Sitting of 21 June 2004

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

    Iraq
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to the statement of the Foreign Secretary, 7 June 2004, Official Report, column 31, on Iraq, what reports he has had from the US Administration on their investigation of the attack on 18 to 19 May on the village of Makr-al-Deel. [179359]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): United Kingdom operational commanders received an oral briefing from their US counterparts as part of their daily theatre operational situation updates. That briefing was passed by telephone to my office as soon as it was received. The US investigation into the incident is continuing.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is there a serious intent to establish the truth?
    Mr. Hoon: As I understand it, the United States has set up a thorough investigation into those events. We know some of the facts; we have seen some of them in various media reports that suggested that a wedding was taking place. Equally, I have seen briefing from the United States Government indicating that not only were they attacking a base for the transit of people across the Syrian-Iraqi border but that in the aftermath of the incident they found, for example, not only rifles but rocket-propelled grenades and other items of quite a heavy military kind. Obviously, it is important that we allow their investigation to proceed.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: The allegations about the incident at Makr-al-Deel, as well as US actions over the weekend, and even the fresh allegations in The Guardian today will be seen by Iraq civilians as the actions of the coalition as a whole. Unless there is a full and impartial investigation, the coalition authority and the case for democracy in Iraq will suffer. British troops are covered by the International Criminal Court but Iraqi and US troops are not. Is it not the best way to reassure Iraqi civilians that all coalition forces, including Iraqi and US forces, should be covered by the ICC?
    Mr. Hoon: The latter point is obviously a matter for the US Government, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman to this extent: it is important that each country conduct thorough and rigorous investigations into such allegations. The hon. Gentleman referred to the story in The Guardian this morning; it covered two pages and I read it in some detail. I hope that he will accept that the headline on the story could just as easily have been, "More False Allegations Against British Troops", because the detail in the story did not particularly bear out the rather lurid headline that The Guardian's editor had chosen. Such issues arise regularly, but I give the hon. Gentleman and the House my assurance that each of them that involves British troops will be thoroughly investigated.

    African Troop Training
    Mr. David Kidney: What contribution his Department will make to the training of 17,000 African troops by 2010. [179360]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Ministry of Defence is committed to playing its part in meeting the G8 goal to train 75,000 peacekeepers world wide by 2010. Our aim is to train about 17,000 African troops, either directly or through our support to centres of excellence such as the Kofi Annan international peacekeeping training centre in Ghana.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. As he knows, the most recent G8 summit made a number of commitments to the continent of Africa, which was itself a tribute to our Prime Minister, including the training of 75,000 African troops in peacekeeping skills by 2010. In the Prime Minister's statement to the House last week, he said that our contribution would be those 17,000 troops. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that British troops are among the best in the world not only at fighting but at peacekeeping and that it is thus entirely appropriate—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is far too long.
    Mr. Ingram: I cannot disagree with a word that my hon. Friend said. He made a strong point about the role played by our troops when they are called on to fight wars, wherever that may be; they have been thus engaged in Africa, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in recent years. However, one of their key attributes is that they play a peacekeeping role, too, and that is what we want to impart in nations where we have a presence. The Prime Minister has made clear his commitment to Africa and it is salutary for us to see how deep the problem is in that continent, where 20 countries and 20 per cent. of the population are affected by conflict; about 10 million African people have been uprooted from their homes owing to conflict. Everything that we do in trying to build that peacekeeping role will help immeasurably in finding solutions to those difficult problems.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: For obvious reasons, that sort of activity is welcomed on both sides of the House, but can the Minister of State tell us how it will be affected by the situation at the cornerstone of infantry training, Warminster, which has been stripped of its demonstration battalion because of overstretch?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is treading into a completely different area. I do not agree with his assertion that we shall not be able to deliver the objectives we have set out. My response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), whose question highlighted our expertise in that area, showed that we have not lost that expertise. We still have that capability and we shall continue using it to best effect in Africa and wherever we have peacekeeping missions.
    Lawrie Quinn: Given the British armed forces' globally recognised expertise in engineering and logistics units, is my right hon. Friend able to say whether those key skills, which would be of great benefit, particularly on the African continent, will be shared with the 17,000 African troops undergoing training?
    Mr. Ingram: I cannot give a specific answer, because we would primarily seek to get volume capabilities to deal with some of the very big issues that we must face in Africa—I recounted the depth and extent of the problem there—but clearly one of the areas where we must grow capability is in that type of sustainability and very positive reconstruction role. A lot will depend on what the African countries want to put into that training approach as well. So we stand ready to deal with anything in a progressive and constructive way to assist in that reconstruction. My hon. Friend is right: that is an important area. It is another area where we excel, and we must always consider how we can impart that knowledge to those nations that we are training.

    Army Medal Office
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make it his policy to delay the closure of the Droitwich Spa Army Medal Office until the end of December 2007. [179361]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): As I have said previously, I do not intend to hold up the formation of the new Ministry of Defence medal office by delaying the closure of the Army Medal Office at Droitwich Spa. Although I commend the hon. Member for his concern for his constituents, I am convinced that the investment of effort now to modernise medal delivery will be to the ultimate benefit of veterans and today's serving personnel.
    Mr. Luff: In the current edition of Soldier magazine, the staff of the Chief of the General Staff, General Jackson, say:
    "There is a widespread and strongly held view that … the administration of pay and allowances is still failing our people."
    General Jackson himself says:
    "It is well known that our pay and administration hardware is creaking at the seams".
    1062
    However, that is precisely the organisation into which the Minister proposes to merge the Army Medal Office at Droitwich Spa, at a site the future of which is itself uncertain—RAF Innsworth. Does he not understand that, whatever the long-term benefits may or may not be—I think they are illusory—the inevitable short-term consequences will be that Suez veterans die before they receive their Suez medals and that Iraqi veterans will experience unacceptable delays in receiving their medals?
    Mr. Caplin: The Suez medal is one from this Government to those veterans. I was in Wolverhampton on Saturday, where I joined members of the Suez veterans' club in presenting three of the latest Suez veterans' medals. We in this Government have righted an injustice to ensure that those Suez veterans have a medal.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's comments about the medal office, we have been through the issue already at some length. I have answered 21 questions from him in the past six weeks, all on that specific issue. That is why I commend him for his work on behalf of his constituents, but none of his questions suggest to me that the decision should be changed and that we should not have a single Ministry of Defence medal office, based at Innsworth, because we have the space, the capability and, eventually, the efficiency to improve medal delivery.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: It is a bit rich for the Government to claim credit for the issuing of the Suez canal medal and clasp, when they did so under pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House, as they know. Given the difficulty faced in the issuing of those medals and clasps, which is likely to take at least two years to complete, what effect will the closure of the Army Medal Office have on the issuing of the Artic Convoy medal, when the Government are eventually forced into issuing that medal, too—a commitment given by the Leader of the Opposition, but not yet endorsed by the Government? However, we can be as sure as anything that, when they do endorse it, they will claim credit for having done so all along.
    Mr. Caplin: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, will never miss an opportunistic moment to make an opportunistic point—that is exactly what he does but let me inform the House that, so far, as of last Friday, we have had 39,666 applications, of which 9,709 have been dispatched. I very much regret that there continue to be problems with the dispatch of the Suez medal, but I am taking action to put that right. That is an important thing that we should do. We are taking action, whereas the Conservative Government never did, and it will improve medal delivery in the longer term.

