in the letter which winged its way to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, of which I received a copy at lunchtime today, the Government confess that they have not carried out consultation on the matter. They say that they will consult on making further changes to the marriage laws to reinforce the proposals in the amendment that is before us. When will the consultation be carried out? When are we likely to see changes to the marriage laws? Earlier, the Minister said that the Home Office bus of legislation tends to come along fairly regularly, but all the buses are getting to the end of their stops at the moment, if there is such a thing, and parliamentary time is running out. It does not look as if we shall see such measures in the near future unless the Government want to undertake yet another recommitment. We shall have to see.
This is a step forward, but not a big one. I turn to my amendments. Amendment No. 26 would require the registrar to keep a record of applications that were refused together with the reasons why they were refused. Is that the practice today? I appreciate that registrars keep a record of refusals, but do they keep a record of why they refused to enter marriages in the marriage book?
Amendment No. 27 would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the operation of the section. We shall all need to know whether the proposals are adequate to address the problem, and we shall need to know more fully what the problem is comprised of so that we can design the proper system to attack the abuse.
Although I certainly support what the Government are doing so far with the reservation that I am worried they are creating an extra tier of bureaucracy which may not deliver, I certainly consider that this is not a question of ticking a box where the Government can say, "Right, we have done that; let's move on". This is a first step on the very long way that lies ahead.
Earl Russell: First, together with my noble friend Lord Dholakia, who, regrettably, is unable to be present, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for his letter which drew attention to the fact that this measure was on the day's agenda. That is one of the important reasons I am here. I am very grateful to him.

691
The first thing that occurs to me to ask is whether any estimate has been made of the effect of this measure on public service manpower, and, therefore, of the cost of it. It strikes me that it may be very demanding.
The second thing that strikes me is that I really do envy the confidence of these bureaucrats who have it given to them to know in their hearts which marriages are genuine and which are not. I do not know whether the Minister ever saw "Four Weddings and a Funeral". I ask him to think of the last wedding in that film involving, I believe, Hugh Grant and Kristin Scott Thomas. Was that a genuine wedding or was it a sham? It ended with Hugh Grant slapped unconscious on the floor of the church. However, I believe that when he went into it, he believed it to be a genuine marriage. I should not like the responsibility of classifying that. I remember Lord Whitelaw once saying in this House that he was unwilling to hand out to others responsibilities which he was unwilling to undertake himself.
I also remember the film "Green Card", which began with a Home Office textbook sham marriage, designed to defraud the regulations and for no other purpose. However, the couple discovered that nothing propinqs like propinquity, and stayed together. When finally they were refused, their early deception being discovered, they were observed by the officers going off duty passionately embracing each other and vowing to meet and marry in France, and the officers shook their heads sadly and said: "Seems as if we got that one wrong". Well, did they or not? I wish I knew. This is something for a searcher of all hearts, and the state does not, thank God, have that authority.
We move from fiction to fact. My noble friend Lord Avebury and I shared the same great-uncle—Henry—who was married three times to the same woman, and at the end of the day was never married at all. This case was raised when back in 1996 the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, asked whether there were any measures to deal with marriages that may be bogus. I apologise for not quoting her, but I do not think she will take any offence. My great-uncle Henry met a lady on holiday. They married in a register office in Geneva, then came back and had a slap-up wedding at St George's, Hanover Square. Twenty years later, she said that she had been very happy all these years, but she would like to be married by the rites of "Holy Mother Church" before she died, so they had a Catholic wedding. When she died, it was discovered that the first two times she had a husband living, and the third time there was no registrar present. So was she married, or was she not? In law, obviously not, as a family with an eye on the jewellery decided very quickly. My great-uncle Henry, incidentally, has the distinction of being the first Muslim Peer to sit in this Chamber.
This issue is rather difficult, and always has been, because the spiritual and secular requirements have always been different. The secular requirements are concerned with the lawful descent of the property, and the spiritual with the legitimacy of the offspring. There
692
is a remarkable pastoral letter of 1219, written by the Bishop of Salisbury, warning young men who pluck themselves rings out of rushes and give them to their girlfriends and plight their troth that they may find they have taken on more than they have bargained for.
So what is a genuine marriage? There is room for a great deal of litigation on that question, as well as on the requirement of a specified registration district. Many people wish to marry in districts other than those where either of them live.
Lord Rooker: I am sorry to interrupt, but I made it clear that they are not required to marry at the specified district office. They are only required to give notice of the marriage there. They are then free to marry where they wish.
Earl Russell: I was just coming to the point I intended to make, which is that there may be a great deal of dispute about the area that should be set aside. That is a very fertile subject for litigation, and the Minister's intervention has strengthened, rather than weakened, that point. If I were a historian of this period, I would be delighted to have a measure of that sort on the statute book, but not, I think, under any other circumstances.
Regarding the entry clearance expressly for the purpose of marriage, a lot of people come to each other's countries in order to find out whether they are likely to be appropriately suited to be married or not. I have known two couples who did that, one of whom concluded they were not, and the other, as it were, tumbled into bed and have never been out of it since. These cases are unwisely excluded, and yet a definition that includes them is going to have a great deal of difficulty about it.
6.45 p.m.
The fees also worry me, because the group of people they affect is not our most prosperous. There will be those with a genuine wish to marry who cannot raise the fees, and the question my noble friend asked just now about a loan facility is going to be relevant to the marriage fee. That will introduce an element of what the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, used to refer to as "churning"—sending public money round and round in a circle until it comes back to where it started, and a little bit sticks to each finger on the way. It is an expensive habit.
Subsection (3)(c) concerns a marriage that,
"falls within a class specified for the purpose of this paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
Fortunately I am not the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, but one could easily imagine what he might have made of that. This subsection could, for example, legitimise the marriage of first cousins, which is contrary to law in most normal situations. In fact, it could do absolutely anything, and is a bar that is rather wider than that which I am happy to see on the statue book. The Government are buying themselves a large packet of litigation. Historians will bless them, but I do not think anyone else will.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Earl made a very long speech. Marriages certainly seem not always

693
to be what they were intended to be, and, after listening to noble Lords, I am glad that I never embarked on such a project myself.
To get back to the Bill, my noble friend mentioned Mr Mark Rimmer's research. He is the superintendent registrar of Brent who has being doing national research, which I read about in the Daily Telegraph of 11 June. He made it plain that he thought there were 8,000 such bogus marriages for the purposes of immigration in a year. That is an enormous number—as my noble friend said, perhaps one in five marriages in London. He pointed out that when registrars meet people getting married and the lady is asked what the gentleman is called, some women have to look at the man's passport to see what his name is. The registrar said that when people are asked to kiss, they flinch. Registrars are finding all sorts of amazing evidence of the rackets that are being run, and the Government are quite right: they have got to do something about it. We are trying to ensure that what is arranged is fair, and that it operates satisfactorily. I personally have a lot of sympathy here—if it is really true that racketeers are asking couples to pay £5,000 in order to marry for immigration purposes, this simply cannot go on. I am in favour of this government amendment, and I shall look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response to my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Ahmed: First, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for supporting the position that I share with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on this amendment. I feel it is important in the midst of this debate to acknowledge that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have on previous occasions expressed their appreciation of the contribution of immigrant communities to British society. They have also highlighted the role that new immigrants will play in bringing their vital skills and expertise to the British economy. I value such recognition of the role immigrant communities play, and will continue to play, in our society.
As, I am sure, my noble friend the Minister will appreciate, however, the amendment proposed by the Government at this late stage regarding new marriage procedures for those subject to immigration control is bound to arouse concern among black and ethnic minority citizens and residents of Britain. I want to raise the potential concerns, and I look to my noble friend kindly to assist with clarification of the Home Office's intentions.
I know that my noble friend and the Committee will be aware that, in our globalised age, an increasing number of people have an international network of family and friends. That has always been the case for the black and ethnic minority communities, and it is, therefore, particularly likely that they will seek marriage partners through such networks. In that connection, I am grateful to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants for reminding me that it often used to advise distressed immigrants or members of the Asian community whose foreign-born spouses and fiancés were prevented from entering the UK to remain here because, in the eyes of the Immigration Service, the foreign nationals had failed to prove that
694
their primary purpose in coming here was the pursuit of a genuine married relationship, rather than just immigration.
Many of those refusals of leave to enter or to remain with the British-resident partner had to be taken to appeal, causing great distress to all the parties concerned, as well as being an administrative nightmare for entry clearance officers and the Immigration Service. After all, how exactly should one determine whether a relationship is genuine, especially when what constitutes a genuine relationship may itself be a cultural variable? I would be interested to hear my noble friend's views on that. The adverse nature of some of the immigration decisions inevitably meant that the Asian community felt that it was being discriminated against. So high did feelings run that the Government abolished the primary purpose rule in 1997. We are grateful for that.
I am concerned that the new proposal for designated centres should not give rise to the same problem all over again, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said. However, in some respects, the amendment goes further than the former primary purpose rule. It appears that, under subsection (3), a foreign national subject to immigration control who wishes to marry a British citizen or resident must obtain the written permission of the Home Secretary to marry in the UK. I would like to know from my noble friend why the Home Secretary judges it necessary for a foreign national to have to obtain his specific permission to marry. It is a novel concept in British marriage law.
I can understand that foreign spouses who wish to remain in the UK have historically needed the leave of the Secretary of State, but is he not venturing one step too far in prescribing exactly who can get married? The right to marry and found a family is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. As has been said before, such broad discretion in the hands of the state will, I strongly suspect, breach that right.
Existing legislation caters for the prevention of sham marriages, if a marriage registrar has grounds for suspecting such. In that case, the suspicion can be reported to the Secretary of State, and leave to remain can be refused. Can my noble friend tell me how many such reports have been made and how many refusals of leave there have been in the past 12 months?
The amendment is unclear about who permission will be granted to, and I would be grateful for clarification on that point from my noble friend. I know that that matter will be the subject of regulations under the affirmative resolution procedure. Such an important stipulation should be made clear at the outset.
I would also like to be assured that members of the black and ethnic minority communities will not be discriminated against by incurring extra cost through the process. The foreign nationals in question will already have had to pay a marriage licence fee. Will they then be required to pay an application fee for the written permission of the Secretary of State to marry? Furthermore, can my noble friend assure me that such

695
additional administrative process will cause neither distressful delay to the parties in marrying nor extra expense to the British taxpayer?
My noble friend may feel that that is more than enough questions to be getting on with, but, before I finish, I beg his indulgence and ask another: what training and qualifications will be required of the special marriage registrars? That will be important, given that the entry clearance monitor has been less than complimentary about the performance of entry clearance officers in assessing candidates for entry clearance in a sensitive manner. Of even greater concern is the duty on registrars throughout the UK not to accept notices of marriage from those subject to immigration control but to refer them to the special registrars. I suspect that, even if both parties to an intended marriage are British or EEA nationals and are settled in the UK, their immigration status will be questioned, if they are perceived to be ethnically different. It is precisely that singular discriminatory treatment to which ethnic minority communities will be subject that I find particularly objectionable.
I am conscious that, in raising my concerns and asking for assurances and clarifications, I may give the impression that I am opposed to the Government's intention of stamping out sham marriages. Such an impression would be mistaken. I understand that the Home Office must respond to a situation in which some individuals may abuse the formalities of marriage to gain entry to the UK. However, I hope that my noble friend will appreciate my concern that the amendment risks repeating the mistakes of the primary purpose rule, with even worse repercussions for black and ethnic minority individuals and communities. If the concerns that I raise are not addressed, the amendment will act to the detriment of the Government's agenda of community cohesion and a dynamic and inclusive modern strategy for Britain.
Lord Rooker: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me, but I am not sure whether he was present when I moved the amendment. Most of what he has said leads me to believe that he was not. I shall not repeat it, so I invite him to read Hansard.
Lord Ahmed: May I—
Lord Rooker: I shall give way to my noble friend in a moment, but I must say that some of the things that he has just said are inaccurate and inflammatory and are almost designed to stir up a problem that does not exist.
There is nothing about relationships in the amendment. That is not the issue. It does not even arise. As for British nationals, it does not matter what their ethnicity, religion or colour is, they will not be affected. That is not the issue before us today. I am certain that most of the questions that my noble friend asked can be answered to his satisfaction, but I would have hoped that the way that the amendment is written
696
and the way that I spoke to it would have led him to believe that most of those issues were not even on the agenda.
Earl Russell: I must—
Lord Rooker: I shall give way in a moment. The issue of the primary purpose rule was raised. There is not a scintilla of a hope or an attempt to reintroduce the primary purpose rule. I would not be party to it. I would not be standing here promoting the clause, if that were the case. I assure my noble friend of that.
I have another issue to address before I give way to the noble Earl. I do not want to wind him up, but I thought that he made rather a joke of this serious issue. As an academic, he crafted his speech carefully, but there was a scintilla of a joke about it. To the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I say that religious ceremonies are not affected. If the people are eligible for the ceremony of the relevant religion, they will not be affected by the amendment. The right of a person to have a religious marriage is not affected, if they are eligible for the religion, if I can put it that way. I hope that that is clear. There is also, by the way, no evidence of sham marriages in the Church of England. It is already a requirement of the Marriage Act that notice must be given in person by both parties. We are dealing with register offices here.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised some legitimate questions about religion that I would raise myself. There is no way that we would put something on the statute book that would, if you like, force a child to be born deliberately out of wedlock. It beggars belief that that would be the case, and it is not our intention. The regulations will be drafted to accommodate such circumstances.
In many ways we are dealing with a highly targeted commercial operation. I have not read the report of the Registrar General that has been reported in the press, so I do not know the detail. We are not dealing with whether people love each other, whether they are going to get on with each other or whether the marriage is genuine. That is not our purpose; it is not the function of Government to be involved with that. We are dealing with a narrow aspect of the matter.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: First, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, was present. Secondly, his point was that because some creeds believe that it is a sin to have a relationship without marriage and some do not, the effect is discriminatory even if the intention is not. Thirdly, I had not realised that the Minister intended to go down the route of separating legal from ecclesiastical marriage. That has been done before and it is a dangerous route that leads to total confusion.
Lord Rooker: All I can say is that it will not confuse if people take the clause as it stands and not for what they think it might be. The point is that it deserves explanation. I fully accept that this is a change in policy at the end of the Bill. That is the reason why we

697
are having today effectively a late Second Reading debate, as the noble Baroness said to start with. I fully accept that we shall have to return with further and better particulars at other stages. Part of my error was not delineating between civil and religious marriages when I introduced the clause. Had I done so it would have answered the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, before he rose.
I turn to the amendments listed on the Order Paper. Amendment No. 25 would allow those people with leave to remain one year or more and those who have been legally resident in the UK to be exempt from the requirement to present a suitable entry clearance or a certificate of approval when giving notice. Registrars are as keen as the rest of us to stop marriage abuse, but they are not experts in immigration law and we would not expect them to become so.
The purpose of the notification procedure is to give the registrar an opportunity to see if there are legal impediments to the marriage. We are placing an additional burden on them so they can refuse to accept notification where a person is not lawfully resident here. That has nothing to do with whether the relationship is genuine; it is not their function to check that—far from it. Our aim is to make the process as simple as possible.
As the proposal stands, non-European Economic Area nationals will be required to produce proof of their status in two forms: an entry clearance stamp or a certificate of approval. By including persons who have been lawfully resident in the UK for over six months and persons—
Lord Ahmed: How do the Government then propose for the registrars to identify who is a non-resident of the EEA area when a black or ethnic minority person marrying a white indigenous person goes to the registrar? Would he have to prove his status in the UK and if he does not have a passport what sort of evidence will he have to produce? Is that not primary purpose all over again?
Lord Rooker: Far from it. They are simply required to state their nationality in any event. That is the normal question. There is nothing different. Everyone is treated the same. If they give as their nationality one of the countries that is not a member of the European Economic Area, that triggers the rest of the factors. It has nothing to do with the person's colour, or their age for that matter, so long as they are above the lawful age. Perhaps people are required to give their age; I do not know.
The fact is that they are required to give their nationality; not their religion, ethnicity or anything to do with their colour. The nationality is the trigger. Everyone would be asked the same. There is nothing discriminatory about it. The list of countries is clear and it is well known which are in the European Economic Area. I do not propose to read them out unless any noble Lord demands it. There are countries not on that list which have an arrangement with the area still to be treated the same.
698
It is clear that one is either a national of the European Economic Area or not. If one is not, there is a new process to go through. That is all. It has nothing to do with picking on people who are from the black and ethnic minorities. As the proposals stand, non-EEA nationals will be required to produce proof of their status in two forms: an entry clearance stamp or a certificate of approval.
By including persons who have been lawfully resident in the UK for over six months and persons who have over one year's leave to remain, registrars would be required to recognise the whole range of entry clearance and leave to remain stamps and visas. That is in response to the amendments; obviously they would be asked to do a much bigger job.
Both the entry clearance and the certificate of approval will be in the form of secure documents, which are less likely to be forged. Both documents will be issued only by entry clearance officers or by Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff, again by those already in possession of the necessary expertise in immigration law. We do not want the registrars to become immigration officers.
The categories of person identified by noble Lords are already catered for in the provisions. Those who have valid leave to remain of over six months will be able to obtain a certificate of approval from the Home Office. Switching that power to registrars will open that to further abuse, so we do not believe that it would be prudent to amend the clause as suggested. For those reasons I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 would require superintendent registrars in England and Wales to maintain a record of refusals of notices by non-EEA nationals and to make that record available to other superintendent registrars of designated centres.
Registrars would not accept notification of a marriage if they could not enter it into the marriage notice book. They would not be able to accept a notification unless the person met all of the criteria: age, residence and marital status. Keeping a record of everyone who approaches a registrar but does not meet the criteria would prove a time-consuming task and would not help in combating sham marriages. As such I would urge for the amendment not to be pressed.
The suggestion is noted about submitting an annual report to Parliament on the operations of the new provisions. I agree that in common with other controls and systems operated by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in a wide range of contexts it is important to keep Parliament informed about the way in which the powers are used.
My brief states,
"I am not convinced at this stage that such a provision for an Annual Report solely on these new measures dealing with marriage needs to be written in the Bill in this way".
I have read that out, but Parliament has to be informed about the operation of legislation that it has been asked to approve, particularly, in this case, at the last minute. We will review with ministerial colleagues what might be the most appropriate form as a reporting mechanism. In other words, there will be a

699
reporting mechanism in the area, but I cannot say that it will be an Annual Report to Parliament and therefore I ask not to write that in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether the proposals may breach Articles 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to marry under Article 12 can be subject to the requirements of immigration control, just as the ability to treat people differently will not breach Article 14 if it is objectively justified by the circumstances.
The Secretary of State will ensure that any decision taken under the proposed amendments will not on the individual facts breach either Article 12 or Article 14 of the ECHR. I hope that I have put the primary purpose rule to bed, but I shall do the note because it is worth repeating. I do not want this hare to get out running. This is not the primary purpose rule. We are not touching it and there is no intention of reintroducing it by the back door.
We will not be considering in the lawful eligibility whether immigration is the primary purpose of the marriage. We will be applying criteria to each application whereby we will consider if the person is lawfully resident, whether they have been granted leave over six months or they are a visitor and, if so, whether it is reasonable or unreasonable to expect them to leave; for example, in the case of a pregnant woman. It is not our intention to do that.
As I stated, we would not normally grant Home Office approval where it is unreasonable to expect a person to return to their home country to reapply for entry clearance. That sometimes relates to asylum seekers or pregnant women. We are not seeking to stop people from getting married; far from it. We are seeking to stop some people from getting married twice a week, every week, or every year. That is the reality, and I point out to my noble friend Lord Ahmed that that is what the sham marriage commercial operation is about.
I hope that I have satisfied most of the questions at this early stage so as to knock on the head some of the hares that may start running. On Report we will obviously be able to clarify matters further, but I suspect that we will not have all the answers.
Our approach is highly targeted, very limited and non-discriminatory. I have dealt with all the points raised by my noble friend and others on the issue, and we will get a note to everyone before Report. It is important to get things into writing so that they are on record.
Lord Hylton: The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, raised an important and valid point about proposed new subsection (3)(b) in the amendment. Are we to understand that,
"written permission of the Secretary of State to marry",
simply means acknowledgement that at least one of the parties is entitled to remain in the country for more than six months?
Lord Rooker: The answer is yes. We must remember the way in which the parliamentary draftsmen have to
700
write the rules. It looks onerous and almost oppressive to say that people need the written permission of the Secretary of State. However, that is subject to the caveats in proposed new subsection (3) as a whole, which states:
"The superintendent registrar shall not enter in the marriage notice book notice of a marriage".
If the person fulfils some of the rights and has an entry clearance certificate, that is sufficient for the purposes of marriage. That is what I said. However, in other cases, people do not have the entry clearance but can satisfy the other conditions. All that they have to do is satisfy the Home Office and get the necessary documentation, which is a secure document from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. That means that the registrars will be able to have confidence in the matter.
The Countess of Mar: I apologise to the Minister for not being in the Chamber to hear his opening speech on the amendment—I was in Grand Committee—but I want to get something absolutely clear. He said that we were not talking about the primary purpose rule, but is not the primary purpose of a sham marriage of a foreign national to a British passport holder for that foreign national to remain in the United Kingdom? Is that not what we are looking at and why people undertake such marriages? They want to say that they are married to a British national and will live with that person for 12 months, and then have the right to stay in the United Kingdom.
Lord Rooker: The noble Countess was obviously elsewhere on parliamentary business, but I hope that I clarified the matter in my opening speech. There is no connection whatever between what we propose and the former primary purpose rule, which was abolished in 1997. The sham marriages about which we are talking are of a different order to anything contemplated by the introduction of that rule. That is probably not a very satisfactory reply to her now, but I shall clarify everyone's points in writing in the fortnight that we have before Report.
Lord Avebury: The Minister has done his best to answer the many questions directed to him. He understands that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, reflected the genuine concerns of people outside this House in ethnic minority communities, who believe that their customs and practices will be adversely affected by the proposal. I hope that the Minister will not think that, by giving an answer in the debate, he has discharged the responsibility for explaining such matters to the wider community outside. I hope also that the Home Office will make every effort to reassure those communities and disabuse them of some of the misconceptions that it has been said have arisen.
A vital point dealt with at the end of the debate was that, if someone were here for more than six months, the certificate issued by the Home Office would be more or less automatic. Therefore, any person who falls into one of the categories granted leave to remain here for more than six months—for example, a

701
refugee, someone with exceptional leave to remain or whatever the description that has replaced that is, or those on Commonwealth working holidays—will automatically be given the certificate of approval by the Home Secretary. That is quite a considerable advance on what I understood the proposed new clause to mean.
7.15 p.m.
The Minister also said that religious ceremonies were not affected, and that no discrimination was either intended or indirectly brought about between those who got married in the Church of England and those who sought to marry in any other religious ceremony. I certainly do not read the proposal that way. The four categories of person, which I enumerated in moving the amendment, began with those married in the Church of England, who have to give notification, call banns and so on, as the Minister explained. Thereby, they escape the process of scrutiny that would otherwise be undertaken by the registrar. However, someone who marries in a mosque or synagogue must bring the registrar in, so undergoes the examination that those married in the Church of England escape. I ask the Minister to reflect on what he said.
Lord Rooker: What I said was accurate. As I understand it—I have no personal experience of the matter—in the Church of England someone will not get married unless they are more or less known personally to the vicar. However, the requirement for banns will be abolished in 2007, so there will be a process where all marriages are treated the same.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Perhaps the matter is another that needs to be explained more than it has been until now, because people still believe that there is an element of religious discrimination in what the Government propose. Another matter that needs clarification was that addressed to the Minister by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on what changes to the marriage law were contemplated that would allow registrars to decline to perform a ceremony. He did not reply to that, so far as I am aware. That is an important element in the jigsaw.
We need to reflect on what the Minister said and will consult those who have advised us outside, particularly those concerned about the discriminatory elements that they see in the new proposal. We may or may not come back to the matter on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 25, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, as amendments to Amendment No. 24, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 24 agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"SECTION (PERSON SUBJECT TO IMMIGRATION CONTROL: PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE: ENGLAND AND WALES): SUPPLEMENTAL
(1) The Marriage Act 1949 (c. 76) shall have effect in relation to a marriage to which section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales) applies—

(a) subject to that section, and

(b) with any necessary consequential modification.

(2) In particular—

(a) section 28(1)(b) of that Act (declaration: residence) shall have effect as if it required a declaration that—

(i) the notice of marriage is given in compliance with section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales)(2) above, and

(ii) the party subject to immigration control satisfies section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales)(3)(a), (b) or (c), and

(b) section 48 of that Act (proof of certain matters not essential to validity of marriage) shall have effect as if the list of matters in section 48(1)(a) to (e) included compliance with section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales) above.

(3) Regulations of the Secretary of State under section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales)(2)(a) or (3)(c)—

(a) may make transitional provision,

(b) shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(c) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(4) Before making regulations under section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales)(2)(a) the Secretary of State shall consult the Registrar General.
(5) An expression used in section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales) or this section and in Part III of the Marriage Act 1949 (c. 76) has the same meaning in section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales) or this section as in that Part.
(6) An order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (c. 6) may include provision—

(a) amending section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales), this section or section (Application for permission under section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales)(3)(b), (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: Scotland)(3)(b) or (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: Northern Ireland)(3)(b)) in consequence of other provision of the order, or

(b) repealing (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales), this section and section (Application for permission under section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales) (3)(b), (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: Scotland)(3)(b) or (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: Northern Ireland)(3)(b)) and re-enacting them with modifications consequential upon other provision of the order."

The noble Lord said: The amendment basically covers the legislation elsewhere, so it is a repeat of the previous debate. The effect of the provisions for

703
Scotland and Northern Ireland directly reflects those that we discussed for England and Wales. We have no desire to see the problem of sham marriages displaced to Scotland and Northern Ireland and believe that the provisions will protect against that taking place. The provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland differ from the England and Wales provisions only in so far as they seek to facilitate both countries' marriage-tourism procedures.
As the Committee is aware, marriage tourists are couples who travel abroad to be married—specifically, to marry in particular surroundings. Marriage tourism provides significant income in Scotland and is a growing industry in Northern Ireland, so every effort has to be made in the provisions to accommodate that trade. I see from the faces of Members of the Committee that they did not expect me to say all that. People might want to get married in the middle of a loch or in a castle, and it is their right to do so. They come here as marriage tourists for that purpose. It is an income earner, and we do not wish to knock it on the head.
The effect on marriage tourism will be that non-EEA foreign nationals will be required to gain entry clearance for the purpose of marriage before entering the UK. We do not believe that to be a great burden to put on parties embarking on a genuine marriage, in view of the amount of consideration already required in organising a wedding, and we do not think that it will deter genuine couples.
The supplementary provisions in the amendments for each area of the UK confer on the Home Secretary the power to specify register offices for the purpose of proposed new subsection (2)(a). That power can be taken only in consultation with the UK's Registrar General. A joint working group between the registrars and Immigration and Nationality Directorate officials has already been set up to discuss those designations.
We have also proposed an amendment that deals with the cost of the certification process set out in subsection (3)(b) of the first amendment. We believe that it is reasonable for the cost of the process to be recovered by the Immigration Service. While we certainly wish to ensure that any additional burden of any of these provisions on genuine couples is kept to a minimum, we believe that in the context of a genuine marriage the payment of the fee is not unreasonable. The fee will be set at a later date, but is likely to be comparable to the fee payable for leave to remain applications, which is currently £155 by post or £250 in person. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I have a couple of questions. First, the noble Lord says that he wishes to encourage marriage tourism and I can see that in Scotland or Northern Ireland people might wish to be married in the circumstances that he has described. What are the rules that apply when both parties to the marriage are non-EEA nationals? Will they have to pay the £150 fee? Would that not deter someone who was seeking to be married in a castle or at a loch?
704
My second question relates to a provision in the Marriage Act 1949, where one party to a marriage is resident in Scotland and the other party is resident in England. What will the rules be if a non-EEA national is resident in England and the native is resident in Scotland? What will happen if it is the other way round? Will these provisions have any relevance to the duties that they have to perform in order to be married in one or other of the jurisdictions?
Lord Rooker: On the latter point, as far as I am aware, once the marriage has been notified and the couple have certified the requirements, they are free to be married wherever they wish. There is no restriction; it is a matter of their choice of where the marriage should take place—England, Scotland or wherever, even a traffic island or down a coal mine. Once the notification has been approved they are free to be married wherever they wish, so I cannot see a distinction between being north or south of the Border.
Regarding the noble Lord's first question, I shall give the example of a couple of Americans who are non-EEA nationals who wish to be married in a castle in Scotland. To be honest, the cost of that enterprise somewhat puts into the shade the fee of around £200 for the extra certificate. I do not see that the cost of the fee would put them off.
Lord Avebury: Is the fee of £200 per person or per couple?
Lord Rooker: I honestly do not know, but I do not believe that that matters to someone in those circumstances. I am happy to clarify the matter, but the cost of the breakfast in the castle will be more than that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"PERSON SUBJECT TO IMMIGRATION CONTROL: PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE: SCOTLAND
(1) This section applies to a marriage—

(a) which is intended to be solemnised in Scotland, and

(b) a party to which is subject to immigration control.

(2) In relation to a marriage to which this section applies, notice under section 3 of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 (c. 15)—

(a) may be submitted to the district registrar of a registration district prescribed for the purposes of this section, and

(b) may not be submitted to the district registrar of any other registration district.

(3) Where the district registrar to whom notice is submitted by virtue of subsection (2) is the district registrar for the registration district in which the marriage is to be solemnised, he shall not make an entry under section 4, or complete a Marriage Schedule under section 6, of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 in respect of the marriage unless satisfied, by the provision of specified evidence, that the party subject to immigration control—

(a) has an entry clearance granted expressly for the purpose of enabling him to marry in the United Kingdom,

705

(b) has the written permission of the Secretary of State to marry in the United Kingdom, or

(c) falls within a class specified for the purpose of this paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) Where the district registrar to whom notice is submitted by virtue of subsection (2) (here the "notified registrar") is not the district registrar for the registration district in which the marriage is to be solemnised (here the "second registrar")—

(a) the notified registrar shall, if satisfied as is mentioned in subsection (3), send the notices and any fee, certificate or declaration which accompanied them, to the second registrar, and

(b) the second registrar shall be treated as having received the notices from the parties to the marriage on the dates on which the notified registrar received them.

(5) Subsection (4) of section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section except that for the purposes of this section the reference in paragraph (d) of that subsection to guidance issued by the Registrar General shall be construed as a reference to guidance issued by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Registrar General for Scotland."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, as amendments to Amendment No. 29, not moved.]
On Question. Amendment No. 29 agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 35:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"SECTION (PERSON SUBJECT TO IMMIGRATION CONTROL: PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE: SCOTLAND): SUPPLEMENTAL
(1) The Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 shall have effect in relation to a marriage to which section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: Scotland) applies—

(a) subject to that section, and

(b) with any necessary consequential modification.

(2) In subsection (2)(a) of that section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Registrar General for Scotland; and other expressions used in subsections (1) to (4) of that section and in the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 have the same meaning in those subsections as in that Act.
(3) Regulations made by of the Secretary of State under subsection (2)(a) or (3)(c) of that section—

(a) may make transitional provision,

(b) shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(c) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"PERSON SUBJECT TO IMMIGRATION CONTROL: PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE: NORTHERN IRELAND
(1) This section applies to a marriage—

(a) which is intended to be solemnised in Northern Ireland, and

(b) a party to which is subject to immigration control.

(2) In relation to a marriage to which this section applies, the marriage notices—

(a) may be given only to a prescribed registrar, and

(b) shall, in prescribed cases, be given in person at a prescribed register office.

(3) The prescribed registrar shall not act under Article 4 or 7 of the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/413 (N.I.3)) (marriage notice book, list of intended marriages and marriage schedule) unless he is satisfied, by the provision of specified evidence, that the party subject to immigration control—

(a) has an entry clearance granted expressly for the purpose of enabling him to marry in the United Kingdom,

(b) has the written permission of the Secretary of State to marry in the United Kingdom, or

(c) falls within a class specified for the purpose of this paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), if the prescribed registrar is not the registrar for the purposes of Article 4 of that Order, the prescribed registrar shall send him the marriage notices and he shall be treated as having received them from the parties to the marriage on the dates on which the prescribed registrar received them.
(5) The prescribed registrar shall not act under subsection (4) unless he is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (3).
(6) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a person is subject to immigration control if—

(i) he is not an EEA national, and

(ii) under the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) he requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not leave has been given),

(b) "EEA national" means a national of a State which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2nd May 1992 (as it has effect from time to time),

(c) "entry clearance" has the meaning given by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77), and

(d) "specified evidence" means such evidence as may be specified in guidance issued by the Secretary of State after consulting the Registrar General for Northern Ireland."

After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"SECTION (PERSON SUBJECT TO IMMIGRATION CONTROL: PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE: NORTHERN IRELAND): SUPPLEMENTAL
(1) The Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I.2003/413 (N.I.3)) shall have effect in relation to a marriage to which section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: Northern Ireland) applies—

(a) subject to section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: Northern Ireland), and

(b) with any necessary consequential modification.

(2) In section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: Northern Ireland) "prescribed" means prescribed for the purposes of that section by regulations made by the Secretary of State after consulting the Registrar General for Northern Ireland and other expressions used in that section or this section and the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 have the same meaning in section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: Northern Ireland) or this section as in that Order.
(3) Section 18(3) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)) (provisions as to holders of offices) shall apply to section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: Northern Ireland) as if that section were an enactment within the meaning of that Act.
(4) Regulations of the Secretary of State under section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: Northern Ireland)—

(a) may make transitional provision,

(b) shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(c) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION UNDER SECTION (PERSON SUBJECT TO IMMIGRATION CONTROL: PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE: ENGLAND AND WALES)(3)(B), (PERSON SUBJECT TO IMMIGRATION CONTROL: PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE: SCOTLAND)(3)(B) OR (PERSON SUBJECT TO IMMIGRATION CONTROL: PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE: NORTHERN IRELAND)(3)(B)
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring a person seeking permission under section (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: England and Wales)(3)(b), (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: Scotland)(3)(b) or (Person subject to immigration control: procedure for marriage: Northern Ireland)(3)(b)—

(a) to make an application in writing, and

(b) to pay a fee.

(2) The regulations shall, in particular, specify—

(a) the information to be contained in or provided with the application,

(b) the amount of the fee, and

(c) how and to whom the fee is to be paid.

(3) The regulations may, in particular, make provision—

(a) excepting a specified class of persons from the requirement to pay a fee;

(b) permitting a specified class of persons to pay a reduced fee;

(c) for the refund of all or part of a fee in specified circumstances.

(4) Regulations under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
"ENTRY CLEARANCE
(1) After section 88 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (appeal: ineligibility) insert—
"88A INELIGIBILITY: ENTRY CLEARANCE
(1) A person may not appeal under section 82(1) against refusal of entry clearance if the decision to refuse is taken on grounds which—

(a) relate to a provision of immigration rules, and

(b) are specified for the purpose of this section by order of the Secretary of State.

(2) Subsection (1)—

(a) does not prevent the bringing of an appeal on either or both of the grounds referred to in section 84(1)(b) and (c), and

(b) is without prejudice to the effect of section 88 in relation to an appeal under section 82(1) against refusal of entry clearance."

(2) In section 112 of that Act (regulations, &c.) after subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) An order under section 88A—

(a) must be made by statutory instrument,

(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, and

(c) may include transitional provision.""

The noble Lord said: This amendment provides a power to remove the right of appeal against certain entry clearance decisions. The Secretary of State will be able to specify requirements under the Immigration Rules. Where an entry clearance application is refused because a specified requirement is not met, there will be no right of appeal. We intend to use this power only in respect of provisions in the Immigration Rules that are based on objective criteria. It makes little sense for an application to have an appeal in these circumstances. The decision that an applicant fails to meet such a requirement is a question of fact.
The amendment extends the scope of Section 88 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Section 88 already prevents an appeal in cases where a requirement in respect of age, nationality, documentation or period for which leave is sought is not met, or where the purpose of entry or stay is not covered by the Immigration Rules. The amendment will not impact on existing rights of appeal in respect of race discrimination and human rights issues. Those residual appeal rights are preserved by the construction of Section 88; that construction is mirrored in Clause 88A(2)(a) of the amendment.
That provision will provide greater flexibility to tackle areas of abuse in entry clearance cases, by targeting specific provisions of the Immigration Rules. Where it is necessary to amend the Immigration Rules to create additional, objective criteria, this power could be used to preclude a right of appeal against refusals based on a failure to meet that new requirement. Thus a development of the Immigration Rules need not result in new meritless appeals. Such appeals impact adversely on the swift resolution of other, arguable appeals. We are not seeking to rule out arguable appeals.
We are, for example, looking at the possibility of creating a register of bone fide colleges. We would then make it a specified requirement for entry clearance as a student that the applicant be enrolled at a registered college. This would tackle an existing problem whereby students enrol at bogus colleges, or at colleges which do not maintain proper attendance checks. Enrolment at a non-registered college would be a matter of fact, leaving no issues to be argued at appeal.
I acknowledge that noble Lords may be concerned about the operation of this order-making power. I state again that it will apply only to provisions of the Immigration Rules that are based on objective criteria, that is to say provisions about which there can be little debate as to whether the necessary requirements have been met. The example that I have given is as clear cut as I am able to give. Furthermore, the amendment provides that the order-making power is subject to

709
affirmative resolution procedures, so any use of the power will be subject to debate in this House, as it should be. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 36, Amendment No. 36A:
Line 10, at end insert—
"(1A) Immigration rules specified for the purpose of this section may include the requirement that a person who is normally domiciled outside the United Kingdom who travels to the United Kingdom to study shall provide evidence that he is registered at an education establishment that has been approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State."
The noble Baroness said: In his clear opening remarks the Minister made clear that my amendment provides half of what the Government are trying to do in this clause by attacking alleged bogus students. The reason for tabling this amendment is simple. When the Minister's colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, wrote to noble Lords on 26 May to say that there would be some extra amendments, we were told that there would be some amendments on sham marriages and others on so far unannounced policies, so we could not be told what they were. The only other matter that I could imagine was the issue of alleged sham students, so I asked the Government whether there would be anything to do with alleged bogus students. The answer was "no".
The next day, another letter arrived saying, "Sorry, when we said no, we meant yes". It said that although the clause would not refer to education in particular, it would be aimed to tackle what is perceived to be the problem of bogus students coming here to obtain residence in this country. I was told in that letter, rather teasingly, that it might be clear to the trained eye that there would be something about students in one of these clauses and that the Minister's letter would make the matter clear. Well, the letter arrived last Tuesday and it did not make that clear—there was no reference to students. This was the only clause out of the 13 clauses that might have anything to do with bogus students and was thus the source of my amendments.
7.30 p.m.
Therefore, the questions are as follows. Can the Minister tell the Committee on what evidence the Government have based their determination to use new legislation—legislation which, in the form of this clause, goes very widely and will not allow the Committee to say, "Yes, we can see what the Government are really trying to do. We approve it". As the Minister said, any change in the entry clearance requirements will come forward in regulations in the future. Therefore, again, we are being asked to sign something of a blank cheque. If it were a cheque with which we knew we were targeting people who were coming to bogus colleges which were exploiting people, knowing that they could be brought in to obtain residence, I should be much happier. I understand, for example, that prospective students who intend to study in the United Kingdom and who are not yet enrolled on a course are already denied an appeal under Section 91(1)(b) of the Nationality, Immigration
710
and Asylum Act 2002. Therefore, I am intrigued as to why the Government now need to take this course of action.
What work has the Home Office carried out with educational institutions on this subject? Has that work been completed? Is a report available for Members of this House to consider before the Bill leaves us?
I want to place on record my gratitude to Clive Saville of UKCOSA, the Council for International Education, and to Jo Clough of the Association of Colleges for their briefing on this issue over the past couple of weeks. I particularly appreciate their willingness to respond at such short notice when they are deep in briefing on the Higher Education Bill.
Is the Minister aware that overseas students contribute in the region of £3 billion to our economy and that it is vital that we do not discourage the genuine students who come from the genuine colleges? That would simply send them to our competitors in other countries.
Can the Minister confirm reports in the press, following the last round of government statements in April, that the Home Office intends to launch immediate checks on all claimed educational establishments and, by the end of the year, set up an accreditation and monitoring scheme for all colleges? In his opening remarks, he talked about what sounded like an approved list. That is not quite the same as having accreditation for all colleges.
Can the Minister give an assurance that, if the approved list is compiled, it will automatically include a listing for all publicly funded institutions? With regard to privately owned institutions, does he agree that the vast majority are well run and that they contribute much to the UK economy? They are part of our small-business culture, which is the lifeblood of our economy. Does the Minister accept that it is vital that students who enrol with such privately run institutions should be able to come to this country to study?
I hope the noble Lord agrees that those institutions are badly served by some of the very few—I hope that they are very few—suspect businesses, such as the one that had the misfortunate to e-mail me yesterday. I shall not give it publicity by revealing its telephone number, but it asked me:
"Do you want a prosperous future, increasing earning power, more money and the respect of all? Call this number … There are no required tests, classes, books, or interviews! Get a Bachelors, Masters, MBA, and Doctorate (PhD) diploma! … No one is turned down! … Confidentiality assured!".
Well, it was not like that at Bristol 30 or so years ago. It is that kind of organisation that does such a bad service to the education sector in this country, which has the admiration of the world.
Can the Minister give an assurance that, in future, they or the IND will provide colleges with a list of students who have been issued visas on the basis of an offer letter from a college? We need to be sure that, in the new world under this legislation, genuinely operated and good colleges also receive co-operation and information from the Government. Does the

711
Minister agree that that is vital as it would mean not only that the colleges would know who should be turning up but it would also help in identifying where fraud offer letters were being used to gain entry, as well as giving the colleges the opportunity to assist in giving information about no-show students? Is the Minister aware that this procedure was, in fact, piloted by City College Brighton and Hove, and the Beijing Visa Office and that it was very successful?
Finally, what discussions have the Government held on these amendments with the Association of Colleges, UKCOSA, ARELS and the English language schools, and what has been their response? I beg to move.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: I want to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has just said. There is no doubt in my mind that she has admirably summarised the situation so far as concerns universities. There is a hypersensitivity, if I may express it in that way, on this point. Perhaps we can put this in the context that many of the countries which are sending students over here are also sending them to other parts of the world. In particular, the present situation in America has caused a considerable amount of concern in many countries.
If it were suggested for one moment that we were following that line—I am delighted to hear what the Minister said, which seems to exclude that possibility—I believe that that could cause quite an emotional reaction from those countries. It would be a great help if the position could be clarified and stated in specific terms as that would then alleviate any problem such as this.
Lord Avebury: We understand fully the arguments for not providing a right of appeal in cases where a requirement in respect of age, nationality, documentation or the period for which leave is sought are not met or where the purpose of entry or stay is not covered by the Immigration Rules. But here we are being asked to give the Secretary of State the power to remove the right of appeal on grounds which "relate to" any other requirements in the Immigration Rules. We think that that is going too far.
The Minister said that an order will be made under Section 88A only if it is based on objective criteria or where the decision that an applicant fails to meet such a requirement is a question of fact. That is not what the proposed new clause states. ILPA suspects that the Government's real motive is to try to rescue some of the many appeals that they are now losing. In 2002, 43 per cent of appeals against refusal of entry clearance were allowed. That is a remarkably high figure when one considers that those appeals were conducted only on the basis of written submissions.
As an example of how the clause might be applied in practice, the Immigration Rules stipulate that an applicant must provide evidence that he or she will not rely on public funds and will have adequate accommodation. I believe that entry clearance officers are applying a higher standard of proof than the appellate authorities in this matter as many of their
712
decisions, including those by spouses, visitors and students, are overturned on the grounds that they wrongly assessed the evidence submitted.
We should not like the Government to have the power to remove appeal rights where there is a dispute about the applicant's ability to support or accommodate herself, but that is only by way of illustration. Why cannot the description of cases that it applies to be on the face of the Bill, as is the case with Section 88 of the 2002 Act?
We are concerned that the Minister has been coy about the reasons for the clause and has revealed them only at the last minute in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. If it was in the Government's mind all along to make provision to register these places of education, why could they not have said so and why could we not have had a proper discussion based on the evidence? How is that registration to be earned or achieved, and is there any appeal against refusal?
We can envisage that there may well be a dispute about whether a particular educational establishment is bona fide or whether it exists for the purpose of allowing entry for some illicit reason. Obviously we are not talking about the universities here but some schools or colleges of English. We all know about the scams on the Internet, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which invite people to obtain degrees simply by making a payment. However, I do not think that their primary concern is to evade immigration controls but, rather, to extract money from gullible people who seem to fall for such scams.
The Government are removing appeal rights and, hence, denying justice, for reasons of administrative expediency. I remind Members of the Committee of the Prime Minister's comment on the proceedings in the 1993 Act when he said:
"It is a novel, bizarre and misguided principle of the legal system that if the exercise of legal rights is causing administrative inconvenience, the solution is to remove the right … a right of appeal … is a valuable and necessary constraint on those who exercise original jurisdiction".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/92; col. 43.]
Agencies such as the CAB advise us that they are not aware of any evidence put forward by the Government to justify this proposal apart from what has now been presented to us in terms of the colleges. They too say that it is incumbent on the Government to say which of the objectively based requirements of the immigration rules they have in mind and to address such matters on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Government really should consider the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, and put an amendment, whether my noble friend's or some such amendment, on the face of the Bill. The confidence of people across the world in our education system and colleges is very important. As an example, the University of St Andrews, which is a very small world-class university, at present has students from 96 different countries. I do not whether the Minister realises the extent of the importance of bringing people to this country from other countries.

713
This measure should be placed on the face of the Bill, particularly in view of the provisions to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred and the fact that the Secretary of State can specify by order reasons for refusing appeal. That is a very wide provision and may be necessary; I do not know. It would be prudent for the Government to do this.
The Countess of Mar: When I first started on the Immigration Appeal Tribunal we regularly had cases of students attending these so-called bogus colleges. More recently, I have seen fewer and fewer. I do not know whether that is because Her Majesty's immigration inspectors are being more efficient and stopping the colleges before they start, so to speak, or whether there are simply not enough inspectors and the colleges are continuing.
I appreciate what the Minister is doing with the amendment. However, I sometimes wonder at the rules. I think that rule 317 allows people to come in as dependants and for various other reasons. There are cases where the immigration officers get the facts wrong—we are considering facts in this case—and I do not know how we can get round that. Sometimes it is important that someone is allowed to enter this country and if the immigration officer is starting from the wrong premise, how do we put things right?
Earl Russell: Briefly. I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lewis. I also share the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Avebury that nothing further restrictive should be smuggled through under this than is needed. I should like to draw attention to something which is different in this country from the rest of the world. This is the only country where the power to confer degrees is given or taken away by the state, which means that the state's conception of what constitutes a valid degree cannot diverge too widely from that of the academic community or else we would rapidly reach a situation where the rest of the world would not recognise our degrees.
I hope that if anything is done to define the standards of a degree it will be done in the closest and most amicable of consultation.
Lord Rooker: On the latter point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as a general assurance all the issues and suggestions raised here today on all of the clauses will be considered. However, as to the specific point regarding the need for the protection of the integrity of the higher education system, certainly I shall have that looked at by my colleagues in the Home Office. It is vital that we do not have an unintended consequence on an important matter simply because of a slip because we took it for granted that this would not occur. This is very important. It is not just that it is big business; it is more than that. There are 96 nationalities at one university and I should imagine that that is repeated elsewhere. That is an enormous contribution to humankind in many ways and is one that we want to continue and to flower. We do not
714
want to damage that in any way. Therefore, if we have to put it on the face of the Bill to nail it down, we shall certainly give that urgent consideration between now and the next stage. I hope that that will satisfy noble Lords at this point.
This may sound like a cop out but at the end of the day in the background, even when the rights of appeal are removed, there is always the concept of judicial review. I know that that is expensive for people, but it would not be in the interests of the Government to create a situation where the lack of a right of appeal gave rise to an explosion in the numbers which could be judicially reviewed. So, we have to be extremely careful about how we redraft the immigration rules to ensure that it is as clear as possible that it is the facts with which we are dealing. Judicial review is far more expensive than the appeals process. This could be a huge waste of time and resources on both the Home Office and Government. We do not want to get into that area.
7.45 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: Is judicial review possible from an appellant outside this country?
Lord Rooker: I cannot say but I think so on the basis that judicial review is still there. Surely, if you remove more appeal rights there is a risk that applicants will resort to judicial review. Obviously, judicial review will be available to such applicants. So, the answer is yes, as my noble friend states. In other words, we do not make a rod to beat ourselves with by getting it wrong. We are not trying to slip something in which later will cause a major problem. It is not in our interests to do that.
This is not a question of administrative expediency. There will be affirmative resolution. The Bill is not the last time that noble Lords will have an opportunity to discuss this. There will be Report stage, Third Reading and then affirmative resolution. We are working on various areas of possible abuse. I fully accept that when we write up the rules, colleges that do not get on to the register must have some right of appeal. However, the proposal is at a very early stage and is yet to be worked up in consultation with the DfES. That is as far as I can go this evening. That is the evidence that I have.
I do not know the details of the pilot that was raised. Frankly, a two-way process between the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, the college and the students seems to be to everyone's advantage. I say no more than that because I do not know the details of the pilot carried out in the Brighton area. However, it seems that exchange of information in those circumstances would be to everyone's advantage. Certainly, we shall return to this, but that said, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for saying that he will look again at this section and how it might have greater clarity. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions

715
and the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as being rather coy about this. I think that is a first. It is an interesting thought. We are all united on the idea that we should try to ensure that in cutting out the opportunity for people to come to bogus colleges or to be bogus students coming here that we must not in any way frame regulations that will deter the expansion of our valuable education institutions throughout the country.
One of the issues raised was the importance of an appeal against a refusal to go on an approved list. As the Government have announced tonight that that is the route they are choosing, there has to be very careful consultation with the various educational organisations and institutions about how that list should be composed and what recourse one has if one finds that one is not on it.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the conferring of degrees. I am aware of the rules and regulations about that. Of course, many of the very good colleges up and down the country, which provide courses for overseas students, are not conferring degrees. Therefore, it is even more important that one looks very carefully at getting those on the list. This morning I was reminded of the importance of work that is done in training people in the law and accountancy, where they will not get degrees but a very valuable qualification.
So, in having this rather open-ended clause, at the moment the Government have not actually devised the weapon that we all agree is needed. It must be a weapon that is not going to blow up in our faces or that of the education world. The Minister has our good will in trying to frame something between now and on Report to probe these matters further. I undertake to go back to UKCOSA and the AOC to see what we might come up with to aid the debate at that stage. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 36 agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
"EARLIER RIGHT OF APPEAL
(1) Section 96 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (earlier right of appeal) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsections (1) to (3) substitute—
"(1) An appeal under section 82(1) against an immigration decision ("the new decision") in respect of a person may not be brought if the Secretary of State or an immigration officer certifies—

(a) that the person was notified of a right of appeal under that section against another immigration decision ("the old decision") (whether or not an appeal was brought and whether or not any appeal brought has been determined),

716

(b) that the claim or application to which the new decision relates relies on a matter that could have been raised in an appeal against the old decision, and

(c) that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State or the immigration officer, there is no satisfactory reason for that matter not having been raised in an appeal against the old decision.

(2) An appeal under section 82(1) against an immigration decision ("the new decision") in respect of a person may not be brought if the Secretary of State or an immigration officer certifies—

(a) that the person received a notice under section 120 by virtue of an application other than that to which the new decision relates or by virtue of a decision other than the new decision,

(b) that the new decision relates to an application or claim which relies on a matter that should have been, but has not been, raised in a statement made in response to that notice, and

(c) that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State or the immigration officer, there is no satisfactory reason for that matter not having been raised in a statement made in response to that notice."