    European Security and Defence
    Mr. David Ames: When he last discussed progress on the European security and defence policy with the French Defence Minister. [179362]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I last met Madame Alliot-Marie on 9 June on board the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, anchored off Portsmouth. The visit formed part of the entente cordiale centenary celebrations. Our discussions covered a range of issues, including European security and defence policy.
    Mr. Amess: Does the Secretary or State agree that the European defence agency, if fully implemented, would have a significant impact on Britain's ability in the next Parliament independently to choose a replacement for Trident?
    Mr. Hoon: It would not have that impact, no.
    Ms Dari Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most crucial issue in European defence at present is encouraging our European partners to improve their defence capabilities? What is he doing as secretary of State to encourage that? Does he also agree that the best way to do so is to work in co-operation with our European allies, and not to carp from the sidelines, which gets us nowhere?
    Mr. Hoon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What is important is that we engage our European partners in improving their military capabilities. If we can do that through NATO, all to the good. If we can also do that through the European Union, that would be an extra benefit. Indeed, that was the Conservative party's policy at the time of the Maastricht treaty. Somewhere along the line the views of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), which in those days were considered somewhat extreme by most members of the Conservative party, have become mainstream. That says something about the current opportunism of the leadership of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: How does the Secretary of state react to the extraordinary statement last week by the three largest aerospace businesses in the EU—BAE Systems, Thales and EADS—which was reported in the Financial Times on 15 June, to the effect that the European defence agency is merely a fig leaf to cover the nakedness of any progress towards European defence? Is that not an extraordinary indictment from that very authoritative source?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that criticism. Indeed, last weekend, in the course of the discussions on the framing of a draft European constitution. there was agreement on the need to develop European defence policy and specifically to establish a European defence agency, which will have the opportunity of co-ordinating industrial and military efforts to improve European military capabilities, which I would have thought should be approved of by the Conservative party—indeed, a few years ago would have been approved of by the Conservative party. As I said in my last answer, the Conservative party today is so determined to court any cheap popularity that it is opposing things that only a few years ago it strongly supported.

    Manufacturing
    Jim Knight: What efforts his Department is making to support the British manufacturing sector. [179363]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In October 2002 we published our defence industrial policy, which seeks to provide the armed forces with the equipment that they require at best value for money for the taxpayer, while sustaining a healthy and globally competitive defence industry. When acquisition decisions are made, the Government take into account the benefit to the United Kingdom economy arising from defence expenditure, including detailed consideration of the extent to which UK companies will be involved in supplying and supporting equipment and services.
    Jim Knight: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure that he will agree that UK defence manufacturers and workers value our special relationship with the United States of America and are keen to see that translate into improved access to US contracts. What progress is being made across Whitehall Departments on negotiating the waiver on the international traffic in arms regulations?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I am certainly disappointed that some in Congress want to damage our efforts to bring down the barriers to improve Anglo-American defence industrial co-operation. We would like the closeness of the wider relationship more properly reflected industrially. The ITAR waiver would certainly be a positive step in that direction. We have made our opposition to the damaging provisions of this year's Defense Authorizations Bill clear both to the Administration and to Congress. We are grateful to the Administration for their robust support in expressing their solidarity with our position.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be of immense encouragement to British manufacturing industry and give a positive indication that the Government support manufacturing in the United Kingdom if the Ministry of Defence gave the go-ahead to BAE Systems' Nimrod MRA4—maritime reconnaissance and attack mark 4—project, which would be built at Woodford, which lies partly on the periphery of my constituency and partly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton)?
    Mr. Hoon: The Government do support manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. As set out in the principles of our industrial policy, we do so through the use of the defence budget where that is appropriate. It is important that we secure best value for money for the British taxpayer, but in our calculations we consciously and as part of our overall policy take account of the research, investment and benefit that that will provide to British industry.
    Mr. Bill Olner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most positive ways to show

    1065
    support for British manufacturing industry is to keep teams such as the Red Arrows flying? Will he give an assurance that what we have been seeing in the press is just media talk and there is no option to shut down the Red Arrows and the Hawk aircraft that they fly?
    Mr. Hoon: I recently had an extremely good visit to the Red Arrows, and I was as impressed as my hon. Friend by the brilliance of the pilots and their stunning showmanship. I am delighted to endorse their strong commitment to promoting British exports around the world, the excellence of British manufacturing, and the skill of our pilots.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that his Department does enough to encourage small manufacturing industry in this country to compete for MOD contracts? Is he aware that such businesses often find getting a foothold in defence contracts extremely burdensome?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Small businesses finding it difficult to secure access to larger contracts is a problem throughout UK industry, whether the contracts are directly with the MOD, which is relatively unlikely for the sort of small business that I believe he has in mind, or for the supply of parts under larger contracts, which are won by larger companies. However, I agree with his basic point: it is important that we encourage smaller manufacturing companies to participate in the defence industrial policy.
    Ms Ann Coffey: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance to the north-west economy of BAE Systems' site at Woodford. When I visited the site recently, I was shown around one of the newly refurbished Nimrods and was impressed by the state-of-the-art surveillance equipment and technology on the aircraft. Will my right hon. Friend say when a decision will be made on orders for the Nimrod? He will appreciate that the orders are crucial to secure jobs and investment in the north-west.
    Mr. Hoon: In February last year we reached an important agreement with BAE Systems on Nimrod—a contract amendment that put Nimrod MRA4 on a much sounder footing for the future. Under the restructured contract, design and development and production have been separated as far as possible to ensure that technology is adequately de-risked before making any further commitment to production, price and schedule. The MOD has been approving low-risk production activities when it makes sense to do so and when such activities help to maintain essential skills and product knowledge, as well as preserve the schedule. There is still work to be done before I can satisfy my hon. Friend, but I assure her that we are committed to the Nimrod project, which is important for industry in the United Kingdom and crucial in terms of the capabilities that it will offer our armed forces.
    Mrs. Patsy: I am happy to hear the Secretary of State give his commitment to the Nimrod project and to hear him say that he is seeking value for money, as are we all. However, does he
    1066
    recognise the tremendous improvement that has taken place both in the operation of the work force and the management at BAE Systems in Woodford?
    Mr. Hoon: There has certainly been improvement, but as I suggested in my answer a moment ago, that has come at some cost to the Government. I hope that the improvement will continue to be commensurate with the further efforts that the Government are making to get the project right.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Northern Defence Industries, which is working with small and medium-sized businesses in the north-east and Yorkshire to gain access to defence contracts? What encouragement can the MOD give NDI and other organisations to ensure that small companies get access to some large contracts?
    Mr. Hoon: As I said a few minutes ago, the problem is often that the larger Companies that win those contracts have bureaucratic procedures that they have to go through before they accept bids from suppliers, particularly from smeller companies. However, I agree that it is important that we work with excellent organisations such as NDI to ensure access for those smaller companies, which will one day develop into the larger companies that will secure the manufacturing future of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: With much of Britain's defence industrial base either already in foreign ownership or about to become foreign-owned, is it not the case than the Government are presiding indifferently over a massive summer clearance sale of major British defence companies, with many attendant risks to our security of supply? Is the Secretary of State's own much vaunted defence industrial policy not a complete shambles?
    Mr. Hoon: Opportunism again from the Conservative Front Bench. Our policy was established 18 months ago, and we did not hear a single word of objection from the Conservatives at the time, but now they are taking the opportunity to criticise us in a quite unprincipled way. Their party is supposed to be committed to market forces. Is the hon. Gentleman recommending nationalisation of major defence industries? Is he suggesting that the Government should interfere in the decisions made by private sector companies? Is he suggesting that where the shares are held is more significant than where the jobs, investment, and technology are? Thai is the Government's policy—he did not object to it when it was published, so to do so now is simply opportunism.