(3) In subsection (5) for "Subsections (1) to (3) apply to prevent or restrict" substitute "Subsections (1) and (2) apply to prevent".
(4) At the end add—
"(7) A certificate under subsection (1) or (2) shall have no effect in relation to an appeal instituted before the certificate is issued.""
The noble Lord said: I have been waiting all day to say this because it is dead true. Amendment No. 37 is a technical amendment. It adds nothing to the law; it is not a change in the law at all. It adds nothing to one-stop powers, but it clarifies how further applications are dealt with once an earlier application has been determined.
Currently, the definition of what amounts to a fresh asylum claim is to be found in paragraph 346 of the Immigration Rules. Similar principles may apply to human rights cases by virtue of Court of Appeal case law. There is no guidance for other cases. Since only a fresh application can be decided and certified under the one-stop provisions, it is important that there is a consistent definition. We shall accordingly amend the Immigration Rules to define fresh claims in respect of all types of case.
With the passage of time we are now able to remove the provisions for certifying an appeal after it has been instituted. They were vital only to deal with certain appeals under the 1999 Act that arise in circumstances where no certificate could be issued earlier.
The new wording for Section 96 reduces the present four options for certifying to two: where there has been a chance to appeal, or where a one-stop warning has been issued. In both cases there must be no good reason why the applicant has delayed raising the new issue, and this is what the words say, rather than the earlier reference to, "no other legitimate purpose", and, "in order to delay removal".
The amendment and the change to the Immigration Rules that go with it will not revolutionise one-stop as we know it, but they will make the process easier for

717
caseworkers to operate consistently and for lawyers to understand precisely what has been done. On that basis I beg to move the new clause.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 37, Amendment No. 37A:
Line 33, at end insert—
"(3) No such certificate as is mentioned in subsection (2) shall be issued by the Secretary of State or an immigration officer if the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture has notified the Secretary of State that in their opinion careful consideration has not been given to medical evidence bearing out allegations of torture.""
The noble Lord said: This follows a case that I raised earlier in proceedings on Report on 7 June at col. 34. I referred to a case dealt with by the tribunal whereby the adjudicator had used his own experience to assess medical evidence submitted by the Medical Foundation for Care of Victims of Torture. Since I raised that case at the beginning of the month the case has been determined and the applicant has lost.
We believe that there should be a procedure for reference to be made to the Medical Foundation for matters to be resolved other than through the process of judicial review where clearly something has gone badly wrong, as it did in this case.
Some 10 years ago there were disputes about medical evidence submitted by the Medical Foundation. In two cases the Home Office brought in the very well known forensic pathologist Dr Ian West, who went through the evidence it submitted. By that process an agreement was reached. We believe that some sort of fall-back is necessary in cases where the adjudicator has wrongly taken it upon himself to make a determination of fact on medical evidence which has been submitted by the Medical Foundation, as it was in the particular case that I raised on 7 June.
So the amendment provides for subsequent procedure. We think that it would safeguard cases being wrongly determined by the application of an incorrect standard of proof. The standard in cases of torture is "a reasonable degree of likelihood", as the noble Lord will be aware, whereas in this particular case the adjudicator was asking for some higher standard of proof. The victim had scars that were consistent with a history of torture. The medical expert, who was called in by the Medical Foundation, in a six-page report described the scars as "typical". That is a much higher standard than is demanded. One should also bear in mind that it is an overall evaluation of all lesions and not the consistency of each lesion in a particular form of torture that is important in assessing the torture story.
So there are cases where, in spite of the fact that all the procedures have been correctly followed, medical evidence has not been properly taken into consideration, as the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said it would be in cases of this kind. The amendment is a safeguard, which it is necessary to introduce. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to my amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I support very strongly the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I
718
know that for some people from Zimbabwe there have been just these problems; that they have been ruled as not having been tortured when there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they have been. It would have been possible to establish that if professional advice had been taken.
Lord Rooker: At this point in Committee I have to resist the amendment, although I must say that I have a good deal of sympathy with it. I shall describe the situation we have at the present time, but the government amendment, the new clause, does not change the situation. Therefore, the amendment is actually not necessary.
Amendment No. 37A, as the noble Lord said, seeks to prevent the issue of a one-stop certificate if the Medical Foundation asserts that careful consideration has not been given to medical evidence.
If the Medical Foundation asserts that a person has been tortured this is always considered carefully, whether in relation to the initial claim or a fresh one following an initial decision. If, for example, a fresh application is to be refused despite the medical evidence and the Medical Foundation has asserted that the evidence was not provided earlier because the claimant was unable, say, for psychological reasons to put the torture issue forward, then that will constitute a satisfactory reason and a one-stop certificate would not be issued. We accept that in some cases, particularly those where the torture is of a sexual nature, claimants may have difficulty in addressing the issues.
That is the situation as it stands. The Government amendment that I moved would not change it. The amendment therefore is not necessary, but I am more than happy to say to the noble Lord that I will have the matter looked at again. I moved an amendment that I simply said was not changing policy; it was clarifying and declaratory. If we can make it a bit more clarifying and a bit more declaratory to satisfy people as to what the situation actually is, then I think we should take the opportunity to do so. So I am more than happy to take the matter away and have a look at it.
8 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. What he says is the theoretical basis of the position. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, has said, it does not always work that way. I have heard of scars that were said to be self-inflicted, although they were on the man's back where he could not have reached. If the Minister can do anything to stop this sort of case happening, we will be very grateful indeed.
Lord Avebury: I am also most grateful to the Minister for promising that he will look at this particular case, although I really wanted something that went a bit wider than that. I referred back to the procedure that was followed some 10 years ago, when in the case of a dispute between the Medical Foundation and an adjudicator, Home Office experts were called in. With the best will in the world, and I am sure that the noble Countess,

719
Lady Mar, will agree, the adjudicator is not in a position to make judgments on clinical evidence. It is a matter for the experts to do that. In this case, there were three separate medical experts, who all found increasingly that the evidence was consistent with the man's claim to have been tortured.
While I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to look at this case, I suggest to him that the failure not only of this applicant, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, said, of others of whom we know—particularly the cases of people who have been tortured in Zimbabwe—justify a more general review of how evidence submitted on behalf of the Medical Foundation has been dealt with. I wonder whether it would be possible to create a new procedure by which the Home Office, with the help of its own experts, would be able to satisfy an adjudicator that that evidence—
The Countess of Mar: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. The case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the cases referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, are slightly different. Many of the cases referred to by the noble Baroness have not got to the Medical Foundation. One of the big problems is that the Medical Foundation does such a wonderful job that it has a very long waiting list. If that could be overcome in some way, it would be enormously helpful.
I am a little bit worried that the noble Lord specifies just the Medical Foundation, because there are other doctors who certify that people have been tortured. Some of the doctors are not quite as efficient as others, and as a tribunal member I am aware of which are which. On the whole, we do not lightly overturn the professional judgment of the medical profession.
Lord Avebury: I agree entirely with the noble Countess that there is a more general case to be made here, as to how evidence of torture is dealt with. However, I do not think that we will get the Minister to go further than he has already this evening. Maybe we can have a discussion with him before Report stage to see whether there is anything further that we can do by way of amendments to this Bill, or whether the matter can be dealt with by conversations off-line between the Minister, the Medical Foundation and myself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 37A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 37, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 37 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provision]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 38, line 38, at end insert—
"(za) section 87 (successful appeal: direction) (for which purpose a direction may, in particular, provide for an order under section 40 above to be treated as having had no effect),"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 38, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. Amendment No. 38 is necessary because of an amendment—I understand that it was Amendment No. 52—that was made in Committee. The effect of that earlier amendment is that the fact that an appeal against a decision to make an order for deprivation of citizenship under Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 is pending, or that such an appeal could be brought, does not prevent an order for deprivation being made. The deprivation order might then be followed more or less immediately by the commencement of deportation action, or by certification and detention under the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. In either case, this further action also attracts a right of appeal.
Although the earlier amendment was actually unintentional, having reviewed the position we believe that it would make considerable sense to be able to run the appeals—the deprivation appeal on citizenship and the deportation and or certification appeal—together. We therefore propose to amend the relevant appeals procedure rules, subject to the approval of Parliament, to require the appeal against citizenship deprivation and any appeal against deportation or against certification under the 2001 Act, to be heard together.
Where a deprivation order has been made, and the appeal against the decision to make that order is later allowed, Amendment No. 38 would enable the appellate body to direct that any such order should be treated as having had no effect. In other words, the successful appellant could be deemed never to have lost his British nationality. That seems to us to be the best way to safeguard the interests of the person concerned and to avoid any difficulties that might arise if he were instead treated as having lost his citizenship and then had it restored only at the conclusion of the appeal. This could, for example, affect the entitlement to citizenship of any children born to the appellant between the making of the deprivation order and the determination of the appeal.
Amendment No. 39 is a technical amendment about practice directions for appeals against deprivation of citizenship. It removes Section 40A(8) from the British Nationality Act 1981, the effect of which is to be continued without modification, by the new Section 40A(3) which will be inserted by paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 2 to the present Bill. That will look a lot better in Hansard than it sounded just now.
Amendment No. 40 provides for the repeal of Section 40A(6) to (8) of the British Nationality Act 1981. These repeals reflect the changes made by Amendment No. 39 and by the earlier Amendment No. 52 when your Lordships' House was previously in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McNally: The Minister should rest assured that we all sound better in Hansard. As he will know, my noble friends Lord Russell and Lord Avebury only let me intervene on special occasions. Therefore, I will stick very closely to my brief, which says that these are sensible and overdue provisions, which should be supported.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 38, line 42, leave out "and (7)." and insert "to (8).".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 43:
Page 52, line 15, leave out "40A(3) to (5)." and insert "40A(6) to (8)."
Page 52, line 26, at end insert—
"Section 123."
Page 52, line 27, at end insert—

"State Pension Credit Act 2002 (c. 16).

In Schedule 2, paragraph 42.

State Pension Credit Act (Northern Ireland) 2002
(c. 14 (N.I.))

In Schedule 2, paragraph 31.

Tax Credits Act 2002 (c. 21).

In Schedule 4, paragraph 22."

Page 52, line 28, second column, at beginning insert—
"Section 52."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Business
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the upper limit for Back Bench speeches during the next business has been increased to seven minutes. Noble Lords are, of course, at liberty to stick to their original scripts of four minutes.

Adolescent Health
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwenrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the British Medical Association report Adolescent Health, with particular regard to obesity and sexual health.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am delighted to have secured this debate. It is an important topic at a crucial time. I am most grateful to noble Lords for supporting it at such short notice and with such stamina. It is an amazing turnout. I also thank the Minister for her interest in the subject of adolescent health.
I first want to make some preliminary remarks, then focus on the BMA's excellent report and other findings about adolescent health, and finally ask the Minister to comment on the importance of research and evaluation relating to adolescent health and training. I shall not go into a plethora of statistics, but will rather discuss some broad brush ideas. I know that other noble Lords will provide different perspectives on this question.
Concerns about the health of young people are not new. I remember teaching health education in schools in London in the 1980s. Some of the issues arising then are still around; some aspects have changed—for example, the AIDS pandemic has brought new urgency into sexual health; Chlamydia is now a serious problem; obesity and its consequences have increased.
As then, adolescents are a vulnerable group—not quite adult, prone to risk taking and sometimes treated as a problem. Adolescents need positive role models and support from adults, particularly from parents. Early interventions are important and that comes largely from parents—for example, in breastfeeding and nutrition. But this issue of health is not only topic based or problem based, a great many influences feature in how people make decisions about health—their economic situation, their communities, their friends and family, their culture, the media and so on. Young people need the skills to make informed decisions; to resist pressure. They need life skills, empowerment and motivation rather than blame and unrealistic nagging.
Parents need support too. Young people are maturing earlier, their lives are more complex than they used to be and many parents are confused and threatened by the changes. Parents need to be involved in the solutions and they need education and support. Programmes such as Sure Start are providing this. I wish there was a continuous Sure Start as children grow up. One key issue which was present when I was teaching, and subsequently training teachers, was the vital importance of having sufficient numbers of trained and confident teachers to deliver personal, social and health education, including sex education, and to link with parents and to support parents and families.
I said that the issue of adolescent health was not new and numerous reports and surveys have highlighted this. For example, a BMA report in 1999, Growing Up in Britain, looked at the foundations of health in nought to five year-olds. This took into account inequalities in health, emotional and behavioural problems and nutrition, among other things. One conclusion of the report was,
"Good child care involves a mutually affectionate relationship based on respect, empathy and genuineness with one or preferably more adults, consistent discipline based on positive reward for good behaviour rather than punishment for bad, and intellectual stimulation based on the child's level of development".
If all that happened to children, we might not today be discussing problems of obesity and sexual health in adolescents.
The report highlighted the importance of the consumption of enough fruit and vegetables and the desirability of limiting sugary foods. It also touched on the importance of sex education being embedded in an overall education programme, something which I know other noble Lords will discuss in more detail.
An excellent book by David Hall and David Elliman, Health for All children, is wide-reaching and discusses the role of families, health professionals and other health educators in influencing child and adolescent health. It emphasises the importance of

723
strategy and policy at a national and local level and the importance of co-ordinating efforts and sharing information, something highlighted in the Children Bill currently before your Lordships' House.
The BMA report, significantly, calls for a named school nurse and doctor for each school, with access to a wider range of health support such as community nurses, paediatricians and therapists. I have said it before and I will say it again: school counsellors were useful and need to be reinstated.
The National Healthy Schools Standard, of which I am a great supporter and which features in the school where I am a school governor, is working positively with schools to encourage healthy choices in children and in communities, including an emphasis on nutrition and exercise.
The BMA report picks up and expands on many of the issues raised in previous reports and provides a number of statistics. It also summarises the grave concerns now being expressed about an obesity epidemic, which may give rise to diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, as has recently been reported in the press and other media.
Multi-factoral interventions are considered necessary to change health behaviour. The report suggests that there needs to be an awareness of issues, multi-professional interventions, early intervention, education, structural and environmental change and public health campaigns as well as, crucially, access to sympathetic services.
Noble Lords may remember, in the 1980s and early 1990s, the successful publicity from government and the voluntary sector about HIV and AIDS. Health messages need to be consistently and constantly conveyed, and constantly reinforced. It must be made easy to make healthy choices—for example, sports facilities must be accessible and encouraging.
The report also emphasises the need to make parents, children and adolescents aware of good health behaviour and to enable them to integrate it into their lives—for example, in exercise—to contribute to reducing obesity. Peer education programmes should be considered as part of health education programmes.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to comment on the amount of research and evaluation of initiatives in the UK designed to improve adolescent health with regard, in particular, to obesity and sexual health. I am interested in, but somewhat frustrated by, a seeming reliance on American initiatives. Could I also ask if there is general agreement across government departments that confident and trained professionals and parents are absolutely key to improving adolescent health?
We neglect the issue of child and adolescent health at our peril. These adolescents will, too, become stakeholders in society; many of them will become parents. We cannot afford, materially, physically or morally, to tolerate a cycle of ill health which could spiral out of control.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when I first decided to put my name down to speak in this debate, I was originally drawn to the part about obesity. When I heard initially that I had only three minutes, I thought that any danger of my having to mention sexual health was totally removed. However, as I have a moment more, I shall leave the Government with one thought on the second of the two topics we are discussing.
The most successful campaign on sexual health was that of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. The reason it influenced people so much—indeed, I was one of those in my early 20s when it started—was because it permeated the whole of society. We could not get away from it. Looking at the one successful example, to get the message across one needs to permeate society so thoroughly with the message that people in their 40s, 50s and 60s become sick of hearing it and start saying, "This doesn't apply to me". In that way, the message will probably get across. When we are very young we are very good at not hearing what we do not want to hear.
That brings me reasonably neatly to the subject of obesity. The basics of obesity are comparatively straightforward. One takes in too many foodstuffs or calories and does not burn them off. There is a limit to how many calories one can burn off, but physical activity will help. I looked through the report to discover who is regarded as adolescent and concluded that it is a broad group between the ages of 11 and 18. That group experiments with spending power, with doing its own thing, with the petty rebellion of annoying parents and teachers and with looking exactly the same as their friends. The group is a rich target for advertisers not only of food and drink, but also of lifestyle. It is seen as cool to sit around drinking or to appear laid back. The only people who take part in sport are those who are brilliant at it and who look good doing it. We have to try to encourage that group to take more exercise.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that I was being harsh when I described government initiatives as saying that adolescents should do the dishes or the ironing to get in their quota of activity. I said that that did not really address the young and the fit. Now we are addressing them. I have it on good authority that to get an adolescent to do any cooking or cleaning or ironing is an achievement in itself. We can also encourage them to do gardening, but usually, where there is a garden, it is the territory of someone considerably older. Bizarrely, as we go up the social scale the level of physical activity rises.
Sport has to be the answer, but unfortunately sport appears to be a middle-class preserve. If a young child has a bad diet and is overweight, he or she does not want to stand out in front of his or her friends so is unlikely to puff and pant around a football field. Such a child also does not want to be the last one picked for a team. Indeed, a child does not want to be involved in fights about who will have him on the team because he is felt to be a liability. We have to do something about this group and encourage them to take part.

725
There is a great deal of consensus across the political divide about what we should do as regards sport. Basically, there should be more sport in schools and sport in schools should be used to encourage the wider community to take part in sport. The old school structure of sport has broken down because it relied on volunteers. The upside of that is that we no longer have sports coaches who have no coaching qualifications and are 30 years out of practice in playing various sports. But we have lost the basics.
At various times all sides of the House have agreed that we have to address the problem. The Government have quite an impressive plan. I would be pleased to hear a progress report on it. I believe that all departments could be brought to bear on this and I believe that the Minister is primarily taking on a health mantle today. I see the noble Baroness nod. I have one question for her. Has the Department of Health been told exactly how many playing fields, sports halls and so on are needed to allow for the increase in sport and physical activity that would counter the rise in obesity, or at least a part of it? I believe that is a fair question to ask. The doomsday book of sport is supposed to be out soon and it would help if we had an answer to that. The argument about playing fields being sold to build new sporting facilities and the balance between having training halls but no pitches, may mean that we shall end up with fewer facilities. What do we actually need? Do the Government know? Even if the Government's idea is wrong, at least we could argue with a certainty. It is a nebulous concept in the distance at the moment.
On the issue of food intake, the great villains of the piece are the fast food merchants. Certainly, they have the highest advertising budgets. However, their role has possibly been overplayed. The high street shops sell pre-prepared meals that are easy to cook and we have bad nutritional awareness. Despite certain ex-footballers screaming and shouting at celebrities on television recently, we are not sufficiently aware of how to cook meals.
If we are to address the idea of what constitutes a balanced diet, perhaps as one not based on comfort food—and let us face it, we all like that hit of sugar, salt and fat every now and again—the Government must tell us their thinking. In particular, have they considered how we can discourage the consumption of sugary carbonated drinks? They must be the biggest teenage fix of all. The preparation for drinking far too many pints of beer is to drink too much Coca Cola, lemonade or whatever. That is what I have heard. Many doctors are speaking in this debate and I hope that I will not be contradicted.
Sugary, carbonated drinks are probably the most efficient way of getting unwanted calories. If I am wrong, I will put my hand up, but nobody has contradicted me yet. What are the Government doing to cut levels of such consumption? This is a topic that will run and run. I look forward to the debate.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, this speech has been lengthened and shortened so many times: I hope it remains comprehensible.
726
The sorts of malaises that we are discussing this evening are largely self-inflicted—due to smoking, drinking, overeating or engaging in unsafe sexual practice. They remind me of the saying, "Everything I like is either illegal, immoral or fattening". Therein lies the rub, because, although these illnesses are largely determined by one's behaviour, their prevention is dependent on persuading people to stop doing what they enjoy. Changing behaviour in anyone is not easy and changing adolescent behaviour is extremely difficult. We need only look back at the strenuous efforts that have been made over the years in the field of sexual health to realise how little impact they have made. Sexual health was one of the five priority areas in the 1992 Health of the Nation White Paper. It was also prioritised in the 1999 Welsh Assembly paper, yet new cases of syphilis, gonorrhoea and chlamydia doubled between 1995 and 2000. The evidence is that the incidence of these diseases continues to rise.
We must face the fact that health education messages are not very cool—or whatever the modern equivalent of "cool" is. They are up against the much more persuasive and effective messages of the devil, in the shape of the advertising industry, which uses sexual images lo sell everything from ice cream to motor cars. As the Chief Rabbi wrote in the Times last weekend, big business discovered that children represent an immense potential market. So began the transformation of children into consumers. To young adolescents striving to find their own sense of identity, rebellious behaviour is part of the normal process of growing up. The more that cigarettes, alcohol and sex are preached against, the more likely it is that some adolescents will take the opposite view.
That combination of adolescent behaviour patterns, the market-driven advertising media and television soaps, "Big Brother" and the like, which show how normal and acceptable careless promiscuity really is, represents a formidable opposition to health education, at least in the sexual field.
We could of course continue to wring our hands, but perhaps it might be better to cast a more critical eye on the advertising industry and seek a more responsible approach from it. Is it also a vain hope to try to press the televisual media to aim more at reflecting society's good behaviour rather than its poor behaviour? Possibly such a shift might do something for their viewing figures. Of course, I know that railing against the advertising industry and the media is a somewhat vain hope, but I had to get it off my chest.
Meanwhile, getting the message across about considerate, safe sexual practices needs some new approaches. I was particularly impressed when I visited St George's Hospital Medical School recently and met some medical students who were going out to hold meetings in clubs and out of school to talk about sensible sex to young teenagers not much younger than themselves. They were part of a national scheme rejoicing under the name of "Sexpression" run by medical students across the country.
This type of informal peer interaction is much more likely to be effective than if the same messages were to be delivered by parents or teachers. It is the sort of

727
imaginative scheme we should be supporting and building upon. Can I tempt the Minister to look at this type of approach as one worth pursuing?
While prevention by education and behaviour change will be a slow, uphill task, we will continue to need to deal with the consequences of unsafe sex. I believe there is much that can and should be done. I want to focus on one area—chlamydia, which is a nasty and insidious disease. My noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton will talk about that, so I shall just give a trailer.
The frequency of chlamydia has doubled in the past 10 years and now affects 10 per cent of young women. It often does not produce any symptoms at all, but the danger is that it may go on to cause pelvic inflammatory disease. That itself is a common cause of infertility and ectopic pregnancy. Yet diagnosis is easy, and a simple screening test of urine will reveal it. It can be readily cured with a short course of antibiotics. So it is much to be welcomed that the Government have embarked upon a national screening programme in primary care. Can the Minister tell us how far we have got with that?
More generally, it is also important that the Government's action plans for sexual health should be actively pursued. We have certainly been short of genito-urinary doctors and clinics, and have a history of waiting times—particularly in our cities—which are far too long. It is good to know that the Government are committed to investing in this neglected area. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made here?
8.32 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, we have already heard about problems related to teenage sexual health. There has been much publicity about the rising rates of sexually transmitted infections—most apparent in 16 to 19 year-olds—which have serious health outcomes, in both the short term and the long term. I am well aware that the Government recognise the problem and have done a lot to promote good sexual health. What I would like to find out is the success or otherwise of some of the government policies.
The Government's teenage pregnancy strategy was launched in 1999. One of the aims was to halve the pregnancy rate in under-18s by 2010. The strategy supported a range of activities to meet this target. One of them was the number of dedicated, school-based, trained teachers for sex and relationship education. Can the Minister say how close the Government are to meeting these targets, because the recent evidence is otherwise? How close are they to meeting targets of halving teenage pregnancy, and the number of trained SRE teachers in every school?
The other strand in the strategy was improving access to sexual health services. As sexual health is not included in the "essential services" of the new GP contract, what will be the future role of GPs in that? Another strand of the strategy was screening for asymptomatic infections. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has already mentioned the strategy for screening for chlamydia infection, and he
728
has asked the question on how that is working. How is the system of the opportunistic screening scheme being evaluated against other screening strategies?
If we are to avoid long-term health consequences, current policies must achieve rapid impact in the light of increasing incidence of teenage sexual health problems. As we are allowed a little more time now, I will comment briefly on adolescent mental health and mental illness.
Adolescent mental health problems have strong links with adolescent health risk behaviour such as violence, sexual behaviour, teenage pregnancy, alcohol and drug abuse. A lack of definition of mental health results in data on the incidence of mental illness coming from people who use the services or from the responses to structured questionnaires. None the less, the available data show that the incidence of the serious illness of depression is estimated at 1.7 per cent in boys and 1.9 per cent in girls. That is often associated with conduct disorder. Self-injury and self-harm, bulimia and anorexia nervosa, which disproportionately affect young girls, and result in high death rates, are further examples of adolescent mental health problems. We know from research the factors that predispose young people to increased risk of adolescent mental health problems, among which gender, age and family related factors of poverty and lone parenting are important.
Although the Government have some strategies in place such as the national suicide prevention strategy, will the Minister tell the House what other initiatives are planned, and particularly whether the children's national service framework, which is about to be published, will include standards for adolescent mental health as the current national service framework for mental health does not? What will be the role of primary care teams in identifying those at risk?
If teenage sexual health is a time bomb about to explode, we have not even begun to recognise the problems of adolescent mental health and illness and their long-term effect.
8.36 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lady Massey for introducing the debate and for managing to initiate it this evening. This is a very important report, covering, as it does, the correlation between the different aspects of public health.
I should start by declaring an interest as the chair of the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV. I shall concentrate my remarks on the sexual health aspects of the report. As I say, the report correlates different aspects of public health. It is important that we view sexual health in a holistic way. It is absolutely crucial that an adolescent's whole sexual well-being is taken into consideration when they seek advice or treatment about one specific area.
The report is right to say that the sexual health of adolescents in the UK is poor. The increase in risky sexual behaviour is a key contributor to sexual health outcomes such as sexually transmitted infections

729
(STIs) and unwanted pregnancy in young people. Nearly three years since the publication of the first ever National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV, for which we must give credit to this Government, we are on the verge of a major public health crisis in spite of efforts that have been made by the Government since the strategy was produced. However, there is much more to be done.
What I find really disturbing is the evidence of a drop in knowledge and a lack of awareness of the risks being taken through having unprotected sex. In 1995, for instance, 77 per cent of boys between 12 and 13 knew that HIV could be passed on by having sex without a condom. By 2002, that figure was down to 63 per cent. I read today that a survey carried out in Sheffield shows that 40 per cent of pupils aged 11 have never even heard of HIV. There are many other such examples.
However, as has been said, we must appreciate that many young people experience peer pressure. They believe that certain behaviour is considered "cool" and they receive mixed messages from the media. That, coupled with impaired decision-making due to excessive alcohol or drug taking, makes the risk even worse. Raising awareness and promoting the safer sex message is therefore absolutely crucial.
The "Sex Lottery" campaign, initiated by the Government and directed at young people, is welcome, as are schemes such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, promoting sexual health in colleges, nightclubs, sports clubs and workplaces. He is right—we have to be more imaginative about how we promote the message. That is all fine, but there is often a lack of consistency and continuity in such campaigns, and the long-term improvement in sexual health can only be achieved by a far greater promotion of good, early, co-ordinated and appropriate sex education in schools. It is important that sex education be a statutory part of the national curriculum, with each school having an appropriately trained teacher. That is clearly not the position at present. There is consistent evidence that PSHE remains patchy, under-resourced and often delivered by non-specialist, reluctant and poorly-prepared teachers, who often do not understand the breadth and scope of the subject they have been asked to teach. Good PSHE should include the development of a person's broader life skills, such as the effects of excessive use of alcohol, drug-taking and their influence on risk-taking behaviour. Similarly, as my noble friend Lady Massey said, there must be programmes designed to educate parents and carers, so that there can be greater openness and understanding across the generations.
Good education is the key to better prevention, and prevention is the best way to resolve our growing sexual health crisis. We can give two examples in other countries where education is clearly effective. In Uganda they run the effective "ABC" campaign, where A stands for "Abstinence", B for "Be faithful" and C for "or use a Condom". In Sweden, where there has been more explicit sex education in schools and youth clinics, they have reduced teenage pregnancy by 80 per cent, and STIs by 40 per cent.
730
Girls are much more vulnerable to STIs. The rate of chlamydia is alarming: 36 per cent of young women with the disease are under the age of 20. That age group, for both men and women, must be a key target area for screening. Chlamydia is a preventable transmittable disease. One act of unprotected sex with an infected partner can create a 1 per cent risk of acquiring HIV, a 30 per cent risk of genital herpes and a 50 per cent risk of contracting gonorrhoea. I appreciate that the Government are moving into the second phase of the chlamydia screening programme, but we cannot wait—a national rollout is needed now. That is plain common sense. My noble friend Lord Turnberg referred to the relationship between pelvic inflammatory disease and subsequent infertility. Surely it is better to invest now in screening and prevention. It makes good health sense, but also good economic sense.
Poor sexual healthcare costs government and society dearly, so we need more investment in awareness-raising campaigns; a move towards more comprehensive and integrated services; one visit providing contraceptive advice, testing and, as appropriate, support and counselling; and improved PSHE and SRE in our schools to arm our children with the knowledge that will enable them to make informed choices about their sexual behaviour and wellbeing. Above all, we need a brave, innovative and imaginative approach to the whole question of sexual health. Only in that way will we see a dramatic reduction in teenage pregnancy levels and STIs in young people.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for securing this debate on the BMA's report on adolescent health. Although the focus has been on sexually transmitted diseases, sexual health and obesity, the report in fact takes a much more holistic approach, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords.
I shall confine my remarks to findings on Merseyside, and for this I want to thank members of the public health department of my primary care trust, of which I am a non-executive director, on the Wirral.
Her Majesty's Government have invested in the health of our young children, starting at birth and extending to the first three years, particularly in districts of Merseyside in which poverty affects most residents. The Sure Start programme, initiated three years ago, is beginning to show positive outcomes. For example, more single mothers are breastfeeding their babies and, as a result, protecting them from the later effects of becoming obese. They are also learning to feed their young children on health-promoting food, including fresh fruit, which is given out free in schools to those who need it, and vegetables. In addition, nurseries are being provided to give young children a stimulating environment.
The vulnerability of adolescents is obvious, but there seems to be no concerned programme concerned with them. In my experience, on Merseyside, where

731
teenage single mothers represent a significant number of single parents, the problem is even more acute. We know that, through the Sure Start programme, young mothers receive support and health information of benefit to them and their young children. They are encouraged to give up smoking, for the sake of their offspring.
Apart from those indirect interventions and the focus on preventing teenage pregnancy through community services such as those provided by the Brook Advisory Centres, there is little emphasis in the NHS on adolescent health. I suspect that that omission may be based on the assumption that partnerships between local authorities and the NHS focused on teenage pregnancy can prevent sexually transmitted infections. However, the number of pregnancies among teenage women—those under 18—in England and Wales rose by 2.2 per cent in 2002 to nearly 42,000.
In the past 12 to 18 months, some Merseyside primary care trusts have commissioned the Brook Advisory Centres to provide advice on contraception and on sexually transmitted infections to anyone under 25 years of age. That service consists of a walk-in service, where contraception is given out and counselling is given to young women who think that they are pregnant. In addition, there is a genitourinary medicine clinic run for two days a week by trained nurses from the local hospital. It is located in the town centre, and we have collected some good information from it.
In the past 12 months, the service has been used 10,000 times, and we have found two areas of concern. First, the at-risk groups are not just adolescents aged 16 to 19 but include those aged 20 to 25. In the latter group, there has been a steep increase in STIs. Secondly, we have found that alcohol misuse is the main cause of unprotected sex, leading to unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease among 16 to 19 year-olds in Birkenhead.
Other noble Lords have described the evidence of rising infection with gonorrhoea, chlamydia and HIV among teenagers in Britain. In the north-west, the rising infection rate is probably due to the availability of testing in the community, as well as in hospitals. It demonstrates the urgent need for a programme of public health focused on the needs of adolescents. Part of that increase is probably due to better detection. Young men need as much information and support as young women to keep healthy and to reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
We have little evidence on Merseyside of obesity in our teenagers, probably because we do not have a research programme. However, we know from studies of 1999 and 2000 that younger children, particularly those from four to 10, have shown evidence of increased rates of obesity.
It is clear that a programme of adolescent health would have to focus on the dangers of alcohol and binge drinking, unprotected sex, sexually transmitted infections, smoking, the abuse of drugs and healthy
732
eating, as well as exercise and mental health—as my noble friend Lord Patel mentioned—areas identified in the BMA report.
When the Minister replies, will she indicate whether adolescent health will be part of the national service framework for children, particularly in the soon to be published documents?
8.51 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for introducing this short but important debate. I congratulate the BMA on its report, which concerns some of the issues that several of us in your Lordships' House have been worrying about for some time. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, who was not able to be here today, knows this only too well, since as a Minister he has had to try to answer our questions.
The report says that current provision for sexual health services in the UK is woefully inadequate and services targeting the needs of adolescents are almost non-existent. Last Thursday I sat next to a professor of occupational therapy from Australia at the conference dinner of occupational therapy. When I told her that waiting times in Leeds and some other places at GUM clinics could be as long as six weeks if not longer she was horrified. She told me that in Australia it would be more like six hours, if the patient was not seen immediately.
The BMA report recommends immediate treatment of STIs, which can help to identify and treat sexual partners, avoid complications and prevent potential onward transmission. Offering sexual health promotion counselling to individuals newly diagnosed with an STI is also important because of the likelihood of reinfection.
HIV is on the increase. As there is so little publicity about it, the public are unaware of the situation. In England the latest figures indicate an increase of 78 per cent in cases of gonorrhoea since 1997; chlamydia infection has increased by 73 per cent; and syphilis by 374 per cent. The report says that one of the reasons for the current high prevalence of STIs is that most, such as chlamydia and gonorrhoea, may go undiagnosed because the infection is asymptomatic and screening is not widely available.
One piece of good news I heard today is that next year some pharmacists will be carrying out screening and testing for chlamydia, which has become an enormous problem for adolescent girls. Increased use of alcohol, drugs and marijuana at a younger age is related to subsequent risk assessment in sexual activity. Many adolescents can be difficult and will not listen to the advice of doctors, parents and teachers. They prefer to challenge the system. This is so dangerous.
Some months ago, I asked the Government whether STIs should be encompassed in a national service framework. Having read the report, I ask the same question again. Should that difficult and dangerous public health matter not be treated as a priority? I ask the Minister how many people a sexually active adolescent boy could infect if he had gonorrhoea and was not treated for six weeks. So often in healthcare

733
provision, the adolescent falls between children's and adults' services. That vulnerable age-group needs special understanding and provision.
Eating disorders of all sorts can involve deep psychological problems. Obesity can cause all sorts of complex disorders such as diabetes and heart disease, but anorexia can cause death by starvation. I hope that the report will really make the Government sit up and listen, and I hope that PCTs will also take heed of it and realise what is going on all around them. We need a positive response from the Government. We also need some dynamic publicity campaigns aimed at young people, to help to prevent the increasing dilemma of bad habits that endanger the health of our nation.
What concerns me a great deal is the increase of underage drinking. Both boys and girls tend often to drink a mixture of alcohol until they are sick. By the time they reach maturity, they can become ill and liver disease can develop. There has been some skilful advertising by the drinks industry that attracts young people. There are not enough youth clubs with dedicated youth leaders. When there are, they are often vandalised. Computers and the Internet seem to dominate the lives of many adolescents. They become addicted and sit glued to the screen, and do not exercise in a healthy lifestyle. That encourages obesity and a static lifestyle.
Having been a member of a board of visitors of a young offender institution for years, I saw the increase of the problems of drug and alcohol abuse, yet the young people would tell me that leisure centres were too expensive. Can we ever win? I hope that the report will help to overcome that growing conundrum.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, despite the short notice of the debate and the altered timings, I am sure that all noble Lords agree that the debate has been extremely interesting and informative. We have had some very authoritative contributions. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, on seizing the opportunity to have the debate, which is on an extremely important subject.
If we take the combination of the BMA report, Adolescent Health, which makes extremely interesting reading, and the recent World Health Organisation survey on health behaviour in school-aged children, the outlook is rather depressing for the health of Britain's young people. British children are among the unhealthiest and unhappiest in the world, it seems. Sadly, one in five 13 to 16 year-olds can now be classified as obese. According to the WHO survey, adolescents in this country have more underage sex than those in almost any other country surveyed. Even more distressing—the noble Baroness pointed it out, among other matters—the BMA found that 60 per cent of 16 to 24 year-olds admit that they do not use condoms.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, gave a catalogue of all the issues that surround adolescent health in this country. In its report, the BMA calls the downward trend in adolescent health a,
"potential public health time bomb".
734
As we have heard tonight, that is, if anything, an understatement. If the health problems that young people are seeing now, including obesity, drug and alcohol abuse and sexually transmitted infections, are not addressed, young people will destroy their chances for good health later in life.
It is clear that the Department of Health needs to prioritise adolescent health by following the BMA's recommendation of rolling out healthcare services aimed specifically at teenagers. As many noble Lords have pointed out, young people are at risk of falling between the cracks in healthcare and have specific needs; while young children's needs are treated by paediatricians, the needs of adolescents are often not addressed in the current structure of services. If the BMA report has shown one thing, it is that adolescents have many varied health needs and addressing them now, so that they do not turn into lifelong health problems, may require the expansion of services specifically geared towards this age group.
One of the most disturbing findings of the Adolescent Health report is that rates of STIs are exploding among young people—not only adolescents, but younger children and young adults as well. Up to 10 per cent of women between the ages of 16 and 19 in this country may be infected with chlamydia, a disease that, if left untreated, can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, pointed out. Because the disease can be non-symptomatic in women, many of the young people transmitting the disease may not even know that they are infected.
The best methods for tackling adolescent health problems will need to draw both on health services and education resources. Many of the problems experienced by teenagers, from obesity to binge drinking and drug abuse, are having negative impacts on their mental health as well. The mental health aspect is so important. Incorporating programmes that address obesity at school level, from encouraging activity and sport—raised by my noble friend Lord Addington—to providing healthy school lunches can help children and adolescents establish healthy eating habits from the start. There are many successful models of those school-based interventions. As we read in the Health Development Agency's report last year, there are a number of successful models that we can use and we need to ensure that our health and education initiatives are joined up.
The school curriculum needs to include education on healthy food preparation and diet and avoid sending conflicting messages—whether by government or otherwise—by backing what is said and what is done. Currently school meals cost less than prison meals. We must have better nutritional standards in our schools. Physical activity, whether in the form of sport or simply walking to school, needs to become the norm, rather than the exception. I was dismayed to see a report that the Government had decided not to introduce a strict code for vending machines, but were to leave it entirely up to schools to decide whether to have them. That is not a satisfactory situation in our schools.
Likewise, a strong and comprehensive approach to sexual health is also necessary. Britain has the second highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the developed

735
world. Not only chlamydia rates, but the prevalence of syphilis and gonorrhoea has risen sharply in the past five years. It is unreasonable to expect that young teenagers with sexual health issues will be taking time off school and approaching their GPs on their own to discuss sexual health and request screening for STIs. Those types of services need to be made directly accessible to young people and adolescents need to be aware of the services that already exist. Where adult sexual health services are not meeting the needs of adolescents, the NHS should look into how it could implement services designed with that target population in mind.
A well rounded approach that joins up education and health services would improve access to contraceptive services, improve and widen compulsory sex education and prioritise the national chlamydia screening programme, which many of your Lordships are impatient to see rolled out well before 2008. Approaching these issues from a preventive and educational standpoint will not only bring about the best benefits in terms of stopping the adolescent health time bomb, but will also reduce the burden that is bound to fall on the NHS in five or 10 years' time if young people's health is not improved as soon as possible.
Even more critically, we need to ask ourselves how the state of adolescent health reached this crisis. It is becoming more and more apparent that not enough is being done for children in terms of health education and disease prevention, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, pointed out in introducing the debate. The problems of childhood obesity and ill health do not disappear when children become teenagers; indeed, those diseases may be compounded by mental issues, such as depression, low self-esteem and poor self-image. If adolescent health is heading towards an explosion that will test the capacity of health services, it is because the health of children has not been a priority to date in the NHS or in schools. I hope that the Minister will address that problem as well as the services for adolescents.
9.5 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for introducing this important debate. As the day wore on, I tore up page after page of my speech. When I found out about half an hour ago that I would have more time in which to speak, I could not find the pieces that I had torn up, but perhaps that is just as well.
As many noble Lords have already mentioned, obesity is, indeed, a very complex problem with many different factors involved. But one thing stands out with absolute certainty, and that is that we are what we eat and drink and, if we reduce our intake sufficiently, we will certainly lose weight.
Taking enough exercise is an important part of the obesity equation, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned, but regular exercise is to be encouraged more for the benefit of the cardiovascular system and the general morale of the person. In fact, it is perfectly
736
possible to reduce weight by reducing the amount that we eat without necessarily increasing the amount of exercise. I want to make it clear that a sensible and gradual reduction in food intake is quite different from the serious eating disorders, which can be very dangerous indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has already mentioned.
We need to encourage people to enjoy a sensible diet, always including a variety of starchy and fibre-rich foods with five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. That will satisfy our hunger in a way that junk food cannot. Let us take the example of a Big Mac and a large milkshake. That amounts to 1,500 calories, which can be burnt off with exercise but only by walking at a fast rate for four hours, which is hardly feasible for most of us.
The other problem is that, when an obese person reduces the amount that he eats and drinks, he loses weight but his resting metabolic rate also decreases and so he expends less energy. Therefore, someone who was previously obese but manages to get down to a normal weight tends to need fewer calories to maintain that weight than someone who has never been obese. That fact makes it difficult for him to maintain that weight loss by diet alone. Here, exercise is of great help.
When we are talking about obesity, it is important to decide exactly what we are talking about, and the best measure is the body mass index—the BMI. That is the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in metres. Therefore, an 11-stone man is 70 kilograms, that is divided by the square of his height, which we may suppose is six feet, and would equal a body mass index of 21. Healthy people should have a BMI of between 20 and 25, so that is all right. Those with a BMI in the range of 25 to 30 are overweight; those with a BMI above 30 are said to be obese; and those with a BMI over 40 are morbidly obese. For example, someone who is six feet tall and weighs 16 stones is obese, and someone who weighs 21 stones and is six feet tall is morbidly obese.
It is well worth avoiding obesity because it can be lethal. The risks, which have been mentioned, are diabetes, high blood pressure, gallstones, heart disease, osteoarthritis and many kinds of cancer.
It is all very well talking about the need to reduce obesity and the health services that these people need, but the Daily Telegraph today reported that health service obesity centres already have unofficial waiting lists of up to five years and are now closing their lists to new patients due to lack of money. So, clearly support for obese people is sadly lacking in some areas.
As has been mentioned, it is not for the nanny state to be telling people what to eat and how to order their private lives, but I think that government have a duty to send out a clear message. The Secretary of State for Health, John Reid, confused the issue by criticising the middle classes for imposing their anti-smoking agenda on the poor, but he should have known that support

737
for a smoking ban crosses class boundaries. His message to the poor, "Let them smoke cigarettes", is rather reminiscent of Marie Antoinette's, "Let them eat cake" and equally as helpful. A MORI poll conducted for Action on Smoking and Health showed that the majority of the poorest classes and the majority of the wealthiest classes supported a ban on smoking in the workplace.
As to sexual health, I was especially pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, mentioned abstinence. The late Baroness Young, who was so respected throughout this House and throughout the country, suggested once at Question Time that the Government might consider pointing out that one way to enhance sexual health was to give a complete picture and also recommend abstinence as well as other precautions. The Minister of Health at the time replied that abstinence does not work. If he really believed that, as someone said at the time, perhaps he needed a tutorial on the facts of life. If, on the other hand, he meant that it had already been tried by some governments and failed, it would be interesting to know which governments he was referring to.
I should declare an interest in that I am involved with a hospice caring for people dying of AIDS in Uganda. There I saw at first hand President Museveni and his campaign of Abstinence, Be Faithful in Marriage and Condoms covering the whole scene. Thai has worked extraordinarily well and in terms of AIDS has brought down the incidence from 31 per cent to 7 per cent in pregnant women. That is very reliable data.
On another occasion when the same suggestion of abstinence was made, another Minister of Health in this House but not the present one—she would never say anything like this—said that it was only the elderly who recommended abstinence. Again, that is not true. It is the young in Uganda who have adopted this successful policy. Many young people in the western world are doing the same. Should government policy really be dictated by the personal preference of Ministers?
The Government have an obligation to publish all the facts about obesity and sexual health and an obligation to avoid too much political correctness.
9.14 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, on her sheer optimism in managing to secure the debate. This has been a good debate. I always listen with great care to doctors who speak in this House and we seem to have a high proportion of them tonight. We have ranged far and wide over the BMA report in very interesting ways, from the examples on Merseyside given by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, to the calculation of the BMI, the mystery of which was finally unravelled by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for which I am grateful.
We are very grateful indeed to the BMA for this excellent report. It is coherent, wide in scope, very sharp in its focus and brings together a completely
738
integrated account of what it is that young adolescents face and the issues that the policy should address. It is unique in addressing adolescents.
This evening I shall try to answer as many specific questions as possible, but I want to address the scenes the BMA put and I hope to illustrate how the Government share those basic priorities and how we are trying to address them. What is interesting about the debate is its timeliness. Many noble Lords have made powerful references to the very wide range of work in progress—the choosing health consultation due to finish soon and which will anticipate the White Paper on public health; the Food Standards Agency's work on food choices and obesity across the whole range; and the national service framework for children. These are all in progress, will come this year and will address many of the issues that we have spoken of this evening in very powerful ways. We look forward very much to that.
In this ferment of activity we have to keep our eye on adolescents because there is absolutely no doubt that they are at risk in different ways, such as when they are ignorant; when, as often, their aspirations for their own futures are very low; when their families are not supportive and when peer pressure is irresistible; and when they cannot get the services they need and fall through the gaps and cannot get the support. They do not know who or how to ask for the help they need.
At the same time, as noble Lords have pointed out, they are growing in independence and in autonomy; they are faced with potential for experiment, more likely to be influenced by their peer group and they are less susceptible to conventional messages. Many are not reached through school messages. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the central importance of schools in all this. We have to look outside the school and also at the context in which they are living their lives.
For these young people risks come not singly but in multiples. That is precisely the nature of the complication we seek to address. The BMA, with which we very much see ourselves as partners, has set out in the report a whole series of scenes of broad general points in relation to adolescent health: the need for early intervention and prevention; the need to target the most vulnerable; the need for coherent and integrated services; the need for consistent and intelligent messages; and, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the need for working on the transitional points, so that they do not fall in the gap between children and adult services. I would say that we also need to put that into the context of reducing inequalities.
Perhaps I may start with prevention and early intervention. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, made a particular point of that. The point is that, as my noble friend Lady Massey said, if we are going to effect lifestyle changes—and we know how difficult it is to get adolescents to listen, let alone change—we have to start as early as possible. That is self-evident. It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Chan, say that some of the evidence of Sure Start is now showing how effectively it is working.

739
Sure Start is a flagship policy, but we begin with the reform of welfare foods, which this time last year we were debating in this House as part of the Bill dealing with the health service, so that mothers can choose not simply milk but from a wide range of goods.
I turn to what we are doing with schools. The food in schools programme may look modest, but it is a radical attempt to get to the heart of what children are choosing in school. That is where we are trying to enable them to change their habits of drinking fizzy drinks and to drink water from vending machines, have healthier tuck shops and more breakfast clubs so that they start the day in a healthier way.
Alongside that we are raising their programme of activity. I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the information he sought, although he gave me prior warning. He also warned me that I would not be able to answer it. He was quite right. So I have to resort to saying that we are spending £581 million on refurbishing sports facilities. Irrespective of the relationship between weight loss and activity, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, would agree that activity, as he said, is a very good thing. One of the problems that we have in the context of obesity is getting young women to take part in sport. It is a big challenge to wean the sports culture off team sports onto the sorts of activities that young women will choose, be that dance or aerobics. We must be much more intelligent about that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, addressed the issue of schools directly in her criticism of the failures of past programmes of sexual health education. I have some sympathy with what she was saying. We must look at better ways of getting messages across. The business about language is essential. I shall come on to it a little later. In order to deliver messages about safer sex, we must be where those young people are, for example, using radio adverts and website information about STIs that tie in with the ever-popular Euro 2004 tournament. I thought that this might be a football-free zone this evening, but I am afraid that it is not. That is a good example of the way in which we can begin to target our messages.
Another thing that was positive in what the noble Baroness said is that we are developing a much better professional development programme, both for teachers and nurses. We are developing new certification programmes to help them to develop sex and relationships education and contribute to school programmes in different ways. That is an important step forward, as is the new Ofsted inspection system, which will really begin to drive that improvement. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, made some interesting suggestions about the importance of informal peer groups and what they can achieve in schools. He is right, and we have seen some positive outcomes from initiatives such as anti-bullying programmes, which are aimed at and delivered by adolescents.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, addressed the question of mental health. Just in this one instance, I hope that I may use an illustration to answer the points that he raised. The early intervention teams, which are now
740
being developed by the NSF, and which will pick up on earlier symptoms of psychosis will, with the follow-through with the young people and their parents, be an important step forward. We are putting child and adolescent mental health services on the map for the first time. We have a long way to go, but this is an important start. The NSF will include mental health standards and objectives.
The second thing that I want to say in relation to the BMA report is that we are targeting vulnerable groups. Complaints have been raised by noble Lords about the sexual health services. Yes, we have a long way to go, but we are trying. In relation to GUM services, for example, we are spending £41 million on refurbishment of centres. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, we are trying to develop a 40-hour waiting time indicator, so that patients do not have to wait those very long times. Through the teenage pregnancy strategy, we are looking at a significant improvement. There has been a 10 per cent drop in teenage pregnancy since 1998. Because of the indicators that show that young women from social class 5 are 10 times more likely to become teenage mothers than those from social class 1, in the teenage pregnancy strategy we are concentrating our resources and initiatives on those areas where we can achieve the greatest reduction; those high rate areas. That is an extremely sensible thing to do.
The third area in which the BMA concentrated its argument was that services must be fully integrated and multi-professional. For the first time, we are trying to bring together, across these broad sections of policies, proper strategies that are evidence-based but have a long-term outcome. For the first time, and uniquely in Europe, we have a sexual health strategy. Indeed, if we are going to achieve the difference that we want, it will not simply be down to the sexual health strategy. The best contraception would be high achievement and high aspiration in schools. So we must be conscious of the fact that all these strategies lock together.
Noble Lords spent a great deal of time this evening talking about the explosion in sexually transmitted diseases. I do not want to reiterate anything that they have said, except to say to my noble friend that we are taking the epidemic of chlamydia extremely seriously. It is preventable and it is treatable. The chlamydia screening programme is focused on those aged under 25. We are implementing a national screening programme within the standardised framework which includes education, testing, diagnosis and treatment. Phase two was announced in January this year and a quarter of PCTs are now covered. By the end of the year, in phase three, a third of all PCTs will be covered.
Noble Lords may say that this is slow progress—there are many who wish we could go faster—but we are still on target to reach a national roll-out by 2008–09, which is earlier than we thought. We will keep up the pressure in this area.