    Afghanistan
    David Cairns: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of NATO's command of international security assistance force operations in Afghanistan. [179364]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Since NATO assumed responsibility for the international security assistance force in August 2003, the alliance has continued successfully to assist the Afghan transitional authority in maintaining security in Afghanistan. NATO has also led the expansion of ISAF beyond Kabul and is working on expanding the force across Afghanistan.
    David Cairns: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. If NATO is to assume a more global peacekeeping role in future, it is essential that its command of ISAF is a success, and is seen to be a success. Does he share my disappointment that other member countries of NATO are reluctant to give ISAF the number of troops that it needs to extend its mandate beyond Kabul? Some countries may have legitimate differences of opinion with us over Iraq, but they all supported the Afghan war. Now is the time not to walk away from that country, but to help to rebuild it.
    Mr. Ingram: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in matters relating to Afghanistan. All of us want things to happen more quickly, but in the real world it takes time to plan a complicated military operation, especially in such a challenging environment as Afghanistan. It takes time to organise and deploy military forces, and for that deployment to have a full effect. My hon. Friend should look at what NATO has already achieved. It is moving fast—just two months after the UN authorised ISAF expansion, it established the first ISAF provincial reconstruction team. We are clearly moving into another phase of possible expansion, in which the United Kingdom is to the fore. I suggest that my hon. Friend wait for the outcome of the Istanbul summit, as some of the issues that he has raised will be raised there as well.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no anxiety about NATO's command of ISAF, but its real difficulty is the timely generation of adequate forces to undertake the jobs required? Will he confirm that at the summit on 17 June in Brussels it was agreed that the EU would establish its own military operational planning centre independent of NATO? Would it not be better if, instead of discussing headquarters, some of those countries increased their defence spending on deployable capabilities to undertake those difficult missions?
    Mr. Ingram: May I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman had been here for question 4 he could have asked his question then? However, I hope he heard me when I said that NATO is making progress, and more will be made as a result of the important summit at which NATO Ministers will deal with any possible expansion in Afghanistan. That is when the issue will be discussed, and that is when a structure will be put in place to develop our mission in that country.
    Mr. Tom Harris: With elections in Afghanistan due by the end of the year, it is obviously important to make sure that there is a stable political environment in the country in the run-up to those elections. What role are NATO troops,
    1068
    particularly British troops within the NATO forces, playing to make sure that that environment is sustained between now and election day?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the emerging democracy and the forthcoming elections in Afghanistan. It falls to all coalition countries to do our best to ensure that registration takes place under the UN lead, and that there is a stable environment to encourage people to vote—all sections of the community, men and women alike, who are eligible to vote. It is encouraging that significant numbers of women have already registered to vote in the election. We and other coalition forces are playing a dual role—in ISAF in Kabul and in the provincial reconstruction teams, whose role and function there are proposals to expand. It is important to allow the Afghan forces and the transitional Government progressively to take on the ownership and control of their own country. Giving them the confidence to move forward and the security in which to do it is an important role that we are playing, through both ISAF and the PRTs.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) was, when boiled down to its essentials, wait and see. How long must we wait and what will we see?
    Mr. Ingram: I gave a time scale to that. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that the summit in Istanbul next week would no doubt discuss the matter, and we may return to it in future questions if progress is not made.

    D-Day Commemorations
    Shona Mclsaac: What assessment he has made of the D-Day commemorations. [179365]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I made an initial assessment of the D-day commemorations to the House on 9 June during the veterans affairs debate. I am pleased to report further that the Ministry of Defence has received a number of letters from hon. Members, veterans and their organisations who attended the events in France, expressing their thanks for the effort provided by the Department and our armed forces. I would again like to add my thanks to all for their hard work. I have also written to the French Veterans Minister thanking the people of France for their support during that most memorable weekend of 5 and 6 June.
    Shona Mclsaac: I am sure everybody in the House would agree that the commemorations were a success. They were both moving and a fitting remembrance of the bravery and sacrifice of veterans. It is important that their work and their bravery, not just in world war two but in other conflicts, be kept in the public mind in future. What will the Government do in the future to keep these affairs in the forefront of the public's mind? Has he ever given consideration to something for which I have campaigned for some years: a veterans day public holiday?
    Mr. Caplin: We have already announced to the House that we propose to have a veterans awareness week in July 2005. That will be an opportunity for people in all parts of the United Kingdom to take part in discussions with veterans and, we hope, in educative opportunities for young people in order for them to understand what happened in 1945 and to be more aware of how those great and momentous events in our history took place. I will give some consideration to my hon. Friend's other suggestion, but I am sure she is aware that that is not directly the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I, on behalf of many of those who were there, thank the Government and congratulate them on the arrangements that they made for those never-to-be-forgotten celebrations? Will the Minister extend to the armed services our thanks for all they did in a very short time to bring together such a tremendous display, and will he particularly pass to the Normandy veterans our admiration and respect for their bearing and dignity on a parade that no one who saw it will ever forget?
    Mr. Caplin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about that weekend's events in Normandy, and Her Majesty's Government were delighted by the excellent turnout from both sides of the House. Events occurred in Portsmouth, which has a direct and important connection with the Normandy landings, in Lichfield, at the national memorial arboretum, and in many other towns and cities across the UK, such as Plymouth and Blackpool, and I hope that the people who attended those events also had a memorable and enjoyable weekend.
    Andrew Mackinlay: The Minister mentioned next year, when we shall commemorate victory in Europe and victory over Japan. Will he and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office consider righting a wrong perpetrated half a century ago, when the Polish air force was denied the opportunity to march down Whitehall with the other representative contingents because it might offend Uncle Joe Stalin? I hope that he will find some way to commemorate the Polish air force, which was part of "the few".
    Mr. Caplin: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point, and I shall look into the matter and report back to him. On 10 July 2005, the country will come together to commemorate VE-day and VJ-day, and I hope that all those who want to participate can do so, whether that occurs in London or other cities and towns around the UK.

    Balkans
    Eric Joyce: What discussions he has had with counterparts from the Balkan states on their contribution to NATO. [179366]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have regular discussions with our Balkan counterparts. Those discussions have focused on the transition from a NATO-led force, SFOR, to an EU-led
    1070
    force, EUFOR, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and on the Balkan states' aspirations to join NATO or partnership for peace. I am due co visit the region shortly.
    Mr. Joyce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he say how the decision to transfer from a NATO-led mission to an EU-led mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina was made?
    Mr. Ingram: The range of demands must match the particular Balkan country involved. Bosnia and Herzegovina has made significant progress on defence reform, including the creation of a Ministry of Defence and the appointment of a Defence Minister, but full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, particularly with regard to Karadzic, is a prerequisite for partnership for peace membership. We urge Bosnia and Herzegovina to meet that and all other international obligations, and to build close and friendly ties with its neighbours. We place a range of demands on all countries within the region, some of which are already members of the action plan and are hopefully moving towards full NATO membership, and others of which still have some way to go.
    Mr. John Randall: Will the Government support Macedonia's application at the forthcoming Istanbul talks?
    Mr. Ingram: No.