741
Let me say another word about integration and give other examples of what we are aiming for in integrated policies. In relation to obesity, we are awaiting the Food Standards Agency review on food promotion to children which will address many of the issues across a wide front. We are already working with industry to reduce salt levels and so on.
As to the right messages, the vocabulary must not be one of blame or nagging; that would not work. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Gould, referred to a failure to hear and a failure to listen. How can we reach these young people? All I can say is that we are trying very hard through programmes such as the teenage pregnancy national marketing campaign, the sex lottery campaign and the sex wise campaigns. We are using all the new technology and all the new ways of reaching young people that we can think of. We shall go on doing so. Eventually we will be judged by the success of this long-running campaign. We can combine it within the context of the other, more general, attempts that we are making across policies.
My noble friend Lady Massey asked me only one question, which I must try to answer. She referred to the research into adolescent health and I should like to say a few words about that. First, the teenage pregnancy research programme, which is now in progress, has five elements of research built into it.
742
Secondly, the White Paper on choosing health may itself throw up some very interesting lines of research which we would want to follow up. Thirdly, the National Service Framework for Children is looking at underpinning evidence across a very wide range of policies. I agree that competent and trained professionals are the key to practically everything.
I am conscious that I am two minutes over time and that I have not answered some of the specific questions that have been raised. I should say in conclusion that it is all coming together, not only in the National Service Framework for Children—which will have a very heavy emphasis on other lessons and provide standards to aim for—but in the choosing health consultation, where we are looking very seriously at an agenda which is being driven by what people say they want and can manage. In practical terms, we already have bodies such as the children's trusts which are integrating services.
I am grateful for the debate, which was absolutely excellent. The key to much of what we want to achieve can be obtained only in partnership with young people themselves and by listening to what they say. I hope very much that we will get cleverer at that. My noble friend Lady Massey said that it must be easier to choose to live a healthier life. I entirely agree. That, of course, is our aim.
House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Employment Relations Bill
(Third day)
Tuesday, 15 June 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
"RIGHT TO ORGANISE AND BE HEARD: INFORMATION FOR WORKERS
(1) This section applies to a workplace where the employer does not recognise an independent trade union in respect of a relevant worker.
(2) A "relevant worker" means a worker employed wholly or mainly at the workplace who is eligible to become a member of such a trade union under its rules.
(3) Where a relevant worker informs the union in writing that he wishes to receive information concerning trade union services, the union shall notify the employer of that fact and invite the employer to make available opportunities at an appropriate time to provide the worker with information at the workplace concerning those services.
(4) Thereafter the employer shall as far as reasonably practicable provide such opportunities to the union."
The noble Lord said: I hope that we can agree to take Amendments Nos. 53 to 56 together because they relate to one another. Indeed, if we had thought further we would have rolled them all up into one giant amendment. However, I hope that they make some kind of consistent whole.
We are trying to promote what we call the "right to organise and be heard". The four amendments taken together create a situation in which a worker in an unrecognised establishment—the amendments deal essentially with unrecognised union places—approaches a suitable union and asks for information about that union. He or she is interested in the possibility of joining the union and wants to know more about it. At that point, nothing happens with regard to the employer—the business is between the union and the potential member. But we are suggesting that if the union asks the employer for a certain elementary assistance and to provide certain opportunities, the employer should be under a legal responsibility to do so.
The amendment does not specify precisely what the form of this assistance should be. It is the sort of thing that governments always tell us they put in regulations, which is fair enough. But it would take the form of arrangements for meetings and documents that the union might give to the employer and which the employer might circulate to the interested worker or
GC 130
workers. There might be access to a website, and so on. The employer would be assisting in a very elementary and minimal way in the right of the worker to organise and to hear what the union has to offer. That is why we call it the right to organise and be heard.
If we have such a provision, there must be certain sanctions in case the employer takes no notice or the worker gets no response. We have a minimal elementary provision for complaints, which could be taken before an industrial tribunal. In order to fill out what that might involve beyond the bare bones of regulations, we are saying that there should be a code of practice.
Why should one propose such a measure at this moment? What would be the case? There are several reasons for doing so. First, it appears to us to be a logical development of the Government's commitment to what is in effect the recognition procedure. The Government established a recognition procedure in the 1999 Act which represents on their part a limited and balanced commitment—as we have said frequently in previous debates on this Bill—and an agreed commitment to encourage trade union recognition and development.
There are some 1.5 million members of trade unions in unrecognised places of work, the great majority of which are in the private sector. They work in firms where not only are their unions not recognised but there is also no trade union recognition. It is extremely implausible to suggest that from a position of no representation, knowledge, information, facilities or anything else, we could expect trade unionism spontaneously to develop. If one is committed to recognising the validity and utility of trade union organisation, there should be something before that recognition procedure—as a curtain-raiser or a preface.
There is a great deal in international conventions, the European social charter and so on, which we have cited many times, about the right to organise and to resist employers who seek to prevent that right. However, there is very little, certainly in domestic legislation, about the positive aids towards the right to organise. In a non-union environment, the right to organise is weak, so there is a logic to the commitment.
There is a contemporary parallel. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury will remember our many debates on the Employment Act 2002 about whether the Government were doing all they could; whether they should do more to provide forms of dispute resolution outside the system established by law; whether they should make more use of the provisions of the Advisory, Arbitration and Conciliation Service; and whether they should in some way restrict access to tribunals. In the end, the Government agreed that they ought to provide some sort of domestic procedure. We said at the time that that would be extremely difficult, and so it has turned out to be. After all this time we still do not have the regulations because they are still in draft. It is very difficult to get agreement between the two sides on them.
Nevertheless, some agreement has been achieved. As I understand it, when it is effective, the domestic procedure will, to some extent, prevent immediate

GC 131
access to the tribunal, and will have within it a collective aspect. Obviously, we cannot have an agreements procedure that discourages applications to the tribunal if it is entirely individualistic; it needs a collective aspect that encourages workers to use the procedures available.
The logic of that requires something to be done for trade unions, or something to encourage individual workers. If there is a right to organise, there should be a right to information and assistance, however moderate. That is the idea behind the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The Bill is largely about union recognition and how it may be achieved. As we have said on numerous occasions, although we have reservations about some provisions of the Bill, broadly speaking my noble friend and I are in favour of it. However, there is the matter of union access to non-members which we discussed under the provisions for a suitable independent person earlier in the Bill. That provision is intended for situations where a recognition claim is about to be made. In other words, the union is already able to claim recognition because it has membership on the employer's staff for whom it wants the right to bargain collectively.
The access amendment proposed is designed to facilitate union organisation. As a former union organiser, I make no apology for that. It does so by setting out what should be done and enshrining that in a legal framework. I think that that is reasonable and sensible. The Government are a signatory to the International Labour Organisation conventions about the right to organise and bargain collectively. Our amendment sets out what may or may not be done where recognition has not been achieved but where some employees feel that they would like to belong to a union and learn more about union facilities. I hope that my noble friend will regard the amendment as a helpful addition to the Bill, because it is meant to be so.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Although I am certain that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness think that the amendment will be a helpful addition to the Bill, I do not agree. In general terms, the amendments do not support good industrial relations because they place one-sided obligations on the employer. I cannot imagine why employees could not get the information they want. I feel that these amendments will add to the burden of the work before it gets to tribunal.
I note that Amendment No. 56 is included in the grouping. I would not say that I do not agree with it in the same way as I do not agree with the other three amendments in this group. We have tabled a similar amendment but it refers to a code of practice to the CAC and not to ACAS. I think it would be a good idea to have such a provision.
Lord Triesman: This group of amendments creates new rights and obligations in respect of workers who are not currently covered by a recognition agreement with an independent union. They are genuinely ambitious amendments and cover a major piece of
GC 132
territory. Not surprisingly, there are some difficulties in the legal drafting of such broad provisions. For example, Amendment No. 55 gives no indication of the remedies the tribunal might apply where it finds that a complaint is well-founded. I could point to one or two other technical drafting points, but I do not think that that would be helpful. Rather, I would like to discuss the policy rationale underpinning the new right to organise that the amendments seek to introduce.
The new right to organise and the duty that it imposes on employers—and it is just a duty on employers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out—are set out in Amendment No. 53. The terms used in that amendment are defined in Amendment No. 54, which also specifies some supplementary provisions. So I will address my remarks mainly to those two amendments, as they are the hub of the matter.
Amendment No. 53 obliges employers to provide opportunities for a union to give information to workers who send written requests to the union for information about its services. Those opportunities must be provided at the workplace of the worker. Amendment No. 54 specifies certain types of access that are included within the definition of an opportunity. Among these are the holding of on-site meetings between the union and the worker or workers involved, together with the dissemination of union literature to those individuals.
It follows that the whole process starts with the worker approaching the union through a written communication. Everyone who has been engaged in organising will recognise that that is, in general, how it starts. If so, surely the union and the worker have established contact already and do not need to use the employer's premises or facilities to develop their immediate dialogue. The union simply needs to write back to the worker at his or her address, or meet the worker outside the workplace to provide the necessary information on the union's services. There is no practical reason why this process should involve the employer at all, impose costs on him or disrupt his business through workplace meetings.
I should add at this point that the holding of workplace meetings will be virtually impossible to organise in accordance with these amendments. Subsection (2) of the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 54 states that the union shall not inform the employer of the identity of the workers involved. How, then, can the employer facilitate the meeting when he is expressly denied information about the people who will attend?
There are extensive rights to union membership in this country, which are being strengthened by the Bill. These rights ensure that individual union members can use the services of their union at an appropriate time and cannot be penalised for so doing. However, there is no obligation under international law for such worker and union dealings actually to take place on the employer's premises. That extrapolates further than any current international law provides.

GC 133
In response to my noble friend Lord McCarthy, I do believe that it follows that there is no ability for union members to access union services where the union is not recognised because we already have a right to be accompanied at a grievance or disciplinary hearing by a union official. That is an existing arrangement and it applies whether or not the union is recognised. There are already key advantages in place.
3.45 p.m.
However, I do not believe that the amendments are about passing information on the union to interested workers; rather—and I understand exactly why—they seek to establish for unions broader access rights to workplaces where they are not currently recognised, to enable them to obtain recognition. Such rights go far beyond those already established by law. As I have said, such access could well involve a number of obligations on the employer. More important still, the access rights would apply across a wide range of circumstances, taking little account of the prevailing state of industrial relations at any given workplace. They also make no allowance for the existence of the statutory recognition procedure, which contains specific access entitlements.
Let me try to illustrate the mischief that might be caused. Let us assume for a moment, not that there is simply one union trying to get access or to achieve recognition, but that there are two competing unions, unions A and B, vying for recognition. Union A makes an application for statutory recognition, which is acceptable as admissible by the CAC. We now enter the sensitive phase in the recognition process. However, under the proposals made by my noble friends, union B could easily access the workplace at this time, presenting its advantages, competing and undermining union A's bid to the CAC. My noble friends, who have a wealth of industrial relations experience, will understand how disruptive that would be for union A, which will potentially have done a huge amount of work to try to secure recognition. I fear that inter-union rivalries do take place. They would be transferred directly on to the shop floor in those circumstances and as a result Union A's bid for recognition would be weakened, potentially fatally.
The example that I have given, without naming unions but calling them unions A and B, is not entirely fanciful. I suspect that all organisers will have come across precisely the sorts of examples where that kind of competition can be disruptive exactly as I have described. I fear that I have one or two painful memories of such occasions.
I, and probably all Members of the Committee, will know how difficult it can be for a union to organise any group of workers. It is a long slog and can be very painstaking, even when the union is already recognised, let alone when it is trying to get recognition. It is therefore important for unions to develop new techniques of effective organisation, which they have done. The TUC's organising academy was a major innovation that had a great impact on many unions. It is precisely the sort of innovation that
GC 134
I am trying to describe. I sympathise with my noble friend's wish to make life easier, but one way or another, I do not think that it would allow us to avoid the difficult slog.
This legislative route is not the right way to proceed. For the reasons I have outlined, I believe that it is flawed. In that light, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: We have had a very interesting debate, to which I shall try to respond briefly.
I am glad that the noble Baroness says—I must be careful to get her words right—that she is against the amendment because she does not think that trade unions assist industrial relations, and she thinks that they are one-sided. I tried to elicit an answer from her about that. Those who share her view of not wanting to assist trade unions because they are one-sided and do not improve industrial relations should tell us what they feel about the present legislation. If they are logical, they ought to come along and say, not that they are trying to make the legislation work, but that they are committed to abolishing it, if they ever returned to power.
That does not help those of us who think that trade unions are a good thing and want to encourage them. We believe that trade unions can help industrial relations, because they help employers to know what workers think. Without representative institutions, however strongly employers may think they know what their workers think, they do not. We think that when employers find out what their workers think it is easier, better and not so difficult to find agreed ways forward. But the noble Baroness thinks that trade unions get in the way of that process, so we would not expect her to accept or encourage a proposal of this kind.
However, I would have thought that the Minister would be rather different. After all, he has been a trade union official and, presumably, he thought that he was doing good in that role. He has said a rather mixed bag of things about our amendment. He said that it is genuinely ambitious, but in the way that someone might be ambitious to fly by jumping off a mountain, because it will not work.
I agree with some of his criticisms. It is true that we do not specify how it would work in detail. That is a matter for the regulations or, if necessary, a code of practice. As regards compensation, the industrial tribunals are able—I have done it many times—to make declarations of what the law is. Many times, if they do not get involved in dismissals or anything of that kind, they are able to award compensation to individuals who are denied their legal rights. That might be a way forward. It is not the critical element. A solution could be found to all the things that we have mentioned.
Essentially, we are saying that there ought to be something before the formal recognition process. That is my answer to the Minister's question about whether there would be difficulties because a union might be using the recognition procedure. Of course, if someone

GC 135
was using the recognition procedure in a particular firm, one would not expect those things to apply. One would not expect the kind of assistance that would result in the types of disputes to which he referred, which occur already without such legislation. Again, I do not think that that is a critical matter.
The Minister said that this would not help. He knows as well as I do that in the union that we share—the AUT—in Oxford, for example, we do not have recognition. I declare my interest as president of that branch. We do not have formal recognition, but we hope to get it. We have a kind of benign acceptance. We have facilities. If we had a legal basis to extend those facilities, we would be in a stronger position and closer to full recognition than we are today. It is for practical reasons of that kind that I have brought forward this amendment. But we shall not get anywhere today, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 54 to 56 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Inducements relating to union membership or activities]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 27, line 20, leave out "sole or main"
The noble Lord said: We turn now to the whole question of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the effect of the Wilson judgment, which I am afraid may take up quite a bit of our time today. Amendments Nos. 57, 59, 64, 65 and 66 have the effect of taking out the phrase "sole or main" at various places; I hope that we have found them all. The phrase appears twice more in Amendments Nos. 88 and 89, which we shall take subsequently because there is a rather different argument.
We want to delete the words "sole or main" throughout the Bill, which would therefore read:
"A worker has the right not to have an offer made to him by his employer for the"
purpose—not the sole or main purpose—of inducing him to leave or not become a member of the union. We do that for a number of reasons; this is an old, established problem.
As I said at Second Reading, employers have reacted in three main ways to the growth of trade unionism. Some employers have encouraged or not resisted it. But some have reacted in an extraordinarily—we would say nowadays—tough way by dismissing people who join trade unions or are found to be active in trade unions. But a lot of employers, not only in the 19th century, most certainly during the 1970s and 1980s, and even today, fell somewhere in between. They did not want to encourage trade unions, but they did not want to react automatically against their employees who joined trade unions. So they tried various devices, including threats, inducements and bribes. These were accepted among employers—indeed, many employers would accept them today—as a way of dealing with the presence of trade unionism in the firm.
In 1975, in effect for the first time, the then Labour government tried to limit and regulate that behaviour with Sections 53 and 54 of the 1975 Act. They made it actionable to prevent or deter people from belonging to or being active in a trade union. It did not cure the behaviour because it is incurable, but it can be dealt with and limited. On the whole it worked and seemed to satisfy trade unions until the famous case where the EAT took a decision which the Court of Appeal then reversed. In 1993, in this House, we came to the Ullswater amendment, which reversed the practical effect of the 1975 provisions.
Naturally, since the amendment was introduced by a Conservative government, it was not possible to do anything about it until there was a change of government. But even in 1999, when there had been a change and the trade unions asked for something similar to a reserve to the 1975 position, nothing effective was done. Perhaps nothing effective would have been done, but in 2002 the European Court of Human Rights declared in the famous Wilson judgment, which forms the basis of our argument today, that the existing law was a breach of Article 11. We maintain that any sensible person, on reading the judgment, has to say that our amendment is one way—only one—in which British legislation can be brought into conformity with the decision of the court.
We shall deal with some of the other ways to achieve that in later amendments, but removing the words "sole or main" is clearly necessary if the limits laid down in the judgment are to be met. Moreover, if "sole or main" remains, the Act will be unenforceable. Nothing in the judgment mentions "sole or main"; it is a term of art created by the Government. The judgment talked about the "purpose", saying that if the purpose was to discourage trade union membership, that would contravene Article 11. The Government invented the phrase "sole or main" and the practical effect of keeping it in the Bill would be to make the Act unenforceable.
All the employer needs to do is to argue something very similar to the defence introduced by the Ullswater amendment. He can say that he had a mixed motive. He can argue that it was not his only aim to discourage trade union membership when he promoted someone to an area where there was no trade union recognition; he can say that he had all kinds of aims. Any employer could deliver a rash of objectives, including making people work better, the introduction of incentive schemes and, as I said on the last occasion, improved washrooms. Anything could be the objective, but it just so happens that if you are not a member of a trade union you get the benefits, but if you are you do not. The defence will remain. Only when the words "sole or main" are removed, thus ensuring that the strict terms laid down by the court are met, can we hope to enforce the Act.
I shall quote from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We hope that the committee supports us. But it is supporting us in a rather wishy-washy way.
4 p.m.
In the third progress report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published on 15 March, the committee said that it had doubts whether the current provisions meet the convention requirements. It looked at that stage as though the Joint Committee was not going to support us on "sole or main". However, in its fourth progress report, on 6 April—after listening to arguments and letters from Mr Hendy, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and other sources—the committee went so far as to say that it would be best to omit "sole or main" as that would really come into conformity with the judgment. It suggested that the point could not be made clear without the omission of "sole or main".
The committee had nothing to say on the point in its 13th report, on 5 May. However, in its most recent report, on 4 June, it said:
"We recommend that the effect of the provision in practice should be kept under review"—
although it does not give any real reason for that—
"and that amending legislation should be introduced as a matter of urgency if the practice of tribunals turns out not to protect the Article 11 right to collective bargaining in a reliable way".
I suggest, with respect to the Government, that that is not a satisfactory solution. Unless the Government are prepared to come out of the closet, as they were urged to do by the Joint Committee in its report, and accept this amendment, then sooner or later they will get into a situation in which tribunals do not protect Article 11 rights. For practical purposes the Bill's provisions are no different from those of the Ullswater amendment. That is what has happened. This is therefore an opportunity for the Government to do something simple and straightforward to settle the issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: This is an important aspect of the Bill, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy indicated. He has referred, of course, to the 13th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has considered the matter again in the light of the information and the opinion that it had from the Government on their original opinion, which, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy indicated, was against including "sole or main" in the Bill at all and substituting for it simply "a purpose". The DTI, I understand, refuses to accept that a case can fall within Article 11 where,
"the purpose of the employer is in fact to retain or reward valuable staff"—
even though—
"one of the results, if the employer's offer is accepted, may be that particular terms of the workers will cease to be determined by collective agreement".
It is surely clear, however, that even the purpose of rewarding valuable staff could and may well be accompanied by an equal or less immediate purpose of weaning staff away from union representation. Indeed, there may be employers who would judge employees to be specially valuable staff not only because they were valuable in their job performance
GC 138
but also because they were willing to move to individualised contracts and abstain from any association with unions.
However, I think that the department has already accepted that this is a difficult issue, as indeed has the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Although it has come some way to meeting the Government's case, it has nevertheless, as my noble friend said, recommended that,
"the provision in practice should be kept under review and … amending legislation should be introduced as a matter of urgency if the practice of tribunals turns out not to protect the Article 11 right to collective bargaining in a reliable way".
It seems to me that in circumstances in which there is such a concern about whether the right wording has been found, it is much better to be on the safe side and simply have "a purpose" rather than "sole or main", as was first indicated in the report of the Joint Committee. That is what we had in mind when we drafted our amendments. We still hold to the view that we held then.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that if he intends to comment on my remarks about his amendments, he should do so accurately. I certainly do not wish to have a repeat of what we had last time.
Lord McCarthy: Sorry; I did not hear that.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I said that if the noble Lord wishes to comment on my comments, he should not misquote me. I certainly did not say that in general terms the trades unions do not add to industrial relations. The line that I actually wrote was that, "the amendments do not". That is a completely different meaning. I said that they were one-sided, which is what the Minister said when he responded. As we are at the very beginning of the sitting, I thought I should point out that it would be better if we did not go down those routes.
The five amendments in this group, proposed by noble Lords opposite, seek to leave out the words "sole or main" from the clauses where the employer is giving inducements to the employee in relation to collective bargaining. The effect of the amendments could be that if a wholly minor reason of the employer, however peripheral, were present, then adverse consequences could arise. The impracticality of this, that any fancied "side effect" could trigger those consequences, while the onus of proving that the thought never entered his mind, would have to be a burden that the employer would have to dispute. I believe that the Government are quite right to insist that it should be the "sole or main" reason.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): There are five amendments in this group. I believe that the key amendments are Amendments Nos. 57 and 59, which change the effect of the new rights within new Sections 145A and 145B of the 1992 Act. The other amendments—Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 66—are consequential. I shall therefore focus

GC 139
my remarks on Amendments Nos. 57 and 59, but, in passing, I might add that I think that other consequential changes to new Section 145D are needed to achieve my noble friends' objectives.
New Sections 145A and 145B create rights for workers not to be made offers by their employers where such offers are made for prohibited purposes. Those prohibited purposes concern the inducement of workers to relinquish aspects of the right to associate freely in trade unions. As we are all aware, the offering of such inducements was central to the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in the Wilson and Palmer case, and its finding that our trade union law was incompatible with Article 11 of the European convention.
It follows that the "purpose" or "purposes" of the employer's actions in offering inducements play a key role in the construction of these new rights. These amendments therefore focus on this core element of the protections.
Employment relations are often complex. We recognise, therefore, that the offering of inducements might well be driven by a mix of different motives. In other words, there might be cases where the employer wishes to achieve several purposes when making offers. Some of those purposes might be perfectly proper and meet necessary business needs. Others might constitute a prohibited purpose.
We believe we need to cater for such complexities within the new rights; otherwise we risk establishing a very rigid arrangement which might unnecessarily and harmfully constrain business activity. For example, we do not want to stop employers making offers to retain key staff. Our policy objective is to provide some scope for employers lawfully to offer an inducement where their main purpose in offering that inducement was not one of the prohibited purposes as defined by new Sections 145A and 145B. To achieve that aim, we inserted the words "sole or main purpose" within the definition of rights. It means that an offer is unlawful only where the employer's sole or main purpose in making it was one of the prohibited purposes.
Amendments Nos. 57 and 59 delete the words "sole or main". Their intention is to ensure that an offer is unlawful in cases where a subsidiary purpose—possibly a very minor one—was a prohibited purpose. As I have explained, we believe that that is too restrictive.
The law on human rights is complicated, and its application to trade union law, which is itself complicated, often raises difficult issues on which reasonable people can take different views.
However, we believe that we are complying with the European Convention on Human Rights in constructing the rights in this way. I dare say that my noble friends take a different view, but, as they will know, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has looked at this particular problem and has received evidence on the matter from various sources, including
GC 140
the DTI and my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. In this matter, the final view of the JCHR accepts that there is a case for retaining the "sole or main" test.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy believes those rights to be unenforceable. I do not pretend that that is an easy matter on which to make a decision. However, tribunals are experts and accustomed to assessing such issues when presented with the arguments from each side. They do so regularly in unfair dismissal cases when assessing the principal reason for a dismissal.
We have also made provision within new Section 145D to make their task more manageable. It places the onus on the employer to show his sole or main purpose. It also sets out matters that the tribunal should take into account in determining the employer's sole or main purpose under Section 145B. That represents a helpful steer to the tribunals when assessing the matter.
It is also interesting to note that Section 152 of the 1992 Act dealing with dismissal on comparable ground applies where the reason—or if there is more than one, the principal reason—is the offending one. We are bringing Section 146 into line with that. No one has claimed, nor could they claim, that Section 152 is unenforceable or ineffective.
My noble friends clearly take the view that under their amendment an employer will be caught if he has a subsidiary purpose to achieve what new Section 145B calls "the prohibited result". We doubt that: it is our view that the expression "the purpose" already requires the tribunal to consider the predominant purpose of the employer. I think that we can all accept that an employer may have a mix of purposes: I find it difficult to imagine how a tribunal could identify "the purpose" in such a case without looking at the predominant purpose rather than minor and subsidiary purposes. However, that is certainly not as clear as it should be in the legislation. This lack of clarity is another sound reason for altering the formulation to "sole or main purpose" as we have proposed.
We note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has asked the Government to keep the practical operation of this test under review when it is applied by the tribunals. I can reassure both the JCHR and your Lordships that the Government will certainly do that. We know that those new rights represent a significant development in trade union law. It would therefore be normal practice for us to keep such provisions under scrutiny and to look at the cases that arise. In the light of those remarks, I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I should to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that I am sorry that she thinks I have misquoted her again. I do not intend to misquote her. I must be very careful if I quote her ever again because I do not seem to be able to understand precisely what she is saying. No doubt that is my fault.
I turn now to the Minister. Can he cite any part of the judgment that leads to the particular form of words on which the Government have decided? It is not the