    RAF Homes (Carterton)
    Mr. David Cameron: If he will make a statement on progress towards establishing a private finance initiative scheme for the building of RAF homes in Carterton. [179367]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): This private finance initiative project to provide service families' accommodation for RAF Brize Norton was launched in May 2003. Since then, the project has gone through pre-qualification and short-listing phases. Once final approval is given, the next stage will be to issue the formal invitation to negotiate.
    Mr. Cameron: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), said that the RAF homes in Carterton are among the worst in the RAF? Given that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy wrote to me in June last year saying that the PFI to rebuild the homes was the Defence Housing Executive's "highest priority", will the Minister knock heads together to make sure that that scheme, which should be good for the RAF, good for Carterton and good for west Oxfordshire, goes ahead soon? Will he come to Carterton to see how urgently the rebuilding work needs to be done?
    Mr. Caplin: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support and that of West Oxfordshire district council for replacing Ministry of Defence housing at Carterton. I agree with the comments of my predecessor and I am aware that local people consider the houses an eyesore.

    1071
    There are concerns that some aspects of antisocial behaviour, especially vandalism, are connected to the empty properties. As the Minister responsible for the estate, I understand the wish to replace the houses as quickly as possible. I greatly hope hat the project that we have in mind will ensure that replacement housing will be available in mid-2006. Although I cannot undertake to come to Carterton shortly, I undertake to keep the hon. Gentleman informed of progress.
    Mr. James Gray: How many more houses will be needed at Carterton to accommodate the aircraft people from RAF Lyneham in my constituency when the Hercules fleet is moved? Is the shoddy, decrepit condition of the housing in Carterton a good reason for reconsidering that move?
    Mr. Caplin: We have been through this at some length with the hon. Gentleman. The decision about RAF Lyneham has been made. We had an Adjournment debate in the House on the subject, to which I replied, and there has been much correspondence. I repeat that the decision has been made and I am confident that we will get our housing stock up to the standard that we would all expect.

    Regimental Recruitment
    Bob Russell: What importance he attaches to a regiment's historic association with geographical areas when seeking recruits. [179368]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): Great importance is attached to the historic links that the infantry, the Royal Artillery, the Household Cavalry and Royal Armoured Corps have with the areas from which they traditionally recruit. Although the location of potential soldiers is not an overriding consideration in recruitment, the practice of maintaining links with geographical areas has served the Army well for many years, not least in helping to uphold a sense of unit identity.
    Bob Russell: I am sure that the Minister can justify the number of regiments in Scotland, which has a population of 5 million. Will he explain why the nine counties—the traditional recruitment area of the Royal Anglian Regiment—with a population of 7 million, have only one regiment and two battalions? Whereas the Scottish regiments find difficulty in recruiting, the Royal Anglian Regiment does not, and the reinstatement of the Third Battalion—the former Essex Regiment—would go a long way towards filling the Army's vacancies.
    Mr. Caplin: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's points, which he makes consistently. Recruitment is generally buoyant and that includes recruitment to the Royal Anglians. It is also worth saying that the Army, like any organisation, needs to adapt to change in the existing environment. It does that, as has been proved around the world.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that we are all proud of our historic links with our county regiments? Did he take the
    1072
    opportunity during the commemorations of D-day to see one of the films, which showed a small American town where almost every other household featured in the casualty rates after the Omaha beach landings? Such scenes had not been known in Britain since the days of the pals regiments. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that, in our recruitment base, the current strategy and tactics in the British Army are correct and should be adhered to on recruitment and allocation?
    Mr. Caplin: I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that I did not see the film to which he referred. I had one or two other things to do in the run-up to that weekend. Omaha beach is covered in the Minister of Defence booklet that we published to commemorate D-day. I know that my hon. Friend has a copy, because I made sure that every hon. Member had one.
    Mr. Mark Francois: The Minister knows from his experience that, especially when considering infantry battalions, not only their recruitment record but their ability to retain soldiers after they have been trained is important. Will he take that into account in any analysis of future infantry battalions? The Royal Anglian Regiment has an especially good record on retaining trained soldiers as well as on its ability to recruit them.
    Mr. Caplin: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman not only that recruitment is buoyant but that, in the past two years, the Army's trained strength has increased by more than 3,300 personnel. That is down not only to good recruitment practices but to good retention levels. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is important to retain people in the British Army once they have been recruited. We intend to do that.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Does the Minister accept that there is considerable affection for and pride in the Royal Anglian Regiment in Essex? Will he please tell me what specific support has been given to regiments such as the Royal Anglian for their local recruitment drives? Is there any truth in the recent press reports that there has been a six-month freeze on recruitment?
    Mr. Caplin: No. There has been no recruitment freeze. I met many members of the recruitment team in the hon. Gentleman's area last Friday when I was at Chelmsford fire station to celebrate the sixth-form college's national diplomas. That included talking to one or two people from a battalion.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: This looks like an East Anglian love-in. As a Member of Parliament representing Norfolk, I of course endorse all the comments made by hon. Members about the Royal Anglian Regiment. I am sure that the whole House agrees that the links between a regiment and its historical recruiting areas are very important in maintaining the strength of the Army.
    The Minister touched on a point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). The House is aware that the defence budget faces a £1.5 billion shortfall, and although the Minister denies the fact that there is a freeze on recruitment and

    1073
    training, in the other place last Thursday Lord Bach referred to it as a "pause" in training recruits. What is the difference between a freeze and a pause?
    Mr. Caplin: I have made clear the position on recruitment, which I am responsible for. There is no recruitment freeze in the British Army. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is the situation we have today. Of course, it is not the situation that members of the Government he supported in the early '90s dealt with. Their recruitment freeze in the early '90s has a direct impact on the ability of our armed forces to deliver today, and he needs to understand that. It is obvious and consistent that we ensure that our armed forces are relevant, flexible and usable. That is what they are today.

    Eurofighter
    Mr. Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on when he expects to conclude his negotiations with BAE Systems on the tranche 2 contract for the Eurofighter. [179371]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Negotiations with BAE Systems regarding the order for tranche 2 Typhoons are continuing. We and our partner nations need to acquire aircraft with the right capabilities to meet our requirements, at an affordable price.
    Mr. Jack: While I thank the Secretary of State for those words, may I point out to him that they do not answer the question I posed? He has been in discussion with BAE Systems on tranche 2 for at least the last nine months, and he will be aware of the uncertainties that the absence of an announcement is causing among the work force at BAE at Warton in my constituency. Will he outline the problems that are preventing a decision from being made on that vital procurement programme? When will he be able to announce that decision—at Farnborough or when the comprehensive spending review is complete?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a negotiation appears to be to find out what the other side want and give it to them. He was a Treasury Minister in the last Conservative Government, so perhaps that explains why their economic policies were such a disaster. However, I can tell him that there is a question about the price. We are engaged in a negotiation and I will go on negotiating on the Government's behalf until I get the right price.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a lot of workers throughout Lancashire are very worried about tranche 2? What message does he have for the work force there and what message does he have for the management of BAE Systems?
    Mr. Hoon: I shall not repeat what I have just said on the question of the price, but on behalf of the Government I say to the work force, and indeed to the management, that the six aircraft that have been received in service are performing superbly. This is a
    1074
    magnificent aircraft and it is exceeding our expectations. The next production aircraft is due to be accepted in service this week, and two aircraft are shortly due to lead the export campaign in Singapore, where the aircraft has already been shortlisted. This is a superb aircraft, but obviously it is important that we get the right price for it.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State explain the implications for RAF Leeming should he decide not to proceed with the second tranche?
    Mr. Hoon: The second tranche aircraft, as the hon. Lady knows, is of a different kind from tranche 1. It will have different capabilities and will provide an air-to-ground capability not originally envisaged when Typhoon was designed many, many years ago. It is vital to the future not only of RAF Leeming, but of the strike capabilities of the RAF that we secure tranche 2 aircraft. I emphasise, however, that that must be at an affordable price.

    Afghanistan
    Mrs. Joan Humble: What progress has been made on reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. [179372]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Through our contribution to the international security assistance force in Kabul, and to the joint departmental provincial reconstruction teams in north-west Afghanistan, our armed forces help to facilitate the reconstruction programmes of the Afghan Transitional Authority and international development agencies. An essential part of that is supporting the development of Afghanistan's own security forces. We are helping to train the Afghan national army and, through the provincial reconstruction teams, have provided assistance to the Afghan national police.
    Mrs. Humble: I thank the Minister for that reply. When British forces help in the reconstruction of Afghanistan by training police, will they also consider training civilians, ensuring that both men and women are involved in the process, so that we reconstruct not just buildings but civil society in Afghanistan?
    Mr. Ingram: Absolutely. That is one of the main thrusts of the provincial reconstruction team, which is a multi-departmental initiative, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. In Mazar-e-Sharif, the DFID representative has in the region of £1 million to allocate to a range of projects, some of them linked directly to security sector reform, but also to the whole reconstruction effort of rebuilding roads and bridges, reopening schools, reopening courthouses, or opening courthouses where perhaps none have been, and creating that normal society. My hon. Friend raises an important point. That is what our mission is in Afghanistan, and we are beginning to make progress.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Would the Minister accept that the people of Afghanistan have been badly let down by NATO in its first out-of-area operation? The troops have failed to arrive, time is running out and the elections are due in September. What will happen at the NATO meeting in Istanbul next month to ensure that troops really are there, that it is not all words, and that there is some action from NATO members?
    Mr. Ingram: I would not agree with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman that we have let down the people of Afghanistan. I have recounted in response to two separate and subsequent questions the range of activities in which we are engaged, and I have also said that we must live in the real world. Trying to put forward a major new initiative requires a lot of hard discussions and negotiations, and all the various coalition nations must decide what their best input into that is. We have made very good progress, and much more progress will be made. The situation is not ideal in Afghanistan; more remains to be done, and that is what will be addressed in Istanbul next week.

    Iraq
    Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: If he will make a statement on the role of the Fusiliers in Iraq. [179373]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our armed forces have done and continue to do an outstanding job in southern Iraq. The role of the 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers last year, and the 1st Battalion the Royal Highland Fusiliers and the 1st Battalion the Royal Welch Fusiliers this year, has been to work for the creation of a safe, secure and stable environment for the Iraqi people.
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Given that four fusiliers are at the moment being charged with various offences, and that other fusiliers were under investigation in relation to certain things that happened last year, will the Secretary of State please tell the House what will be the situation in relation to the other fusiliers under investigation? Will they be able to continue their military career with no blemish on their good character?
    Mr. Hoon: As I have made clear to the House on previous occasions, it is important that those negotiations are able to proceed free of any kind of ministerial or political interference. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. It is therefore a matter for the appropriate prosecution authorities to determine whether any charges arise out of these investigations. I assure him, as I do the House, that the Ministry of Defence is well aware of the remarkable service by the Fusiliers and by all members of Britain's armed forces. I would not want anyone to go away with the idea that simply because certain individuals might be subject to prosecution, that in any way affects the high regard in which the Fusiliers and members of Britain's armed forces are held in respect of their excellent work in Iraq.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The allegations against the Fusiliers and other battalions involved in Iraq in 2003 do not appear in any way to be replicated with regard to the divisional detention facility that the Secretary of State allowed the Defence Committee to visit. We were left with the impression of a facility being run in absolute convergence with the fourth Geneva convention, as every Member of the House would expect. What will happen after 1 July to those detainees, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned? Does he think that the Americans have the proper legal authority to continue with their operations in Abu Ghraib, as they appeared to be suggesting this morning?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Defence Committee for taking the trouble to visit the facility just outside Basra. I was there last Monday and saw the high standards that are maintained by British military personnel, something that has been reflected upon by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
    As for the position on 1 July, negotiations with the interim Government are still to be concluded but I am confident that, whatever decision is reached, it will be in accordance with international law. Indeed, the new Security Council resolution contains provision for multinational forces to retain physical control of prisoners, subject to the overriding sovereignty of the Iraqi Government. That seems to be a sensible short-term solution, but I recognise that, ultimately, it is important that the Iraqi Government have both legal and physical control of detainees.
    Mr. James Clappison: How many reservists are deployed in Iraq. [179375]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): All our reserve forces have performed extremely well when asked to do so in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. I place on record again the House's utmost appreciation for all their efforts and for the continuing support of their employers. As at 16 June, 1,483 reservists were serving in Iraq.
    Mr. Clappison: The Minister is absolutely right to pay tribute to reservists in the terms in which he has just done so—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will have to keep the conversations down. It is unfair to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Clappison: Is the Minister satisfied that individual members of the reserve who are part of the tranche of reservists due to go to Iraq in October will receive at least 21 days' notice that they are part of that mobilisation, and can they expect to serve six months, but no more?
    Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from the lessons-learned process following Operation Telic 1 that we made it clear that the 21-day notice period would be appropriate for reservists and their employers. I anticipate that all those going to Iraq in due course will receive 21 days' notice, and I expect their tour of duty to be six months.
    Richard Younger-Ross: At the early stages, the reservists felt they were very hard done by, as they were expected to stay out there when the forces that they went out with returned to the UK. There are fears in the armed forces that that will lead to greater difficulties in recruiting reservists. What work is the Minister doing to research what the feelings of those reservists are and to ensure that, when they return, they are properly debriefed?
    Mr. Caplin: We have a successful mobilisation and demobilisation process at Chilwell. I have seen it and the hon. Gentleman would be a welcome visitor to Chilwell. The latest survey of Territorial Army soldiers shows that 70 per cent. regarded their morale as high or very high. As I made clear on 13 May in the personnel debate, we plan to consult on the review of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and statutory instrument No. 309 before the summer recess.