GC 141
same as the principal reason, although the principal reason gives enough problems to tribunals. Goodness gracious me, it does. I suppose that it would not be quite so bad if it was the principal reason, but it is the inclusion of the word "sole" and not just the word "main". Figures cannot be put on this, but for anyone considering a case of this kind, unless the element of discriminating against trade unions is insignificant—say, 1 or 2 per cent of the motivation of the employer—how on earth is the poor tribunal supposed to know that? I do not know.
Probably, the more examples that the employer can load in in order to show that he has got mixed motives, then the less chance there is that anything will be done by a tribunal. This is not like sex or race discrimination because most of the reasons that employers give to defend themselves against those types of discrimination do not stand up. They are not plausible in the context. That is why it is possible, after a great deal of examination and difficulty, to find cases of sex discrimination and race discrimination. But here the employer is loading the case against the union with a series of plausible motivations, which are likely to stand up in 99 per cent of cases. So it is not the same. I am not suggesting that we put this down as an amendment at Report, but it would be better if the Government had said "principle". I think that "sole or main" is significantly worse. The Government have never explained where this strange quotation came from and I would like to know.
My other point concerns the idea of review. The Committee has suggested that if a number of cases go against the trade unions the Government will review as an act of urgency. The Government say that they review everything and that life is a continuous review. But if these situations arise and they are brought to the Government's attention, although it cannot be proved in a tribunal that the employer's predominant purpose was to discriminate against or discourage the union, it will be well known that that is the case. If the Government decide to act, surely the only thing that they can do so far as "sole or main purpose" is concerned, is to adopt the essence of this amendment. So will the Government tell us today that, if we turn out to be right, they will accept that the only alternative is to accept an amendment of this kind? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 28, line 8, leave out "which is recognised by his employer"
The noble Baroness said: The object of Amendment No. 58 is to make this section of the Bill applicable also to members of unrecognised independent trade unions. The Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that the proposed section should apply to unrecognised trade unions as well as to recognised ones. The European Court of Human Rights made it clear that rights under Article 11 should apply whether or not a union is recognised.
I understand that the Government do not accept this recommendation on the grounds that, in Wilson and Palmer—which the clause was introduced to deal with—the employer was seeking to induce trade union members to give up their existing rights to have their terms and conditions determined by collective agreement with a recognised union. In other words, the employer was seeking to change the status quo and was using inducements directed at union members to try to bring it about.
The Government say that the situation where a union is seeking recognition is different in that the union is seeking to change the status quo so that the terms and conditions of its members will be determined by collective agreement. It does not seem to me that that is an adequate reason for rejecting the Joint Committee's recommendation. This Bill is about trade union recognition. In a situation where a union is seeking recognition, it is perhaps even more important that the type of protection afforded by these new clauses should be made available to members of unrecognised unions.
Unless the rights of members of unrecognised unions are included in this section of the Bill, an employer hostile to union organisation would have a clear run to offer inducements and preferment and to threaten unpleasant consequences before a union had the opportunity to get its campaign for recognition off the ground.
I hope that, on reflection, the Government will agree that the Joint Committee's recommendation should be accepted. I notice that at section 2.26 on page 42 of the latest report—it is the sixth progress report and thirteenth report of Session—the committee looks at the considerations that the Government have advanced against the idea of extending this section to unrecognised unions. It states:
"We recognise the force of this last consideration, but we doubt that the availability of a procedure for obtaining recognition can be said to provide adequate protection for a violation of the rights of a non-recognised union, at least in the short term. We draw this matter to the attention of each House".
In other words, it is also attempting to deal with the Government's argument that, as far as unrecognised unions are concerned, there is a procedure in the Bill whereby recognition can be obtained. The committee says that it does not regard this as an argument for denying the validity of the notion of the Court of Human Rights that protection should be afforded to non-recognised unions as well as recognised unions. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Unless I have misunderstood the amendment, I believe that it would be entirely negative to the purpose of the recognition procedure because it would mean that an employer, having recognised or having been compelled to recognise a union, might also be compelled to deal with a rival union. It would also mean that employers would be compelled to deal with a union even after recognition proceedings had failed through lack of the

GC 143
proper level of support among employees. That is my understanding, and I do not think that it is a particularly good idea.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am a member of that committee. I agreed with the report and I still do so. I thought that the argument put by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, was perfectly fair and objective, but for the life of me I cannot see why recognition should be the exclusive privilege of any particular type of trade union. Therefore I want to make it plain that I support Amendment No. 58.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This amendment concerns new Section 145B, which Clause 28 would insert into the 1992 Act if the clause became law. Currently, the right within the proposed new section is limited to the members of recognised trade unions only. The amendment seeks to widen its scope to include the members of non-recognised trade unions.
In drafting terms, the amendment does not make perfect sense because it does not make a necessary consequential change to subsection (2) of new Section 145B, which defines the prohibited result of the unlawful offer. That definition is couched in terms which pre-suppose that the union is already recognised. However, that is a small point and I want to address the main issue raised by my noble friends; namely, should we not create a similar right for the members of non-recognised unions?
We have opposed that idea for a number of reasons. First, we wanted to address the problem which had actually arisen in the Wilson and Palmer cases. The facts of those cases all concerned members of recognised unions which the employer was trying to derecognise. So the circumstances of the cases which gave rise to the judgment of the European Court did not deal directly with the reverse situation where the union was not recognised at all.
Secondly, we were concerned that there may well be adverse consequences for industrial relations if we extend the scope of Section 145B to cover the members of non-recognised unions. Let me give an example. It is by no means uncommon for recognition agreements with one union to cover a bargaining unit within which some workers belong to other unions. Both the recognised union and the employer usually take steps to promote the advantages of the recognition agreement. Both often try to discourage members of the other union from seeking a separate recognition arrangement for their own union. Who knows what "offers" the employer might make to those of the bargaining unit, including members of the non-recognised union, against this kind of sensitive industrial relations background? This situation could give rise to legal challenge from disgruntled members of the non-recognised union. Potentially, the stability of bargaining arrangements could be upset, and inter-union rivalries could surface in the tribunals or courts. The last thing we want—I am sure my noble friends share this view—is to make those new rights a weapon that can be used to upset established voluntary collective bargaining arrangements.
GC 144
As was clear from discussions last week, the law on recognition is a sensitive issue. We have taken steps to build a statutory procedure that takes considerable care to balance the legitimate interests of employers and unions. I fear that that kind of proposal might have unforeseen consequences and disrupt that delicate balance.
Thirdly, we were conscious that there were significant differences in the meaning of an offer under the two cases of recognition and non-recognition. Where the union is recognised, the offer can induce union members to forego key representational rights that the members enjoy. There is no obvious route whereby they could regain them. In contrast, where the union is not recognised, members do not lose any tangible benefits or rights as a result of these offers, because none exists. Indeed, in the simpler case where there are no inter-union rivalries, it is difficult to see why the employer would make such offers in the first place. As my noble friends know, even if they regret it, there is no right to union recognition and therefore, in contrast to the case where workers have their terms settled under a collective agreement, there is no right that the employer might wish to displace by making an offer. In those circumstances, it seems probable that the employer will simply refuse recognition.
My noble friends are probably concerned that such offers might prevent non-recognised unions from ever seeking to be recognised. But non-recognised unions can apply to the CAC for recognition under the statutory recognition procedure. Moreover, under that procedure, individual workers are protected against detriment or dismissal for taking a position on the recognition claim of the union. That protects workers who had previously accepted the employer's offer who support the union's application for statutory recognition. The making of offers to its members would therefore not fetter the legal entitlement of a non-recognised union to apply for recognition. That means that the making of offers in this situation is ineffective in achieving the employer's purpose of ensuring that recognition cannot ever cover the workers who accepted the offers.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights recognises the force of that consideration, although it appears to doubt that the availability of the statutory procedure can be said to provide adequate protection for the union "at least in the short term" to remedy the wrong that results from the offer. We will consider closely the Committee's views; however, it still seems to us that the existence of the statutory procedure deters employers from making these offers because they are such a weak means of pursuing the employer's objectives.
The amendment raises a difficult issue. We understand the arguments in favour of extending the scope of new Section 145B. I have tried to explain why we drew up the section in its current form, which undoubtedly deals with the gist of the inducement problem. However, I can assure my noble friends that we are still looking at the matter in the light of the

GC 145
latest report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Lord McCarthy: We are talking about human rights, not about collective bargaining and whether we can encourage a certain kind of such bargaining. Nothing in the European Convention on Human Rights says that you can deny the right of trade unionists or trade unions and somehow give them a second order of rights because they are not recognised. On the contrary, those rights inhere in trade unions and in workers, whether or not they are recognised. Indeed, one might well say that those who are not recognised need such rights more than anyone else; and that they should not be discriminated against and told that they cannot get promotion or a decent wage unless they drop out of their union precisely because they are not yet recognised.
I do not think that those who framed the international conventions would take away a member's rights if his or her union was in some sense a pirate union, trying to break in to a recognised area. Those rights inhere in individuals and in trade unions. You cannot wipe them out with certain convenient ways in which to limit their scope. The Government do not understand what the conventions are about.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise for having spoken from a sedentary position. It is rather a hot day and I had forgotten the form.
As regards the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, the convention would never include the type of specific provision such as he suggested should or could have been there. As the Minister has said that he will give consideration to the matter, all that I can do is to express my gratitude.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government's opposition to the amendment. I noted that he was willing to give consideration to the 13th report and the recommendations that the committee has made, and I look forward to hearing the results of that further consideration.
I am surprised that once again the spectre has been raised of inter-union disagreement and dispute in connection with our amendment. Quite a number of years ago there were often lots of inter-union disputes, but there have not been as many recently as there used to be. Indeed, the TUC has taken a very active role in preventing such disputes, and there are committees available, of which I was once a member, to sort out difficulties when unions compete unsatisfactorily for recognition rights within bargaining units when they have not yet got a presence, and so on. The machinery exists within the industrial relations sphere for dealing with those problems.
I support what my noble friend Lord McCarthy said. We are dealing with the individual right of a member of an unrecognised union to have the protection which is extended to members of recognised
GC 146
unions. It is simple, really. Although I shall withdraw the amendment, we shall consider the matter again carefully, especially as the Government are going to consider the report of the Joint Committee, because we believe that the issue is an important one of individual human rights. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 28, line 16, after "is" insert "subject to subsection (6)"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 63. Amendment No. 60 is purely a paving amendment to make way for the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 63, and to make it clear that an agreement such as is covered by Amendment No. 63 is not, to use the wording introduced in the Bill, a "prohibited result".
When the 1999 Act was passed, it included a subsection—Section 17(4)—which was, with a minor variation which I shall mention shortly, the same as Amendment No. 63. In effect, it provided that, notwithstanding an agreement reached with a union after collective bargaining, an individual employer and an individual employee could come to an agreement which suited both of them better. By that agreement, the employer could pay, and the employee could accept and receive extra money—extra pay—for performing extra services. In other words, if the employee did more than was required of him under the collective agreement negotiated on his behalf by the union, he could be paid more. It did not include, for example, a better company car, the promise of promotion, a bigger office, more time off, or any other intangible benefit. The benefit had to be in the sole form of money.
There are two other qualifying conditions. First, there must be no inhibition against the employee being a member of a union. I will return to that matter shortly. Secondly, what the employee had to do to earn this extra money must be done under a proper contract of employment, and the payments must reasonably relate to the value of the services provided.
The principle of this amendment was at first very vigorously opposed by the Government but, eventually, the amendment in its present form in Section 17(4), was accepted under an agreement between me and the Minister in charge of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, on behalf of the Government.
It is right to point out two things: first, as I am given to understand, Section 17 of the 1999 Act has never been brought into effect in the five years since it was passed. I suppose I wonder why. Secondly, the Government's opposition to the amendment was repeated at the ensuing TUC conference, which demanded that what it called the "Miller amendment" should be repealed. My one claim to historical fame has been to have a section in an Act of Parliament

GC 147
named after me. Up to this time, the section has not been repealed, but, by not bringing it into force, it has been effectively kicked into touch.
It is, however, not without significance that, at the first legislative opportunity since the 1999 Act was passed, the Government seem to be trying to accede to the TUC's demand to repeal Section 17(4), wrapped up with the rest of the section, thereby annulling an agreement made in good faith between one of their Ministers and the Opposition. That ought not to be allowed.
The Government's reason for this volte face is a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Wilson and Palmer and others v the United Kingdom. In this case, it was effectively ruled that agreements which prohibited union membership in return for extra payment were not allowed. That is not a complete summary of the judgment, but I shall expand on it in a moment. Your Lordships will recall that I have just explained that Section 17(4)—modesty prevents me from continuing to call it the "Miller amendment"—anticipated that judgment by some three years, and expressly prohibited such a condition in an agreement.
After my Second Reading speech, I received a letter from Mr David Wilson, the Wilson of the Wilson and Palmer case, whose place in the history of labour relations is also assured by his having been part of a leading case. Mr Wilson upbraided me, quite rightly, for some unintentionally loose wording in my description of his case. He pointed out that his employers had attempted to procure a denial of the right of union representation to an employee receiving an extra benefit. The key word was representation. I am most grateful to him for having pointed that out to me. That is why I said, a few moments ago, that the description of the judgment was not complete. I wish that I had thought of the question of union representation as well as union membership in 1999.
As a consequence of what Mr Wilson wrote to me, I have slightly altered the wording that I am now proposing for inclusion in this Bill. The right to receive extra money for extra services must not now prevent a worker from being a member of a union—that is the same as I proposed before—nor prevent the worker from being represented by a union, holding office in a union or from participating in union activities. That is the difference between my amendment and the previous subsection.
That modification is the proper way in which to meet the requirements of the judgment of the ECHR—not by repealing Section 17(4). Why is it necessary to resuscitate Section 17(4)? Having effectively pigeonholed Section 17 of the 1999 Act, the Government have now introduced new Section 145B to the 1992 Act, which says, omitting irrelevant words, that a worker who is a member of a recognised union,
"has the right not to have an offer made to him",
which,
"would have the prohibited result".
What is a prohibited result? It is one in which,
"the workers' terms of employment, or any of those terms, will no longer be determined by collective agreement negotiated by…the union".
But that is precisely what Section 17(4) provided and permitted—namely, that an employer and a worker could negotiate a separate bargain outside of the collective agreement. That would be a better bargain to their minds, in which an employee who was prepared to do more, could be paid more.
It is precisely because new Section 145B(2) has introduced the concept of a prohibited result that the reinstatement of a modified Section 17(4) is essential, in accordance with the Government's previous agreement with me. I am aware that the Minister has suggested that nothing in this Bill abrogates the "Miller amendment". At Second Reading, he said:
"Our proposals already adequately safeguard these key business concerns and protect the ability of employers to offer enhanced terms to key workers who they wish to retain for sound business reasons".—[Official Report, 29/4/04; col. 930.]
That is not what the plain and unequivocal words of proposed new subsection (2) say, however. Neither I nor my advisers can find anything in the Bill which substantiates the Minister's claim. Indeed, new Section 145B(2) does precisely the opposite, and seems expressly to prohibit agreements outside collective bargaining. In the absence of clear, unequivocal chapter and verse that such an agreement is not prohibited by the Bill—although I should be very happy to hear clear and unequivocal chapter and verse—I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendments relate to the proposed new rights within new Section 145B. They also have implications for the way in which Clauses 28 to 31 extend the protections against detriment on grounds of trade union membership and activities.
The noble Baroness argues that the provisions contained within these amendments are needed to ensure that employers enjoy the necessary flexibility when setting pay and reward systems. We entirely agree about the need for flexibility, as we understand that employers need to reward success to achieve high performance in the workplace. To motivate employees, all sorts of performance pay systems are in place. It is now the norm, rather than the exception, that workers doing the same or similar jobs often receive different pay, depending on their output, value added or other measures of performance. And, of course, different workers are promoted to higher-paying jobs on the basis of their past performance.
We have no desire to restrict employer freedoms in this area, as long as their actions are driven by the right business motives. We believe, however, that the existing wording of these clauses, including Clause 28, already provides the necessary safeguards and flexibilities. That is achieved through the reference within new Section 145B and elsewhere to the "sole or main" purposes of employer's offer. I draw the noble Baroness's attention to the debate that we have just had on this matter, as it is absolutely central to this

GC 149
point. We have already debated the matter. As the noble Baroness will be aware, some believe that we have created too much flexibility for the employer.
4.45 p.m.
I fear that these amendments could greatly undermine the protection that Clause 28 introduces. Their wording limits the circumstances in which payments of various kinds are counted as being unlawful offers under new Section 145B. Under her proposed arrangement, virtually all financial inducements would be permissible, so long as they were not linked to the explicit surrender in the contract of employment of union membership, union representation or participation in the union's affairs.
The meaning of "union representation" in this context is very unclear and would produce uncertain effects. But I believe that the intention, and probably the effect, is that the term should not cover the surrender of any entitlement for the worker to have his or her terms and conditions determined through collective agreement. If I am right, the amendments are designed to make it lawful for employers to induce workers to leave the scope of collective agreements. That is exactly what happened in the Wilson and Palmer case. The amendments therefore carry the great risk that we would fail to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
As we know, there is some history behind the amendments, to which the noble Baroness referred. They are adapted from wording used in Section 17(4) of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The noble Baroness was the author of that subsection, which is known as the "Miller amendment". It is often very difficult in Opposition, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy will confirm, to alter draft legislation. The noble Baroness used considerable skill to ensure that the provision was inserted into the 1999 Act. However, as she pointed out, Section 17 has never been commenced. The reason is simple: it was felt that the scope of the powers in the section were seriously restricted. The amended section was viewed as seriously flawed by both unions and employers, who did not want it at all.
Amendments Nos. 60 and 63, though different in some key respects, reinstate similar wording within the new protections that we propose. As I have explained, I see no advantages in so doing. We have created the necessary flexibility for employers in defining the new protections. The CBI and other employer groups understand, and largely support, our approach on that matter. Also, events have moved on since the 1999 Act was debated in this place. In particular, we have the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Wilson and Palmer case. The amendments would almost certainly mean that we would fail to comply with that judgment.
Put simply, to the extent that the noble Baroness's motives are pure—I am sure that they are always so—the flexibility for employers that she has championed is now available to them. To the extent that her motives are not pure—I do not want to pull her down
GC 150
that path—and that she condones in any way the practice of employers trying to induce people to break collective agreements, quite rightly that has not been allowed in the legislation. I say that because the noble Baroness's amendments are intended to build on, rather than displace, the new provisions contained in Clauses 28 to 31. The effect of the two sets of provisions when read together can only be described as very difficult and unclear. It is simply not possible to work out how her amendments interact with the clauses of the Bill. As a result, the amendments would sow confusion and uncertainty. I hope that she will accept—I have every reason to think that she will—that that would not be in the interests of anyone, whether employers, trade unions or employees.
I hope that, given my remarks about flexibility, the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall certainly withdraw the amendment in a moment; I have no problem with that. I am delighted that the Minister thought that most of my motives were pure, although he went on to suggest that some may not have been pure. I would like to assure the Minister that I have never had an impure thought or motive in my life.
I shall read with extreme care what the Minister has said and I shall go over the clauses again because in moving the amendment I said that neither I nor my advisers found the point covered that the Minister has just confirmed is so covered. I am pleased that the Minister thinks that I have been working hard for employers, but I am also interested in employees. I would not want him to think that I am not.
Having made those points, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 28, line 24, after "worker" insert "or his trade union, whether recognised or unrecognised,"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 61 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. These are important amendments, although Amendment No. 62 is the main amendment in the group. There is an important aspect of the ECHR judgment that the Joint Committee on Human Rights believes has not been adequately dealt with in the clauses we are now debating. The judgment could hardly have been more clear.
By using financial incentives and detriment in order to induce workers to give up their rights to have their unions represent them, the rights of both workers and unions were infringed. However, the Bill provides no remedy for the union. It scarcely acknowledges the separate union rights in the matter. The joint committee accepts that the Bill would not enable a trade union to bring proceedings to obtain a remedy for action taken by an employer to offer inducements to employees not to join a trade union or take part in union activities. It says that this represents a lacuna in

GC 151
the Bill that could prevent it achieving its objective of rectifying part of the incompatibility established by the ECHR in the Wilson case.
Amendment No. 62 provides that a union with a member or members whose rights under the Bill had been contravened by an employer may present a complaint that an employer had acted in contravention of the relevant sections of the Bill to an employment tribunal. Where a tribunal finds that a union complaint is well founded, it shall make a declaration to that effect, leaving it for the union to take the matter further, should it wish to do so. The joint committee has pointed out that if the employer is a public authority, it would be open to the union to bring proceedings under Section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998, but this would not apply if the employer was not a public authority, rather a private employer. The union would be without a domestic remedy for the violation of its rights. That seems entirely inequitable and I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept this reasonable amendment.
Incidentally, the joint committee has looked again at its recommendation in the light of views expressed by the Government and came to the following conclusion:
"We consider that failing to provide unions with an avenue for redressing a violation of their rights under Article 11 could result in a violation of both the Article 11 right and the right to an effective remedy for that violation. We draw this to the attention of each House".
I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The rights introduced by new Sections 145A and 145B are assigned to the members of independent trade unions. It is those members who enforce the rights by complaining to employment tribunals and it is those members who receive the remedies for breaches of the rights in the form of declarations and awards by the tribunal. This approach is completely consistent with the way our other trade union-related rights for individuals, such as time off for union officials for trade union duties and activities, are designed and enforced.
There is no role for the union to bring a complaint on behalf of a member or for the union to complain in its own name. The main exceptions are the special cases of recognition and the right to information for the purposes of collective bargaining. What both these cases have in common is that they relate purely to the collective side of industrial relations: in one case the obtaining of recognition and in the other the acquisition of the information that the union needs to carry out collective bargaining effectively.
That is not the case here. While the continuation of collecting bargaining may be at issue, the objectionable conduct is done in relation to the individual members of the union rather than the union itself. It is to be noted that in both the special cases that I have mentioned, the union appeals to a different body, the CAC. That is because it is the CAC that deals with the collective aspect of industrial relations. Those clauses confer individual rights and, as one would expect, complaint is to an employment tribunal.
GC 152
The effect of the two amendments is to provide for the union to bring complaints to employment tribunals where the rights under new Section 145B have been infringed. Amendment No. 62 also seeks to provide something similar in connection with the rights within new Section 145A.
The key issue at the root of these amendments concerns the ability of the trade union to bring complaints in its own name. The logic of this case rests on the premise that as trade unions have rights under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, they must have a means to seek a remedy for breaches of those rights under relevant domestic laws.
That is a matter into which the Joint Committee on Human Rights has looked. In our evidence to the Joint Committee, we pointed out that when reaching its decision the European Court of Human Rights was driven by the rights of individual workers. In its judgment, there are very few references to, and little argumentation about, the violation of the rights of the union. In our belief, it follows that we are implementing the court's judgment properly if we provide individuals rather than unions with the corresponding rights and remedies. Moreover, in our view, the Article 11 rights of trade unions are safeguarded by providing these rights to their members as individuals.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights accepts that,
"the remedy obtained by the individual will often have the effect of indirectly vindicating the rights of the union".
However, it goes on to state that there may be circumstances where that will not occur because individual members are not prepared to take action themselves. It therefore considers that a separate avenue for the union to seek redress should be provided.
We are somewhat surprised by the Committee's view. As I have said, none of the other provisions of UK law that confer individual rights in relation to union matters provides for such a separate means of redress. That arrangement has worked adequately hitherto and I am sure that there is no reason to believe that it would not continue to do so in the future for these new rights when they are introduced, as well as for the existing rights.
In practical terms, unions are not disengaged from the process of enforcement. They will actively support their members in making those claims to tribunals. That happened in the Wilson and Palmer cases. I am sure that it will happen again in the future should other cases arise.
We take the Committee's views very seriously, even where they take issue with our considered position. I can assure my noble friends that we will study the report produced by the Joint Committee on Human Rights very carefully before deciding our final position on this matter. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Lord McCarthy: On examination, the Government do not really give a reason. All the arguments that the noble Lord has put before us today were put to the committee and they were all rejected. There was no ambiguity about it. From the beginning, the committee rejected those arguments. The reason is simple because, essentially, the Minister says that there is no redress. He says that due to a technicality and due to the way in which we have processed industrial disputes and the rights of trade unions in the past, there is no redress for a denial of rights.
That is wrong. It is morally wrong. The law should provide redress and it would not be difficult. All it has to do is accept our amendment. Trade unions go before and use tribunals. There is no reason why they should not use tribunals in this respect. If the Government do not want them to use tribunals, they should let them use something else. There are other forms of redress. But for them to come out in circumstances of this kind when they have been told clearly and simply that there can be a denial of rights in this process and for them to provide no redress—that cannot be right.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Very briefly, I support the reasoning of the Joint Committee. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is totally right: the argument was fully considered. The essence to my mind, and I speak only for myself, is the curious illogicality of the absence of redress unless the employer is a public authority. That seems to me to be administration gone mad. I merely ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, would, if it is not too much trouble, reformulate in a letter his reservations on the reasoning of the Joint Committee so that we may once more—which we do—consider it in reply. There is a seed of injustice in this, on any showing.
5 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I hope that I have already given clear reasons why we believe that this is a different situation. Surely the question here is whether it is sufficient for there to be redress through the individuals or whether the union itself has to have this right. Noble Lords may not agree with the argument, but I have pointed out why I believe that the way in which we have dealt with these matters—through the members—is the correct way. I do not see any point in reformulating the views. As I said in my final comments, we will give very serious thought to what has been said by the Joint Committee on Human Rights before we take a final position.
Lord McCarthy: I have never missed my noble friend more than I miss him this afternoon. You cannot say that the union gains redress through the member. The tribunal will give the member compensation limited to what it believes is the damage incurred. The court will not add money and say, "Here is £5,000; give it to the union". Of course it will not; that is nonsense. The fact that we have not had this circumstance before does not mean that we cannot find a way of dealing with it now. The union will not get a penny of what the worker gets—of course it will
GC 154
not—but what the union has lost is the right to negotiate. It has lost the right to present its case to its own members. I do not know how on earth it could calculate the sum involved. However, a wrong has been done and we cannot expect the worker to pass the money on to the union.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I note what has been said and thank Members of the Committee who participated in the debate; it has been very interesting. My noble friend the Minister said, "This is an individual approach"; but that is the problem. As my noble friend acknowledged in his earlier speech, very often an individual may not feel able to take the case to a tribunal himself. That very often happens. That is one of the reasons why one would want the union to have the right to take a case on its own, because the union has lost a right. If one is given a right one must have a means of enforcing it. That has been made very clear in the committee's report. It is not much use having rights for which one has campaigned and which one has obtained if one then has no means of enforcement. The problem with this clause, as we see it, is that there are no means of enforcement for the union.
I am very glad that the Minister said that further consideration will be given to the Joint Committee report. We look forward to hearing the results of that consideration. However, it seems to me that this issue is so important that although we shall seek to withdraw the amendment today—we have to, this is Grand Committee—we shall undoubtedly come back with the issue on Report. It is a matter of principle as far as we are concerned. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 66 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Exclusion or expulsion from trade union attributable to conduct]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 33, line 28, leave out "contrary to the rules" and insert "inconsistent with the rules and objectives"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment turns to a different aspect, that of dealing with the rights of unions to exclude particular individuals from membership. I understand that Clause 32 was introduced in the Commons to amend the law on exclusion or expulsion of workers from unions so that where the union is subjected to organised infiltration by people belonging to racist organisations, as has apparently been the case in some areas, the union can choose not to let them join or can expel such individuals from membership. The provision applies where a member of the union has behaved in a way contrary to union rules.
Many unions have statements in their rule books promoting diversity and tackling discrimination. They may not all have actual rules, but opposition to racism and discrimination against ethnic minorities is an

GC 155
important part of union policies. The TUC has therefore suggested to us that the Bill would be strengthened, and unions better able to deal with these issues, if instead of the words,
"contrary to the rules of the union",
the wording could be,
"inconsistent with the rules and objectives of the union".
I hope that the Government agree that this is a sensible way to deal with the issue.
I am sure that Members of the Committee will know that the trade union movement has been at the forefront in its opposition to discrimination, in particular to discrimination on racial and ethnic grounds. The movement has policies enabling unions to look after the interests of members from ethnic communities and for a long time they have been recruiting extensively among those groups, many of whom badly need the support of unions because they are often vulnerable and in low-paid employment. Therefore it is necessary for unions to be equipped to deal with people who attempt to infiltrate their organisations in order to promote anti-ethnic and discriminatory policies.
We think that the proposed wording would ensure that people acting in a way inconsistent with the rules and objectives of the union could be dealt with in the correct way. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: Once upon a time, trade unions had rule books which enabled them to do almost anything. Most important, they had rules enabling them to discipline their members. If members failed to come out on strike, many unions could expel them. In those days, expulsion from a union was no slight thing; it could exclude you from your trade. But the Conservatives, in their wisdom, decided that such general rules were not democratic and should not be allowed. As a result of legislation passed in the 1980s and 1990s, the right of trade unions to put all kinds of things in their rule books was curtailed. Without boring the Committee with the details, lawyers told the trade unions that the general position arrived at was that a union could expel members only if they had not paid their subscriptions. For non-payment of the subscription, someone could be struck off, but for very little else.
The rule books of unions today do not have general expulsion rules which would enable them to say that members of extreme right-wing parties, left-wing parties or other bodies that could bring the union into disrepute can be expelled. Such rules would be of very doubtful legality. Therefore to put on the face of the Bill a provision stating "contrary to the rules" means in effect that a member has not paid the subscription.
However, our amendment goes further than that because the union could have objectives. Unions could pass resolutions at their national executives saying that they were against fascist parties or any other groups, and that might be sustained if they decided not to
GC 156
admit rather than to expel. Once upon a time a union could refuse to admit anyone. Some unions could refuse to admit anyone who was not your brother's uncle. But that cannot be done today and therefore to control entry into a union on the basis of its rule book is an extraordinarily weak way of achieving something that I am quite certain the Government want. In that context, therefore, this is a mild amendment, but one that is very necessary.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I do not doubt for one moment the motives of noble Lords opposite in tabling this amendment. Nor do I doubt for one moment that they understand trade union rules far better than I am ever likely to. I accept that. However, I have only one point to make, which may not arise in practice. The Bill says, "contrary to the rules", which would mean a positive breach. Whereas the words,
"inconsistent with the rules and objectives",
could introduce a vague, subjective concept and provide scope for endless argument and litigation about what it might mean.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I understand the case that was put forward. Apart from what my noble friend has just said, with which I agree, it fails to recognise that the objectives of the union can change from time to time. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who said that it can pass a resolution. Is that an objective of the union? It can pass another resolution. Is that an objective of the union? Is the tribunal to search through the books and find out what the resolutions were?
I suppose that it is my method or métier as a lawyer that the whole process seems to me to be so imprecise that it is not really appropriate to leave it to the tribunal. I just wanted to add that as another reason, apart from my noble friend's argument, to oppose the amendment. Perhaps consideration could be given to the objection.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Clause 32 has been included in the Bill to ensure that unions can adequately deal with political activists who pursue a racist or xenophobic political agenda. I believe that there is widespread support that we need to tackle this issue. My knowledge of union rulebooks is also somewhat limited, but my noble friend has rather more experience, as indeed do my officials. They say that virtually all rulebooks still contain rules allowing unions to discipline their members for a wide range of reasons. Often, those are linked to bringing the union into disrepute. So I do not think that what my noble friend said is totally true: unions may have changed their behaviour, but the rulebooks still cover that point.
Clause 32 changes the remedies for an individual whom an employment tribunal has held to be unlawfully excluded or expelled. A minimum award, currently set at £5,900, applies where the union has not admitted or readmitted the individual to the union at the time that the application for compensation is made.