    RAF Menwith Hill
    Norman Baker: If he will make a
    statement on the forward plans for RAF Menwith Hill. [179376]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): A long-term plan is being developed by a joint UK-US team to improve some of the ageing infrastructure on the site. That may lead to the demolition of some of the older buildings and their
    1078
    replacement by modern facilities that, wherever possible, will be more in keeping with the rural landscape. Base authorities are working closely with the local planning authority to agree suitable architectural standards and guidelines. There are no plans to change the base's current role and mission.
    Norman Baker: The Minister will know that there is some controversy over RAF Menwith Hill. He accepts, I hope, that it is in the interests of and it is the duty of Members of Parliament to ensure that the base operates in the British national interest. Is he therefore content that, when I asked to visit the base, his predecessor told me that he would have to check with the American Administration first and came back most apologetically to tell me that the Americans would not allow me to visit an RAF base? Is it now British policy that the Americans decide whether Members of Parliament can visit RAF bases?
    Mr. Ingram: I am not fully aware of all the matter related by the hon. Gentleman concerning his previous request. I would have to look into that to find out the nature of his request why he wanted a visit, what issues he wanted to discuss and the relevance of all that. I will look into his earlier request, but the important thing is not to whip up suspicion about what is undoubtedly an important part of our defence interests as well as those of the US. The installation is important and, as I said, there are no plans to change its role or mission as part of the current reconstruction.

European Council
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council that took place in Brussels on 17 and 18 June. At that Council, the European Union—now of 25 nations, soon to be 28—agreed a new treaty for Europe that sets out for the first time, in one single treaty, the powers, rights and duties of the European Union. I have placed a copy of the presidency conclusions in the Libraries of both Houses. I thank the Irish presidency, under the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, for its skill in negotiating a successful conclusion.
As the Taoiseach said, the constitutional treaty makes it clear that Europe is
"not a super state; not a federal state but a group of nations".
This treaty makes it plain, again for the first time in a European treaty, that the European Union has only the competences conferred on it by member states, and it states expressly, also for the first time, that member states can withdraw from Europe should they want to.
This treaty makes clear where the European Union can and cannot act. It provides for qualified majority voting where we need it, for the single market, for reform of the common agricultural policy and for action against international crime and terrorism. It keeps unanimity for the most important decisions and, at our insistence, in particular for tax, social security, foreign policy, defence and decisions on the financing of the Union affecting the British budget contribution. It keeps our ability to opt out of measures affecting our laws on asylum and immigration, and extends that so that we cannot be obliged to co-operate on criminal law procedures where we do not want to do so. For the first time ever, it provides a power for national Parliaments to scrutinise proposals from Brussels at the draft stage and to send them back if Parliaments are not satisfied.
The treaty provides, through the route of enhanced co-operation, for a flexible Europe in which groups of countries can take action together within the framework of the European Union provided that they do not damage the interests of others. That is a flexibility within the framework of law, not the tree-for-all that some have advocated.
Above all, the treaty provides for the reforms in the working of the European Union that are necessary if it is not to fall into gridlock with 25 members. It reforms the system of the six-monthly rotating presidency to provide greater continuity and co Terence in a Union of 25, and replaces it with a full-time Chairman of the European Council, who will serve for up to five years. This is crucial in placing the power to set Europe's agenda in the hands of Europe's intergovernmental body.
The European Union treaty includes, in the charter of fundamental rights, the rights of the citizen under EU law. The charter expressly rules out establishing any new power or task for the European Union or any change in the powers of the European Union. In each area the rights are expressly limited to those available under existing national law and practices and under existing Union law. For example, article 28 of the charter says
1080
that workers and employers have the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels, but only
"in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices".
In addition, the charter contains explanations for each article—making it clear, for example, that
"the — limits for the exercise of collective action, including strike action, come under national laws and practices, including the question of whether it may be carried out in parallel in several member states".
The treaty requires those explanations to be given due regard by the Courts.
Some have expressed concern at the references in the treaty to the primacy of European Union law.
In fact, the primacy of European Union law has existed since we joined the European Union and is there in the European Communities Act 1972. But, of course, European law only takes precedence where member states have agreed that Europe should have a competence. The idea that this is something new is therefore nonsense. This treaty also completes and consolidates the existing treaties of the European Union, and 75 per cent. of it is a repetition of what is in earlier treaties.
Among the many myths about the constitutional treaty that have been published over the last few months have been accusations that we would lose our rebate and our seat on the Security Council; that Brussels would seize control of our oil supplies; that the UK taxpayer would pay for other EU countries' pensions; that we would have to give up control of our Army or be forced to join the euro or to raise our taxes; that we would lose control of our borders or have our foreign policy dictated by Brussels. Now the British people have before them the text of the treaty as agreed—and it demolishes those myths. However, the myths, and the propaganda that goes with them, are not really about the constitutional treaty. They are about whether Britain should or should not be a leading member of the European Union.
The new Europe of 450 million people is a success for Britain. The new countries of Europe share our view that it should be run by sovereign nation states. They have joined the European Union for the stability, security and prosperity that it provides—the same stability, security and prosperity that we have enjoyed as members of the European Union for the past 30 years.
We are in the European Union for the single market and customs union that it provides for our goods and services, for the extra 1.8 per cent. of GDP that membership brings us every year and for the 3.5 million jobs that depend on that single market. We are also in the EU for the strength that it gives us in trade negotiations with powerful countries, such as the United States and Japan. We are in it for its network of aid and trade relationships with China, India and the countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Those relationships make an important contribution to international peace and security and development.
Of course, there are frustrations and compromises, but the European Union is the most successful way anyone has yet devised of managing relations between European countries whose national rivalries had, until 60 years ago, only ever been settled in a series of bloody conflicts. Now we not only manage those rivalries; we

1081
pool our combined strength for our economic advantage, for influence in the world, for peace, for security. The power of the European Union has helped eight countries of eastern and central Europe achieve democratic stability. It is transforming Turkey into a modern democratic state and it is helping to achieve peace in the Balkans. Not a single Government of a single nation—either those in Europe now or those wanting to join—opposed this treaty. All welcomed it. All want it to work. Many share the British view of Europe's future.
All that is what the opponents of this treaty would put in jeopardy for the sake not of any real British interest, but of a narrow nationalism, which no British Government have ever espoused or should ever espouse if they have the true interests of the British people at heart. In the end, the final say will be with the British people in a referendum. But in that debate, we will argue that this constitutional treaty represents a success for the new Europe that is taking shape, is a success for Britain and I commend it to the House today.
Mr. Michael Howard: Mr. Speaker, this constitution is bad for our democracy, bad for jobs and bad for Britain. The Prime Minister has said that we must separate myth from reality. All I can say is, look who's talking: the great myth-maker himself.
The Prime Minister has hailed this constitution as a great success for Britain. In fact, only 27 of the 275 amendments submitted by the Government to the European Convention have been included in the final draft. That is one in 10. In the Prime Minister's version of Euro 2004, the score is UK 27; EU 248. Well, we all hope England do better than that tonight.
Now let us deal with some of the so-called myths. The Prime Minister said that he did not want a
"single, legally binding document called a Constitution."
But the document is called "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe". Not that the Prime Minister could bring himself to mention the word constitution this afternoon. That is hardly surprising. The dictionary definition of a constitution is
"the principles on which a State is governed".
The Leader of the House said that the title "Foreign Minister" was "unacceptable", but now it is in article I-27. Where is the myth in that? The Government tried to delete the proposed measures on criminal procedure, but now they are in article III-171. Where is the myth in that? The Government tried to delete the measures on energy, but now they are in article III-157. Where is the myth in that? The Prime Minister said that there was no proposal for a separate European military planning capability, but now it is on page 20 of the Council conclusions. Where is the myth in that?
The Government opposed the European public prosecutor. That was one of their so-called red lines. They said:
"Unanimity does not mean that"—
a European public prosecutor—
"can be accepted."
1082
But the public prosecutor is there, in article III-175. Where is the myth in that? The Prime Minister boasted—he said it again this afternoon—that the constitution
"gives a role to national parliaments of a greater degree than ever before."
But after Parliament has had its say, the Commission can ignore it. That is in the snappily named "Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality." Where is the myth in that? Does not all that go to show that the only myth we have here is the Prime Minister's claim that this is a success for him and for Britain?
Is not the reality that there will now be new burdens on business and on our public services? Is not the reality that this constitution will make it easier for the European Court to use European Union legislation, such as the working time directive and the works councils directive, to bring in even more red tape from Brussels? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Have not business leaders already warned that the constitution will "harm our prosperity"? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will there not be more interference from the European Court on asylum policy? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will that not threaten even the Government's own measures on asylum, including their plans to restrict benefits to those who apply late? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will not the Commission mean that the European Union can now interfere, in the Government's words, in "almost any aspect" of criminal procedure? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, they say no, but they should read the document. If they did so, they would know that that is the reality of what the Prime Minister has signed up to. Will not the European public prosecutor have wide-ranging powers to direct police, order arrests, prosecute and choose the country where a trial should be held? Did not even the Labour-dominated European Scrutiny Committee say that
"the proposal…has the potential for creating an engine of oppression"?
Why on earth did the Prime Minister agree to that? How can this Parliament protect British interests when, in 43 new areas of policy, we can have measures imposed on us by majority voting against our will?
The charter of fundamental rights is a case study in Government surrender. The Prime Minister has been dragged along, step by step, against his better judgment. First the Government did not want this charter at all. Then, when they lost that argument, Ministers said that they did not want it included in the treaty. Then they argued that it should be moved to a protocol. When the charter was finally included in the constitution, the Government called for safeguards to stop it undermining our national law. But on Friday, the President of the European Court of Justice said that the constitution would bring new areas and new subjects under the Court's jurisdiction, and he refused to give any guarantees that the charter would have no impact on national law.
The Prime Minister says that he will take the constitution to the country. It is not the first time he has said that. Five years ago, with the hand of history resting on his shoulder, he said that
"once in every generation he case for Europe has to be restated".

1083
He said that he would give leadership. Six months later, when nothing had happened, he said:
"Once in each generation, the case for Britain in Europe needs to be remade … The time for this generation is now."
So what happened?
We have just had elections to the European Parliament during which the Prime Minister did not make a single speech on Europe. That is what he means by leadership. The Prime Minister's definition of leadership is to press the mute button, and press it hard.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that there is now a real opportunity to get the British view accepted because there is a lot of support for it. I agree; there is indeed a lot of support for the British view. What a pity that the Prime Minister did not put the British view when he was in Brussels last week.
The British view is that there should be a modern, flexible, reformed Europe; a Et rope ready for the challenges of the 21st century; a Europe that is truly free, based on co-operation and not coercion; a Europe that transfers powers back from Brussels to the nation state—truly a Europe of live and let live. That is what the Prime Minister should have been arguing for in Brussels last week. That is what the people of this country want.
Let us have none of that nonsense about the referendum being a question of in or out of Europe; it is about the kind of Europe that we want to see. Let me make it clear: I am opposed to this constitution and I will play my part in a cross-party campaign, involving people from all parts of the country and all walks of life, to say no to this constitution. Britain does not need to wait until the last minute to decide; we do not need to wait until other countries have spoken. Why cannot Britain do what the Prime Minister says he wants to do and give a lead in Europe? Why does he not lead rather than just follow?
The fact is that the Prime Minister knows that he has no mandate whatever for this constitution. There was nothing in his manifesto on the constitution and the British people rejected it at the polls only 10 days ago. The fate of this constitution will not be decided by the right hon. Gentleman; it will be decided by the British people, so why does he not let the British people speak, and let them speak now?
The Prime Minister: Let me deal with some of the points of detail. First, the constitutional treaty is a treaty like any other. It has exactly the same status.
Secondly, in relation to criminal law, the procedures that we have agreed will mean that should we object to a particular proposal, it can be blocked. That allows us to make progress in areas where we want to do so but to block things that we think are against our interest.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong in respect of energy. There is actually a tax carve-out for energy, which is the same as the one for the environment.
European Union defence is to be maintained at governmental level and governed by unanimity. It is true that there is power to establish a European public prosecutor but it can be done only by unanimity and, therefore, requires our consent.
1084
In respect of national Parliaments, yes it is true that if a third of them object they cannot block the European Commission proposal, but for the first time they are able to take objection to it and send it back to the Commission—[Interruption.] Let us put it like this: that
is a lot more than the right hon. and learned Gentleman ever secured when he was negotiating for this country in Europe. May I remind him that the working time directive was actually agreed when he was in government, not when we were in government?
The document does not affect our asylum laws. One of the less pleasant myths in some of the propaganda put out is that somehow Europe decides our asylum and immigration laws. It does not; we decide them. The House of Lords European Committee said that the treaty shifted the balance back towards the nation state. As for the idea that in the whole of the rest of Europe people are rejoicing that this is some federalist blueprint, let me read a few recent quotes about that.
The Prime Minister of Spain:
"Europe is and will be a Union of"
nation
"States."
The leader of Germany in Bavaria:
"The EU will not have the right to set taxes and Europe is not going to be a federal state."
The President of Germany:
"I do not believe that current developments are going to give rise to a European federal state".
He sees
"a revival of the nation-state principle again."
I seem to remember that Poland was prayed in aid by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the last time he was here—the plucky Poles standing up and not wanting this constitutional treaty—but, in fact, they are with us in wanting it, but on the right terms. The President of Poland:
"The treaty doesn't mean we create a new state of Europe or something like a European federation."
Or, for example, this quote from an editorial in one of the main newspapers in Spain, El Mundo:
"this is a Constitution… which consecrates the EU as a union of sovereign states, which continues not to opt for federal institutions".
In the main commentary in Corriere della Sera, in Italy:
"The British won the day."
In Sweden:
"the EU is no longer run by the Franco-German axle."
In another Spanish paper, but I am almost too modest to mention it:
"Blair, the big winner of the Summit, achieved everything he wanted."
Why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman so anxious to have the referendum without the parliamentary debate and scrutiny? Because he has everything to fear from a detailed understanding and everything to gain from haste and headlines.
I shall turn to some of the issues that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised on the qualified majority voting extensions. It is true that there are qualified majority voting extensions on things like, for example, the diplomatic and consular protection rules, on things