GC 157
5.15 p.m.
It therefore gives a quite substantial amount of money to the deserving and less deserving alike. We think that the minimum award is too high in some cases; I am sure that my noble friends would agree, even if they would go further and say that it is too high in a wider range of cases. The tribunal should therefore be given greater discretion to decide the amount of the award. The provisions contained in Clause 32(4) would remove the £5,900 minimum in cases where the exclusion was unlawful because it was mainly attributable to membership of a political party, but where there were other reasons for the union's decision to exclude or expel that concerned conduct contrary to the union's rules.
In choosing that wording, we wanted to ensure that the statute is clear and places reasonable obligations on individual members to act in accordance with widely available and accessible information on the union's policies and positions. That is why we refer to the union's rules in the subsection. The amendment would broaden the test that disapplies the minimum award to include subsidiary behaviour that is inconsistent with the rules and objectives of the union.
The Government consider it extremely important to ensure that the test to disapply the minimum award works in practice. Rule books vary. Some explicitly refer to the union's opposition to racist attitudes or conduct. Others do not specify many proscribed behaviours and leave it to other union documents to set out the union's position on such matters. We recognise that the current wording may therefore not be sufficiently broad to meet union concerns. We have therefore been working closely with the TUC to devise alternative wording.
However, we must assess any suggested wording against the criteria of openness and clarity that I have described. There a number of reasons why the wording proposed in the amendment is not the best solution.
First, it is not clear exactly what the expression in the amendment means legally. If the amendments are included in the union's rule book, they will be covered by the existing wording of the Bill. Where the objectives are presented in other documents, unions may know what they have in mind when referring to them, but the courts could give the expressions a meaning that may not correspond with the meaning that the union thinks that they have, which may well be narrower than the unions want. The courts will want to give the expressions a meaning that is certain and to do that are likely to adopt a fairly narrow view of their meaning that limits their coverage to objectives set out in documents that are reasonably authoritative and permanent. That is acceptable, but will not necessarily meet the concerns that prompted the tabling of the amendment.
Secondly, and resulting from that, the use of the expressions is likely to give excluded and expelled individuals and their lawyers room to argue, first, that the objective is not one within the meaning of the subsection and, secondly, that in any case the person had not acted inconsistently with it. That approach
GC 158
would therefore be likely to lead to the sort of time-consuming wrangles before tribunals that we want to avoid. We do not want to give a platform to those far-Right political parties whose policies are, by their very nature, the antithesis of those of the union.
This is largely a technical issue and we want to table an amendment on this point on Report, provided that agreement can be reached on the appropriate wording with interested parties. I therefore urge my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am grateful for that response from the Minister. As I said earlier, we tabled the amendment because we were approached by the TUC, which was unhappy with the wording in the Bill. I am glad to learn that discussions are continuing and that it is hoped that an amendment will be tabled to cope with the fears expressed by the TUC and us this afternoon. In the mean time, I am grateful for the assurances that have been given and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 67A:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
"NATIONAL SECURITY: POWERS OF EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
For subsection (6) of section 10 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (c. 17) (procedure regulations in relation to cases involving issues of national security) substitute—
"(6) Employment tribunal procedure regulations may enable a tribunal, if it considers it expedient in the interests of national security, to do in relation to particular proceedings before it anything of a kind which, by virtue of subsection (5), employment tribunal procedure regulations may enable a Minister of the Crown to direct a tribunal to do in relation to particular Crown employment proceedings."''
The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment designed to ensure that the existing provisions relating to employment tribunal cases, where there may be implications for national security, achieve the scope originally intended on their introduction in 1999. Provisions were introduced in Section 41 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 amending Section 10 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Those provisions enable employment tribunals to hear cases involving issues of national security with sufficient safeguards in place to avoid sensitive information being made public.
Before those provisions came into force in 2001, the position was that employees of the intelligence and security services had no right to pursue employment claims through employment tribunals. So the effect of the change was to open up that form of redress to a group of employees who had previously been denied it, with safeguards in place to allow sensitive information to be aired without risk disclosure.
Those provisions were implemented in Rule 8 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, in Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunal Regulations

GC 159
2001. The safeguards include the hearing of evidence by a specially constituted tribunal in private, with restrictions on publicity where appropriate.
However, the Government are concerned that, in practice, those provisions are being interpreted rather more narrowly than Parliament intended, with the effect that employment tribunals may apply them only in Crown employment proceedings. One claim involving sensitive security issues, but which did not fall within the definition of Crown employment proceedings, has been brought in an employment tribunal. Although, in the event, that case was settled and did not require a hearing—which would of course have allowed the extent of the power to be determined—the view of senior members of the tribunal's judiciary was, and remains, that Section 10(6) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 does not extend to cases that do not fall within the definition of Crown employment proceedings. The point is of potential practical importance, and the Government feel it right to take the opportunity of the Bill to remove any ambiguity for the future.
I assure the Committee that those provisions will not curtail an employee's right to bring a complaint to an employment tribunal. Individuals in that position currently have the right to bring claims to employment tribunals, and that will continue. In certain cases, the new provisions may be of benefit to either or both parties by allowing sensitive issues to be fully debated in tribunals, which they may feel unable to raise at present. A very small number of non-Crown employees would be affected by the amendment—for example, people in the defence or telecommunications industries whose work is highly sensitive from a national security perspective.
The amendment will ensure that the scope of the power is interpreted as originally intended. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: First, we completely accept the bona fides of what the Government are trying to do. The point is that it would be difficult, unless one was a special specialist, to make head or tail of the new clause. It states:
"Employment tribunal procedure regulations may enable a tribunal, if it considers it expedient in the interests of national security, to do in relation to particular proceedings before it anything of a kind which, by virtue of subsection (5), employment tribunal procedure regulations may enable a Minister of the Crown to direct a tribunal to do in relation to particular Crown employment proceedings".
There seems to be an absence of verbs there. The sentence does not really go anywhere. It does not tell us what those proceedings are; or what are those things that a Minister of the Crown might do or has been directing them to do in the past. Because the Government have introduced this new clause at such a late hour, we do not even have Explanatory Notes to tell us what that might all be about. Is it impossible to state that in a way that would enable anyone reading it to understand what it involves?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: As the Minister said, the amendment enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that, in short, allow an employment tribunal to take so-called national security into account. It is difficult to conceive of how interests of national security could be involved in employment tribunal proceedings, but I listened carefully to what the Minister said and I expect that there could be some cases.
I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in accepting the Minister's bona fides, but there is a danger in invoking national security, because it could be an excuse for some government clampdown. I also agree with the noble Lord that the amendment was tabled late and that there are no Explanatory Notes. We require certain answers. Will the employer invoke national security, or can the Government unilaterally intervene? Indeed, will the tribunal do so on its own initiative? As the idea of national security may well impinge on the rights of one or other party, do the Government agree that when the new regulations are introduced, they will be subject to the scrutiny of both Houses before they are brought into effect?
The Minister has kindly written to me on the subject of national security; no doubt he has written to other Members of the Committee. But, apart from the letter, the Minister must answer those questions in Committee.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I agree with the noble Baroness. When I first read the amendment, I could not understand what it meant, but when I read it again I realised that the interest of national security had been raised again, which enables Ministers to step in to tell subsidiary organisations what they may or may not do. I was concerned about that. I absolutely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said; that is sensible in the circumstances.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The amendment desperately needs redrafting. The last line should be the first. It is quite simple. It will be the Minister of the Crown who decides whether the tribunal shall conduct itself in a certain way because of national security. That is the start. It is not what the tribunal considers. The Minister of the Crown may issue regulations of generic importance; or it may happen so seldom that we need not make a meal of it. Why not leave it to the Minister of the Crown to direct? He will have his civil servants, who are very competent. He will have all the documents before him; he will receive advice. Surely that is the way to deal with such a matter.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: It may be simply because I have not spent my whole life in industrial relations, but, in a morass of legislation, I thought that this was one clear part that I understood. It is transparently clear. The verb is "may enable", and the amendment may enable them to do such things as would be done by the Minister. The Minister does not determine that; it is entirely for the tribunal to decide whether it will use the procedures which, in normal circumstances, would be in the hands of the Minister. As I say, the verb is "may enable" the tribunal.

GC 161
As for the tribunal rules, they are normally subject to the negative resolution procedure, but we will take that request into account.
Lord McCarthy: It may be clear to the Minister, but the trouble with "may enable" is that, in the context of the amendment, it sounds like, "may enable the Minister to do such things. What they are yet, I know not, but they will be the horror of the world". That is how it reads. Surely the Minister could make it clear to us, as well as to him.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I think that my noble friend just has to read the provision slowly and carefully. I am not sure that it can be made clearer and do not think that I can go back to the lawyers to say, "This is incomprehensible". If my noble friend reads it carefully, I think that he will see that it makes sense. We will consider the matter again, but I think that it is probably as near as one can get to what is required.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Role of companion at disciplinary or grievance hearing.]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 34, line 35, after "worker- insert "or workers"
The noble Lord said: I am glad that we are getting to something that I understand, even if others do not understand it. We are taking Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 74 together. They rewrite, amend and, we would argue, improve all the provisions in the Bill about the companion. One might say that they turn him or her into a representative, but if that is the case, we favour it.
Some odd things about the companion appear on the face of the Bill. One of the reasons why we tabled the amendments was to try to elicit an explanation. For example, at the moment, the companion is allowed to answer questions on the worker's behalf, but the employer is not required to permit the worker's companion to answer questions on behalf of the worker. But why is he not required to do so? If the worker would like that to be done, what is wrong with it?
I do not know whether the person who wrote proposed subsection (2C)(c) of Clause 35 has ever been to meetings of this kind. The employer must not permit the worker's companion to,
"use the powers conferred by that subsection in a way that prevents the employer from explaining his case or prevents any other person at the hearing from making his contribution to it".
So the employer stops the worker's representative from preventing the employer from explaining his case. Why should he do that? The employer also stops the companion preventing,
"any other person at the hearing from making his contribution to it".
Why should he do that? Normally, in these committees, the employer is in the chair, conducting the damn thing. Why does he have to have statutory powers to try to turn him into a reasonable chairman? It is complete rubbish.
The companion also cannot deal with collective grievances in a domestic dispute procedure. We want to encourage domestic dispute procedures because we want to keep people out of tribunals. Why can the companion not deal with collective grievances? We want to remedy this.
Taken together, our amendments would, we hope, enable the companion to take a grievance on behalf of a worker or workers. There would not be all these little details about addressing the hearing to ensure that the employer is not prevented from explaining himself. The companion could confer with the workers when he liked, answer questions on behalf of the workers and address the hearing if the worker or workers indicated that they wished him to do so. Throughout, the companion does something only if the people he represents agree that he shall. He has to do it with good order; perhaps we would like to put the "ABC of chairmanship" in the regulations.
We do not need all this fiddling about. After all, we had a long argument last year; the Government, have accepted that they want to stimulate domestic settlement so that people do not crowd into tribunals. I take it that that is why we have these improvements. Let us turn this person into a proper representative. That is what the Government are doing eventually in the draft regulations, which say that if,
"an employee of the employer who is an employee representative elected or appointed by employees consisting of or including employees of the same description",
he may,
"represent the employees of that description under an established procedure".
We would like to put that provision from the regulations into an earlier procedure. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We do not object to Amendments No. 68 and 69 but I thought that, under an interpretation Act, one includes the other. If that is so, then the amendments are not necessary.
On Amendment No. 74, as the clause is drawn in the Bill, it permits the worker's companion to take a fairly limited part in the proceedings before the tribunal. The amendment would allow the companion, presumably an experienced trade union advocate or even a paid lawyer, to take over the proceedings and to have a much more active role. I wonder whether that is wise.
Lord McCarthy: I wonder why the noble Baroness says that this would enable the representative to take over. There is a chairperson.
Lord Triesman: Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 allow more than one worker in the workplace, in situations where a collective disciplinary or grievance hearing is held, to be accompanied by a single companion at the hearing. Amendment No. 74 widens the right of the companion to speak at the hearing and effectively to act as a representative on behalf of the worker or workers.
Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 both seek to do the same thing. I do not believe that these amendments are necessary. This is one of those situations where "the

GC 163
singular comprehends the plural"—which I have often heard said by lawyers in court. Not being a lawyer myself, I have never had the opportunity to say that before. This is a moment when a wish is gratified.
What I mean by that in practice is that where a group of workers is invited to a disciplinary or grievance hearing, each one is able to choose a companion under the right to be accompanied. It is possible for each one of them to choose a different companion, so there could be as many companions as workers at the hearing. It is equally possible for some or all of them to choose the same companion, so there could be just one single companion who is acting in support of all of them. The right to be accompanied as provided in the 1999 Act and as amended in this Bill allows a single companion to support a group of workers.
This amendment is closely linked to Amendment No. 74, which would allow the companion to answer questions on behalf of the worker or workers and to address in the hearing any situation where the worker or workers wanted that. The amendment also removes the safeguards in Section 10(2C) of the 1999 Act, inserted by Clause 35(1), which give the employer some control over the role of the companion. These safeguards are intended to protect the ability of the employer and the worker, whether singular or plural, to communicate directly with each other. The Government believe that it is important that this should be so and that each party is in a position to understand the other's position fully. We shall be debating the same issue from a rather different point of view in a moment when considering Amendment No. 75 tabled by noble Lords opposite.
The Government do not agree that the companion should act as a representative. The regulations that my noble friend quoted deal with individual employment disputes, not collective ones, and the two are very different. The key point is that direct communication between the employer and worker is an important element in an effective hearing.
Indeed, over the years ACAS has been concerned with trying to settle things domestically and as close to the point of conflict as possible. It has been inclined to argue that a direct form of communication between those directly involved, the employer and the worker, is usually an extremely effective way of trying to resolve a dispute. There are risks that a representative could get in the way of that communication. We have probably all seen rather zealous representatives do so on occasion. We believe that the balance that this clause strikes is the right one. It secures a role for all three of the participants in the hearing, not just for two of them.
Coming back to the issue of singular and plural, I am sure that my noble friends are also envisaging a situation where a single companion, probably a trade union official, would in practice be able to act as a representative for a group of workers under this amendment. I do not believe that that is necessary. There is already legislation in place to allow a representative—a trade union official if there is one,
GC 164
but otherwise an employee representative—to be informed and consulted on collective redundancy proposals or a business transfer over a given period.
Where other disciplinary or grievance issues arise on a collective basis—I emphasise on a collective basis—the right to be accompanied applies to hearings as I have explained. My noble friends may consider that a hearing where a number of workers and a number of companions all have rights to speak is unwieldy. However, that is an issue for the employer.
I believe that the employment relations logic of this situation is that no sensible employer would want to run an unwieldy and repetitive meeting. It is another question whether the workers in such a situation would necessarily find the hearing useful. Of course, if they do not, each has the option of raising an individual grievance under the procedures of the Employment Act 2002, which comes into force on 1 October, to which the right to be accompanied applies.
These are all issues that a sensible employer will take into account when deciding how to hear a collective grievance or disciplinary matter. I think that we can leave employers to decide this for themselves. For those reasons, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary.
We do not need the amendment to accomplish those objectives. I hope that I have made the point with sensitivity to the arguments that my noble friends have made. It would be a very contrary employer who sought to have highly repetitive discussions rather than to try and resolve the matter on the basis of a simpler submission on behalf of a collective group. I hope that that gives some reassurance to my noble friends on their concerns. I respectfully urge them to withdraw their amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I must read what the Minister has said because in the end I could not understand a word of it. He started off by telling me that what we said about it being a plural system, not an individual one, was not necessary because, in this case, it amounted to the same thing. Then he said that he had to put safeguards in the Bill so that the employer can prevent it amounting to the same thing, if he does not want it to be the same thing. I do not see that at all. Either it should be the same thing or the Government should tell us why they do not want it to be the same thing and why they want it to be an individual system only.
Perhaps I misheard him, but he said that the quotation I used—a quotation from the draft dispute resolution regulations—was all about collectivity. He said that it was dealing with individuals. That is not correct. Paragraph 2b is about the right of the employees to elect someone to represent them. It is all in the plural. There is an inconsistency between it and what is on the face of the Bill.
As for saying that we must have these safeguards for the employer, there are no safeguards for the worker. The Bill states that the companion must not,
"use the powers conferred by that subsection in a way that prevents the employer from explaining his case".

GC 165
There is nothing there that says that we want to prevent the worker being silenced by the employer. And I am not suggesting that there should be. One cannot regulate these things; that is ridiculous. That is why we do not need this subsection.
I shall have to read what the Minister said very carefully, to see whether I can sort it out and come back to it at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 34, line 37, leave out "and" and insert "or"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 70, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 71, 72, 73 and 75. These minor amendments to the wording of Clause 35 are all designed to achieve one simple objective: they would allow non-union members to be represented, or to represent themselves, at disciplinary or grievance hearings. This would be achieved by the small adjustments I am proposing throughout this clause.
Understanding the amendments is slightly complicated by the fact that Clause 35(1) itself substitutes a new subsection for Section 10(2) of the 1999 Act, which in turn amends the 1992 Act. The Minister will not be surprised if I call again for a consolidating Act when we are finally through with this one. I know that I raised this at our last meeting in Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, explained why that would not be possible. Someone would have to go through all the legislation before a suitable Bill could be produced. However, it is extraordinarily difficult to understand the position. How a worker could find his way through this morass of legislation, I do not know. This is not something to push to one side simply because it is difficult. It is important for us to be able to find the right information, as it is for the employer, and even more so for the employee. I urge the Government to think again about this.
Amendment No. 70 alters the proposed new clause. As currently drafted it requires an employee to be represented at disciplinary or grievance proceedings by someone with two qualifications. These are, first, that he is chosen by the worker and, secondly, that he is a union official. The amendment would remove the word "and" and substitute it with the word "or" so that the representative need not be a union official. Conversely, it ensures that if the representative is a union official just sent along to the hearing by the union without having been chosen personally by the worker, his credentials cannot be challenged by an employer bent on being awkward.
Amendment No. 71 further modifies the qualification of the requirement for the representative to be a union official by providing that this will in any case apply only where the worker is a union member.
In such a case, I think it is obvious that the worker will avail himself of the services provided by the union. However, the provision of a union representative at grievance or disciplinary proceedings should not be used as a recruiting tool for non-union members.
Amendment No. 71 would provide for the nominated representative to agree to act on behalf of the worker. This is for obvious reasons, since without such consent the worker could suddenly find himself without a representative at the hearing.
Amendment No. 73 qualifies the right of the so-called "companion" to act as the worker's advocate so that it requires the worker's request. Usually this may be implied, if only by the fact that the worker would have invited him to be there. But in the course of a hearing things can change and the worker might want his companion to do no more than whisper in his ear. In an extreme case the worker may decide, midstream, to represent himself entirely. That is not an unknown event in the civil and criminal courts.
There could also be a case where proceedings involved two groups of workers, some who are union members or who desire to be represented by the union, and others who are not union members or who do not want to be represented by the union. This amendment would make it clear that the choice of whether and by whom the worker is represented rests entirely and solely with the worker.
Finally, Amendment No. 75 clarifies a most undesirable ambiguity in the proposed new Section 10(2) being inserted into the 1999 Act. The proposed new subsection (2)(c) quite rightly defines, or limits, the rights of the companion as an advocate. However, it is possible that the employer, especially of a small or medium-sized business and not having the resources of a union, will not be represented by his own experienced or qualified "companion". In such a case the employer must be able to speak directly to, and directly question, the worker—who will still be able to consult with his companion.
It should not be forgotten that these grievance or disciplinary proceedings are not taking place in a court of law. Informality should be an essential ingredient of such proceedings.
To sum up, this small group of small amendments are intended to achieve the objective of informality in grievance and disciplinary proceedings, with the worker being the one to decide how and by whom he is represented in the proceedings and to what extent. The amendments ensure that unions are not given a monopoly in representing the workers in those proceedings. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The noble Baroness said that she believed in informality—and, of course, we all do. It is ridiculous to have very formal procedures written into this sort of on-site arrangement. However, she has tabled Amendment No. 75, which introduces a very strong element of informality, suggesting that nothing,
"shall prevent the employer from questioning and receiving responses from the worker".

GC 167
In other words, she is writing in to the procedures what the employer may or may not do. That imports an element of formality into what should be an informal procedure.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am sure that the Minister will answer that point if he believes that it is relevant.
Lord Triesman: This group of amendments seeks to widen the worker's choice of companion by not restricting it to either a trade union official or a fellow worker. It also seeks to give the chosen companion the rights to refuse the worker's request and to give the choice of a trade union official as a companion only to those who are paid-up members of trade union which is recognised by the employer. In addition, Amendments Nos. 73 and 75 are intended to give the worker more control over the contribution of the companion during the hearing and to ensure that the employer and worker may communicate directly during the hearing.
I shall deal first with the choice of companion. Accompanying a worker at a disciplinary or grievance hearing is undoubtedly a serious responsibility. The Government consider that those who are best placed to act in these roles are those who have specific knowledge or expertise to contribute. For example, a fellow worker knows the employer and knows the workplace. He or she understands the circumstances in which the dispute has arisen. A trade union official has practical experience of dispute resolution and a sound expertise in employment rights and good and less good practice which may have been built up over years or decades.
The disciplinary or grievance process is less well served by other kinds of individual. The worker's partner or friend would tend, understandably, to personalise the discussions; others might intervene in a way that was wholly non-expert, which would change the climate of the hearing at the risk of making it more subjective and less informed. I have seen that happen—when a neighbour came along and decided that he would rely on his A-levels in bellicosity and that they would do on the day.
I would also add that under Amendment No. 70 there would be nothing to stop the worker asking a lawyer or a journalist, for example, to act as companion. I have the greatest respect for those professions, and I would want the record to show so. I mean no offence to them whatever but, inevitably, the nature of the hearing could be more confrontational or more legalistic or might import some other motives if they were involved. Neither would help to achieve the frank, open and tempered debate in which a genuine exchange of views can take place. That is what I believe that all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on the Bill would want. It is what we want of a workplace hearing, and we believe the provisions of the 1999 Act, as amended by this Bill, offer the best chance of achieving it.
GC 168
With regard to Amendment No. 71, the Government do not believe that it would be helpful to stipulate that a trade union companion would be available only to a union member whose union is recognised by the employer. That would close off many workers from a source of expert support. We believe that workers should be free to choose any well-qualified companion who is willing and available.
Generally speaking—again, I try to rely on experience—I can think of few if any unions that would use this simply as a recruitment tool because they are very cautious about representing people in the expectation of that when someone has not made any contribution financially to the union, which would cause a good deal of grievance among those who had. The general point is that the worker should be free to choose a well-qualified companion who is able to help them.
The willingness of the companion to serve in that role is the subject of Amendment No. 72. The noble Baroness's amendment gives the chosen companion a statutory right to reject the worker's request. I wonder whether that protection is necessary. I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the companion should be free to refuse help, but there is nothing at all that would stop them from doing so now. A statutory protection is not necessary when they can simply say no. Of course, a trade union has an obligation of service to its members, but the responsibility for setting that obligation belongs to the union and to the worker. I do not believe that it belongs in statute.
Finally, Amendment No. 75 is intended to safeguard direct communications between the worker and employer at discipline and grievance hearings when the companion is present. It aims to ensure that the companion does not have a right to answer questions on behalf of the worker or interpose himself in a way which means that dialogue cannot take place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, makes an important point here. There is a key distinction between the role of a companion to support communication between the employer and the worker or as being able to act as a spokesperson for the worker. The Government agree that the companion should be a supporter and not a representative. In order for an effective debate to take place between the employer and the worker there must be a real chance of them being able to communicate directly.
However, I can assure noble Lords opposite that the amendment is not needed. The Bill already provides the necessary safeguards to ensure that the companion does not become an alternative voice for the worker. That is achieved in new subsection (2C) of Section 10, which is inserted by Clause 35(1). That makes clear that the employer is not required to permit the companion to answer questions on behalf of the worker and that the companion may not address the hearing if the worker indicates that he or she does not want that.
In conclusion, I do not believe that there is a monopoly for unions in this. The right to this form of support applies to non-union members already. They

GC 169
can choose a companion who is a fellow worker rather than a trade union official. It does not automatically give the right to the trade union. If a worker chooses not to have a companion, there is certainly no requirement on the worker to have one. Nothing that we propose will change that. I hope that that reassures noble Lords on their concerns. I respectfully urge them to withdraw their amendments.
Lord McCarthy: Can I ask something that I have always wanted to know? The noble Lord says that he knows what the Government think and he knows why they think that when there is a companion over there and a representative over there, they must be different and, in certain circumstances, the companion is better than the representative. Can he explain all that?
Lord Triesman: I had hoped that I had done so. The purpose of having companions with real ability is that they should be able to aid the process by giving the most appropriate and expert advice to the worker involved. In the course of a hearing, there may be submissions that the employer also agrees are helpful and appropriate. That is not foregone because, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy pointed out, if the hearing is ably chaired, there is no reason why that should not be a well-constructed and a well-controlled process.
We want to avoid a position where someone says, as a representative, that he or she will do the whole of the job; that is, answer all the questions, interpose themselves completely and make that kind of direct dialogue between employer and employee an impossibility. That can happen. That is why the distinctions are made in the Bill.
6 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his response, which I shall read carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 75 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 75A:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
"PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES IN RESPECT OF JURY SERVICE
(1) In Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (protection from suffering detriment in employment), before section 44 (but after the cross-heading immediately preceding that section) insert—
"43M JURY SERVICE
(1) An employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer on the ground that the employee—

(a) has been summoned under the Juries Act 1974, the Coroners Act 1988, the Court of Session Act 1988 or the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to attend for service as a juror, or

(b) has been absent from work because he attended at any place in pursuance of being so summoned.

(2) This section does not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal within the meaning of Part 10.
(3) For the purposes of this section, an employee is not to be regarded as having been subjected to a detriment by a failure to pay remuneration in respect of a relevant period unless under his contract of employment he is entitled to be paid that remuneration.
(4) In subsection (3) "a relevant period" means any period during which the employee is absent from work because of his attendance at any place in pursuance of being summoned as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)."
(2) In section 48(1) of that Act (application to employment tribunal), after "section" insert "43M,".
(3) After section 98A of that Act insert—
"98B JURY SERVICE
(1) An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee—

(a) has been summoned under the Juries Act 1974, the Coroners Act 1988, the Court of Session Act 1988 or the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to attend for service as a juror, or

(b) has been absent from work because he attended at any place in pursuance of being so summoned.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to art employee who is dismissed if the employer shows—

(a) that the circumstances were such that the employee's absence in pursuance of being so summoned was likely to cause substantial injury to the employer's undertaking,

(b) that the employer brought those circumstances to the attention of the employee,

(c) that the employee refused or failed to apply to the appropriate officer for excusal from or a deferral of the obligation to attend in pursuance of being so summoned, and

(d) that the refusal or failure was not reasonable.

(3) In paragraph (c) of subsection (2) "the appropriate officer" means—

(a) in the case of a person who has been summoned under the Juries Act 1974, the officer designated for the purposes of section 8, 9 or, as the case may be, 9A of that Act;

(b) in the case of a person who has been summoned under the Coroners Act 1988, a person who is the appropriate officer for the purposes of any rules made under subsection (1) of section 32 of that Act by virtue of subsection (2) of that section;

(c) in the case of a person who has been summoned under the Court of Session Act 1988, either—

(i) the clerk of court issuing the citation to attend for jury service; or

(ii) the clerk of the court before which the person is cited to attend for jury service;

(d) in the case of a person who has been summoned under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, either—

(i) the clerk of court issuing the citation to attend for jury service; or

(ii) the clerk of the court before which the person has been cited to attend for jury service;

and references in that paragraph to a refusal or failure to apply include references to a refusal or failure to give a notice under section 1(2)(b) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980."
(4) In section 105 of that Act (redundancy), for subsection (1)(c) substitute—
"(c) it is shown that any of subsections (2A) to (7F) applies."
(5) In that section, before subsection (3) insert—
"(2A) This subsection applies if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was one of those specified in subsection (1) of section 98B (unless the case is one to which subsection (2) of that section applies)."
(6) In section 108(3) of that Act (exceptions to one year qualifying period of continuous employment for claims of unfair dismissal), before paragraph (b) insert—
"(aa) subsection (1) of section 98B (read with subsection (2) of that section) applies,".
(7) In section 109(2) of that Act (exceptions to upper age limit for claims of unfair dismissal), before paragraph (b) insert—
"(aa) subsection (1) of section 98B (read with subsection (2) of that section) applies,".
(8) In section 237(1A)(a) of the 1992 Act (cases where employee may complain of unfair dismissal despite participation in unofficial industrial action)—

(a) after "section" insert "98B,"; and

(b) after "(dismissal in" insert "jury service,".

(9) In section 238(2A)(a) of the 1992 Act (cases where employment tribunal to determine whether dismissal of an employee is unfair despite limitation in subsection (2) of that section)—

(a) after "section" insert "98B,"; and

(b) after "(dismissal in" insert "jury service,"."

The noble Lord said: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 95 to 97 with Amendment No. 75A.
Amendment No. 75A introduces a new protection for employees who serve on juries or are summoned to do so. I am sure that no one would dispute that serving on a jury is an important civic duty, or that it would be altogether wrong for employees to suffer in their employment as a result of such service. Although we have no evidence that that has been a significant problem, we have recent anecdotal evidence of employees being dismissed for performing jury service and the potential for it to become a more significant problem has increased since 5 April this year. On that date the Criminal Justice Act 2003 removed the categories of ineligibility for jury service and excusal as of right from jury service, thereby increasing the number of people eligible.
Redress is available within the general unfair dismissal legislation for employees dismissed for reasons relating to jury service. But general unfair dismissal protection does not apply to those with less than a year's qualifying service with their employer. Nor does it apply to those over the normal retirement age for their job, where there is one, or those over the age of 65, if there is no normal retirement age. It is only in certain special cases, where the reason for dismissal is regarded as automatically unfair, that a complaint can be made to the employment tribunals regardless of length of service or age. The Bill provides an early opportunity to add dismissal for reasons relating to jury service to those special cases. It also provides an opportunity to protect employees against detriment short of dismissal.
Detriment is dealt with by the first part of the new clause, which inserts new Section 43M into the Employment Rights Act 1996. Detrimental treatment could take many forms; for instance, the employee could be excluded from training opportunities or passed over for promotion. As it takes many forms, it is deliberately not further defined. However, because employers are not obliged to pay employees while they are away on jury service, unless that is one of the terms and conditions set out in the contract of employment, new Section 43M(3) specifies that detriment excludes failure to pay remuneration unless it is due under the contract.
The clause also provides protection against unfair dismissal, again by inserting new Section 98B into the Employment Rights Act 1996. The new section adds dismissal because an employee has been summoned for jury service, or has been absent from work on jury service, to the reasons for dismissal that are regarded as automatically unfair. Further amendments to the 1996 Act apply the same protection to employees selected for redundancy for those reasons, if others in the same circumstances have not been selected. They also remove the need for qualifying service and the upper age limit, which apply to ordinary unfair dismissal claims, and add dismissal in connection with jury service to the reasons for dismissal that allow employees to complain to an employment tribunal if the dismissal takes place while they are participating in official or unofficial industrial action.
We realise, however, that there are times when it may be particularly difficult for an employer to spare an employee who has been summoned for jury service. Section 98B(2) therefore provides a set of circumstances in which it is not automatically unfair to dismiss an employee who has been summoned for jury service or has been absent on it. Those circumstances are that the employer's undertaking is likely to suffer substantial injury if the employee is absent; that the employer has made that known to the employee; and that the employee, knowing it, has unreasonably refused or failed to apply to the appropriate officer to be excused from jury service or to have his service deferred. I understand that such requests are likely to be granted, but whether or not they are granted makes no difference to whether the employee is protected against unfair dismissal. It is applying or not applying that makes the difference. If he applies, and his employer dismisses him, he is protected; if he fails or refuses to apply, and it was not reasonable to fail or refuse, he will lose his protection.
The test of "substantial injury" has been chosen to ensure that that potential exception to the unfair dismissal protection is not invoked for unimportant reasons. It is a tough test, and it is right that it should be tough. We would expect substantial injury to embrace, for instance, such eventualities as losing customers because of the employee's absence or being unable to fulfil important orders. But, whatever the nature of the injury to the undertaking, it must be some real form of loss or damage. It will not be enough for

GC 173
the employee's absence merely to be inconvenient. It will be for the employment tribunals to consider the facts of each case.
Amendments Nos. 95 to 97 are consequential. These are important new protections. It is our hope and expectation that they will not frequently be called upon but will stand as a deterrent to any employers who might otherwise be tempted to mistreat employees. They will also clearly signal the importance that the Government attach to jury service. I invite Members of the Committee to accept them.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: This long amendment, covering two and a half pages, deals with the protection of employees summoned for jury service. To some extent—for example, in new Section 98B(2)(a)—it also protects employers whose business could be harmed by the absence of a key employee for that reason.
I am interested in the amendment because, at a time when the Government are apparently seeking in another Bill to get rid of the ancient tradition of people being tried by their peers through the jury system, this step to protect it, despite its shortcomings in some types of cases, is most definitely to be welcomed. The new rules might have some adverse effect on some businesses, especially small ones, but it is a price that should be paid in the interests of justice.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Flexible working]:
Lord Triesman Lord Triesman moved Amendment No. 75B:
Page 36, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) In section 48(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (complaints to employment tribunals), for "47D" substitute "47E"."
The noble Lord said: These technical amendments simply address a drafting inconsistency relating to the operation of the flexible working law. They amend incorrect cross-references in the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Members of the Committee will be aware that in April 2003 the Government introduced a new law giving working parents with children under the age of six and parents with disabled children under the age of 18, the right to request flexible working, and placed a duty on employers to consider such requests seriously.
To enable the law, a new section on flexible working was inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996 by the Employment Act 2002. However, a change in the numbering of the flexible working provisions just before Royal Assent was not reflected in a series of consequential amendments. The result is that there are sections of the 1996 Act that refer incorrectly to a provision inserted at the same time by the Tax Credits Act and not that inserted by the Employment Act. The amendments correct the cross-references to avoid what I am sure was considerable, unnecessary confusion.
These provisions were not included when Clause 38 was added to the Bill, as the anomaly was discovered only recently when preparing an unrelated provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Triesman Lord Triesman moved Amendments Nos. 75C and 75D:
Page 36, line 15, leave out "the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18)" and insert "that Act"
Page 36, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) In sections 194(2) and 195(2) of that Act (provisions of the Act which have effect in relation to employment as a member of the staff of the House of Lords or the House of Commons), in paragraph (c) for "and 47D" substitute ", 47D and 47E".
( ) In section 199(2) of that Act (provisions of the Act not applicable to share fishermen) for "47D" substitute "47E"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Information and consultation: Great Britain]:
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 36, line 32, at end insert
"( ) The Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate before making regulations under subsection (1) that the laying of such regulations is suitable for informing and consulting employees and shall publish the responses received pursuant to those consultations."
The noble Lord said: As the Minister will be aware, this clause is one in which we have a particular interest. We are talking about the mechanisms for implementing Directive 2002/14/EC, to which the clause relates. It will come as no surprise to Members of the Committee that this is an area in which Liberal Democrats have long taken an interest.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 76 and 80 to 82 is to try to stretch the Government a little further on the implementation of the directive. There have been various delays and discussions on how that should take place. The purpose of our amendment is, first, to put in the Bill a requirement for the directive to be implemented by a specific date—that is, 23 March 2005. Secondly, it would extend the Government's obligation to go out to consultation before making regulations and to publish the results of those consultations.
We feel that the proposals are necessary because, inevitably, the production of the regulations will require some considerable work to marry the continental European approach to a lot of these issues with the history of British trade unionism. We suspect that, as a result of the regulations, in some workplaces we shall find an increase in the number of works councils that are established, which we would welcome. We understand the difficulties of marrying a

GC 175
works council structure in some workplaces with a trade union structure, which will inevitably cause problems. However, I do not believe that anyone could suggest that the directive was aimed at the trade union movement. There is scope for implementing it, and we should like to press the Government to put a specific date for implementation in the Bill and to make a commitment to consultation and the publication of the results of that consultation. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We agree with Amendments Nos. 76 and 81. The only comment I might make is that the proposals are, in a sense, a bit vague. Saying that the Secretary of State shall consult the people whom he "considers appropriate" could mean that he did not think anyone is appropriate and that, therefore, he was not in the business of consulting. However, I believe that it is a good proposal and I certainly agree that publishing the result of the consultation—indeed, publishing the result of any consultation—is a good idea.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendments mirror each in other in that Amendments Nos. 76 and 80 are in respect of the information and consultation regulations for Great Britain, while Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 would have the same effect in respect of the Northern Ireland regulations. Therefore it makes sense to take them all together.
Amendments Nos. 76 and 81 relate to the consultation that has taken place on the regulations in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Government have already consulted extensively on how best to implement the information and consultation directive. To include these amendments in the Bill would be to impose a statutory requirement not only when the regulations are made initially but whenever they may be amended in future, which would not be desirable. The department already follows Cabinet Office guidelines on public consultation and publishes the results of such consultation. So a statutory obligation would not improve things in practice.
In the case of the information and consultation regulations, as a first step we published a discussion document in July 2002 and held a series of roundtable discussions up and down the country with a wide range of individual businesses and their representatives, unions and employment experts, to discuss how best to approach implementation of the directive in the UK and to do our best to ensure that a positive climate was created for its introduction.
Building on this initial work, the Government then held discussions with the CBI and the TUC and a range of other organisations about the details of implementation. An agreed framework for implementing the directive was published on 7 July 2003, together with draft legislation on which we invited comments. A further series of roundtable discussions were also held around the country with a similar mix of experts.
GC 176
Copies of the responses to the two consultations are available in the House Library. They indicate strong and broad support for the approach we are taking to implementation, and since the second consultation closed in November officials have been working with a range of stakeholders to refine and improve the regulations. We intend to publish a government response to the consultation shortly, along with updated regulations and draft guidance.
Looking further ahead, it is proposed to run a series of events on maximising the benefits of information and consultation in the workplace. It is also intended to pilot the guidance at a number of workplaces to ensure that it is practical. We plan to work in conjunction with ACAS, trade unions and other organisations to help ensure the legislation is understood and able to be of practical benefit to as many organisations and their employees as possible.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 80 and 82. The draft clause already provides the Secretary of State with the regulation-making powers that are needed to implement the information and consultation directive. The Government are strongly committed to full implementation of the directive. Indeed, as I have made clear, we have spent much time over the past two years consulting stakeholders on how best to implement it.
There has been a good deal of consensus that employee communication is an important issue and can be a key factor in modern and successful business. There is an equally strong consensus that the key to a successful implementation is to build in as much flexibility as practicable in order to allow good information and consultation mechanisms that have the support of the workforce to flourish, while ensuring that employees are able to benefit from this legislation. That is the key feature of the framework that has been agreed by the CBI and TUC.
In agreeing the framework for implementing the directive with the CBI and the TUC, we have been guided by two key priorities: to help ensure that employees have the right to be informed and consulted on management decisions affecting their future; and to do so in such a way as to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on business. The agreed framework provides for that. It allows employees to request formal information and consultation arrangements from their employer, and to be closely involved in drawing up the arrangements. It facilitates voluntary agreements, rather than laying down detailed rules, so that employers and employees can develop arrangements best suited to their particular circumstances. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach. It allows pre-existing agreements, supported by workforce and management, to continue, and ensures a small minority of employees cannot overturn arrangements agreed with the workforce.
We have agreed with the CBI and the TUC an approach that is flexible and designed to promote better workplaces and more committed staff. That is the foundation on which our proposed legislation is based. It provides plenty of opportunities to reach

GC 177
agreements and a number of means by which employee support can be demonstrated. In the light of that explanation, I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw or not to press their amendments.
Lord Razzall: I am happy to do so, and I shall read with interest the Minister's remarks in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Triesman: I know that it is earlier than our target time, but it has been a very hot and, I think,
GC 178
difficult afternoon. I thank all noble Lords, and indeed everyone present, for putting up with an extremely uncomfortable afternoon. Although it is early, I think this may be a convenient moment to adjourn until 3.30 p.m. tomorrow.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar): The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday 16 June at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at nineteen minutes past six o'clock.

  Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme: Visas
  Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme: Visas
  Iraq: Costs to UK
  Iraq: Costs to UK
  ISAF: Air Transport and Support Helicopter Capability
  ISAF: Air Transport and Support Helicopter Capability
  Commission for Equality and Human Rights
  Commission for Equality and Human Rights
  Freedom of Information Act 2000
  Freedom of Information Act 2000
  Northern Ireland: High Court Judges
  Northern Ireland: High Court Judges
  Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland
  Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland: Lord Justices of Appeal
  Northern Ireland: Lord Justices of Appeal
  Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission
  Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission
  Northern Ireland: Senior Judiciary Selection Criteria
  Northern Ireland: Senior Judiciary Selection Criteria
  Business: Regulation and Taxation
  Business: Regulation and Taxation
  Motorsport Events
  Motorsport Events
  Emergency Contraception
  Emergency Contraception
  Data Protection: Government Departments
  Data Protection: Government Departments
  Cabinet Office: Net Administration Costs
  Cabinet Office: Net Administration Costs
  Government Documents: Accessible Formats
  Government Documents: Accessible Formats
  A1: North Northumberland
  A1: North Northumberland
  A66: Temple Sowerby Bypass
  A66: Temple Sowerby Bypass

  Iraq: Service Police Investigations
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)
  Further to my Statement of 14 June (Official Report, cols. WS 22–24) three of the four soldiers accused were informed of the charges against them on 14 June. I can therefore confirm that their names are: Corporal Daniel Kenyon; Fusilier Gary Paul Bartlam; and Lance Corporal Mark Paul Cooley and that the charges relate to incidents which allegedly took place on or about 15 May 2003 in a camp just to the west of Basra.

  I will give the name of the fourth soldier by Written Answer once they have been informed of the charges against them.

  British Indian Ocean Territory
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  I would like to inform the House of developments in relation to the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).

  In 1965, prior to Mauritius achieving independence in 1968, and with the agreement of the Mauritius Council of Ministers, the islands of the Chagos Archipelago were detached from Mauritius to form part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The territory was created to provide for the defence needs of both Britain and the United States of America. Subsequently, the plantations on which the population of the islands had depended for their livelihood were run down and closed and the inhabitants—the Chagossians—were in due course relocated to Mauritius and Seychelles, from where they or their families originated. The vast majority of them automatically acquired Mauritian or Seychelles citizenship when those countries respectively achieved independence. In addition, the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 gave a large number of them British citizenship. This carries with it the right of abode in this country, which some of them have already taken up, and freedom of access to other EU countries. Following the relocation, Britain made £650,000 available for the express purpose of assisting resettlement. And in 1982 Britain made a further ex gratia payment of £4 million for the benefit of the Chagossian community in Mauritius.

  In November 2000 the High Court in the UK held in judicial review proceedings that a provision of the territory's immigration law which had previously precluded the Chagossians from returning to the territory without a permit was invalid. In the circumstances which then obtained, it was decided not to appeal against that ruling, and the immigration law was amended to reflect it.
  WS 26
  Following the departure of the Chagossians in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the economic conditions and infrastructure which had supported the community of plantation workers ceased to exist. While the judicial review proceedings were still pending, the Government therefore commissioned a feasibility study by independent experts to examine and report on the prospects for re-establishing a viable community in the outer islands of the territory. The latest report of the study was delivered after the November 2000 judgment and it was then placed in the Library of the House. It concluded that.
  "whilst it may be feasible to resettle the islands in the short term, the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to be prohibitive. Even in the short term, natural events such as periodic flooding from storms and seismic activity are likely to make life difficult for a resettled population … Human interference within the atolls, however well managed, is likely to exacerbate stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effects of global warming. Thus resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time".
  Specifically with reference to climate change, the report advised that,
  "the main issue facing a resettled population on the low-lying islands will be flooding events, which are likely to increase in periodicity and intensity and will not only threaten infrastructure, but also the freshwater aquifers and agricultural production. Severe events may even threaten life."

  The report also highlighted the implications for resettlement on such low-lying islands of the predicted increase in global sea levels as a result of climate change.

  In effect, therefore, anything other than short-term resettlement on a purely subsistence basis would be highly precarious and would involve expensive underwriting by the UK Government for an open-ended period—probably permanently. Accordingly, the Government consider that there would be no purpose in commissioning any further study into the feasibility of resettlement; and that it would be impossible for the Government to promote or even permit resettlement to take place. After long and careful consideration, we have therefore decided to legislate to prevent it.

  Equally, restoration of full immigration control over the entire territory is necessary to ensure and maintain the availability and effective use of the territory for defence purposes, for which it was in fact constituted and set aside in accordance with the UK's treaty obligations, entered into almost 40 years ago. Especially in the light of recent developments in the international security climate since the November 2000 judgment, this is a factor to which due weight has had to be given.

  It was for these reasons that on 10 June 2004 Her Majesty made two Orders in Council, the combined effect of which is to restore full immigration control over all the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory. These controls extend to all persons, including members of the Chagossian community.

  The first of these two orders replaces the existing constitution of the territory and makes clear, as a principle of the constitution, that no person has the right of abode in the territory or has unrestricted

  WS 27
  access to any part of it. The second order replaces the existing immigration ordinance of the territory and contains the detailed provisions giving effect to that principle and setting out the necessary immigration controls. These two orders restore the legal position to what it had been understood to be before the High Court decision of 3 November 2000. I am arranging for copies of the orders to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Regional Planning Guidance 11 (RPG11) sets out the spatial strategy for the sustainable development of the region, with a framework for the land use aspects of housing and transport infrastructure and economic development. The strategy gives priority to the regeneration of the major urban areas and the regeneration zones identified in the regional economic strategy. RPG11 also sets out proposals for the conservation, management and enhancement of the region's natural and cultural environment.

  I am pleased that the vision, objectives and core strategy of RPG11 are largely as proposed in the draft RPG submitted by the West Midlands Regional Planning Body (RPB) in November 2001. This reflects the effective partnership working which was led by the RPB and involved local authorities and a wide range of other stakeholders. Many of these stakeholders have continued to make valuable contributions through the consultation process. Many of the comments received through the consultations have made a very positive contribution to the strategy.

  The West Midlands Regional Assembly, now the regional planning body, will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that RPG11 is effectively implemented, monitored and reviewed.

  School Inspection Arrangements
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland)
  My honourable friend the Minister for School Standards (Mr David Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House, copies of a new publication A New Relationship with Schools. This document, produced jointly between the DfES and Ofsted, follows the speech I made at the
  WS 28
  North of England Education Conference in January and sets out our intentions to simplify school improvement processes, reduce bureaucracy and deliver an intelligent accountability framework. This new relationship will put a premium on ensuring effective and ongoing self-evaluation in every school combined with sharper-edged, lighter-touch, but no less rigorous external inspection. Ofsted consulted on the future of inspection proposals between 10 February and 8 April 2004. HMCI David Bell has now reached agreement with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the changes. The document sets out our intention, subject to the scrutiny and approval of Parliament, to change the inspection system with a range of complementary changes for schools. Based upon the responses to the consultation and the work with LEAs and schools, actively engaged as our partners, I have confidence that these changes will improve education for pupils and ensure parents and the public know even more about the schools their children attend.

  New Relationship with Schools Proposals

  The DfES is currently developing detailed proposals for a new relationship with schools, which cover a group of interlocking changes that will affect school inspection, schools' relations with local and central government, schools' self-evaluation and planning, data collection from schools and communications with schools. They aim to reduce bureaucracy, strip out clutter, and release greater energy in schools.

  Future of Inspection proposals

  The new inspection system will mean shorter and more frequent inspections at shorter notice than at present. The proposed framework would allow two to five working days notice before an inspection instead of the current six to 10 weeks. There will be a greater emphasis on school self-evaluation and a simplified approach to schools causing concern. The current approach to schools that need special measures will be retained and a new improvement notice for other schools where there are weaknesses will be introduced.

  In the trials of the new inspection process, the outcome has been a stronger link between school improvement and the reports produced by inspectors. Schools have welcomed the new system.

  HMI will play a role in all inspections and inspection reports will be published within three weeks of an inspection, compared to four to five months at present. The proposals will reduce burdens on schools while ensuring that parents benefit from more frequent information about the quality and standard of education provided by schools. Overall the weight of inspection, with much sharper inspections, a smaller team, but at a greater frequency, will be roughly half the current weight.