1085
like patents, on things like appointments to specialist judicial panels, on things like the armament agency rules and on things like the salary of the European Court of Justice judges. But let us compare this treaty with the two documents that he agreed: the Single European Act, where 12 whole areas were moved to QMV, including health and safety and, yes, the free movement of workers—something that Conservative Members now object to—and of course I was looking at the Maastricht treaty to see what it extended.
The Maastricht treaty created European citizenship. It added foreign policy, justice and home affairs. It transferred 15 whole new areas of power to the European Parliament. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman attacks this treaty, he should have been screaming the place down over Maastricht. Instead, he voted for Maastricht, and he is now left in the ludicrous position of having to argue that, somehow, Britain ceases to be a nation state because the rules on diplomatic and consular protection go to QMV. His true position is not, of course, hostility to this treaty—it would not matter what this treaty says; his opposition to this treaty is just a device to get to his real position, which is to renegotiate not this treaty, but the existing terms of Britain's membership of the European Union. He has said that he wants to renegotiate—perhaps he would just confirm this—the social chapter.
Mr. Howard indicated assent.
The Prime Minister: Yes. European defence and common foreign policy.
Mr. Howard indicated assent.
The Prime Minister: Yes. The common agricultural policy, and this is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in relation to the common fisheries policy: on 9 June he wrote to one of his hon. Friends saying that he would not just withdraw from the common fisheries policy but, if others refused to renegotiate, defy the law and pull out of the common fisheries policy altogether. What would happen if others then said that they would not allow British goods to come into the single market or that they would use that practice against us? The truth is that he is in a position that no British Prime Minister would ever want this country to be in.
The real surrender is not the surrender of Britain's identity to a European superstate, but the surrender of the Tory party to a position on Europe that no Tory party in government, when faced with the responsibilities of government and when faced with the realities of government, would ever have dreamt of taking. That is why Lord Heseltine said yesterday—[Interruption.] It is interesting, is it not, that the person who was Deputy Prime Minister under the last Conservative Government is now so ridiculed by Conservative Members that they are not even prepared to listen to him?
This will indeed be an historic debate. It will pit reason against prejudice. It will pit true leadership in Britain's long-term interests against a transient
1086
populism that actually betrays the very national interest that it says it safeguards. Yes, that debate will happen, and when it comes, yes, we will be on different sides, but I would prefer our company to the company that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will keep, and I prefer our argument about Britain's future to his.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, give a general welcome to the fact that this compromised treaty was agreed and unanimously endorsed by 25 member states and Governments over the course of the weekend? Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, given the welcome and historic enlargement of Europe and the triumph of democracy, and of socially fair market democracy at that, the model that operated for a Europe of six was simply not applicable to a Europe continuing to develop with a membership of 25?
Does the Prime Minister agree that this constitutional treaty should be seen as a mechanism? It is not a moral crusade, although listening to some of those opposed to it, one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. Indeed, in the minds of many of us, including those who support Europe, much of the conduct in and around this weekend's summit was a rather poor advert and a persuasive argument that further reform of the way in which Europe goes about its business is long overdue.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the new threats facing Europe, particularly global terrorism and climate change, as well as long-standing problems such as reform of the common agricultural policy, will be given better effect in a collective way as a result of the procedures outlined in the treaty? Will he indicate specifically the prospects under the provisions in the treaty for tackling the CAP—such a long-running source of frustration for successive Governments and this country as a whole?
We surely deceive ourselves by the allure of semi-detachment as a country from Europe or, far more so, of outright isolationism. Therefore, those who are sceptical as well as those who are enthusiastic about Europe should surely welcome a treaty that sets out the competences of the wider European Union and how they can be fairly adjudicated in the interests of both the individual European citizen and member states and Governments who make up the wider Europe.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that none of us can deny the growth of Euroscepticism both in this country and throughout the EU? Political elites have run ahead of their domestic public opinion for too long. That is why the referendum has become so essential. The Prime Minister spoke in his statement of the new responsibilities of national Parliaments under the treaty to shape and have a greater input into European legislation. Does he agree that however long it is until the referendum in Britain, from now until such time the Government could make—the Leader of the House is with us today—specific proposals to put more of our handling of European business in this House, centre stage, in order to explain and demonstrate to people the relevance of what Europe is doing and the way in which, as parliamentarians from across the spectrum, we attend to it? Do the Government have any proposals in that respect?

1087
Finally, on the issue of the referendum, we have had so many false dawns and false starts with this Government, as the Prime Minister well knows. Will he acknowledge today that, having put his signature to the treaty and given that he is having to try to sell it to the British public and that trust in him and his Government is not what it was several years ago, the campaign for the referendum, if it is to be successful, will have to be broadly based, cross-party and involve significant persuasive voices from those outside formal party politics? Will he acknowledge that a referendum campaign that is seen by the public in this country to be spun from No. 10 Downing street would not be won? Although there is scepticism about Europe to be overcome, there is also scepticism about the Government that can undermine the case that needs to be made. The battle is now joined. I hope that, across the political spectrum, we shall be able to make a constructive, pragmatic and principled pro-European case. We look forward to the spectacle of some of the very strange bedfellows who will face us.
The Prime Minister: The reason we have not had a referendum on the single currency is that we do not believe that the moment is right for Britain to join the single currency. We said that it should happen only when the economic conditions are met and, as I understand it, the Liberal Democrats' current position is not that we should join the single currency at this point. It is good to know that we are in agreement on that, as well.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we have proposals on how we scrutinise European business. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has proposals before the Modernisation Committee that will allow us to go into greater detail of some of the European proposals. I think that the House will welcome that.
As for the various other items that the right hon. Gentleman raised, I think that he and I agree on the basic point. I believe that the treaty will allow us to make progress on matters such as economic reform and reform of the common agricultural policy, which are of enormous importance. It is only in the last few years that we have made progress on CAP reform, but it is only as a result of qualified majority voting that we have the slightest chance of succeeding.
Donald Anderson: Is not the sad reality that if my right hon. Friend had returned from Brussels with sackfuls of gold, the Leader of the Opposition would have criticised the quality of the sacks? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no Government among our 24 partners would seek to renegotiate the constitution in the way that the Opposition suggest, and that the Opposition are therefore seeking either semi-detached status, or to get out altogether?
Now we come to the referendum, and public opinion polls make the position clear: the British public are against the constitution, but honestly admit that they know nothing about it. What does my right hon. Friend propose to do? How will he circumvent a hostile press and, without official propaganda, get a balanced debate on the real European issues facing this country?
The Prime Minister: That will be up to those who support the campaign in favour of Britain remaining at the centre of Europe and those who are opposed to the treaty. We will have to argue our case, and I have no doubt that it will be a most interesting political battle. I have no doubt, too, that the position taken by the Conservative party—in effect, to use a no vote to renegotiate the existing terms of Britain's membership—would be a terrible mistake, and I think that it will be exposed as such in the course of the campaign. The Conservatives will have to say how one can remain part of the European Union if one unilaterally, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting, withdraws from areas of European competence. That is what we now call the lobster thermidor strategy: it might be nice to have it, but it is not on the menu. The fact is that if we tried to do such a thing, we would face either humiliation or withdrawal, which is what I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants.
Mr. Robert Jackson: We shall have to study the treaty and its fine print with close attention, without prejudice and with no preconceptions, but it looks to me as though it is a treaty that shifts the institutional balance in the direction of member states and strengthens Britain's voting weight in the Council of Ministers, without making significant concessions to federalism.
In his statement, the Prime Minister did not discuss the suggestion that is said to have been made by the French President: that it would not be possible for a country that is not in the eurozone to supply a President of the European Commission. Does he agree that in a European Union that contains nine member states that are not within the eurozone, that suggestion is outrageous and illegal?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that there should be any criteria other than those that are laid down. I agree that there should not be any block on any candidate emerging from a country that is not a member of the eurozone.
As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he is absolutely right—this is not an unusual position for a British Prime Minister to be in, I am afraid, as very partisan views are sometimes expressed on the issue. However, we are in a bizarre situation in which virtually every other country in Europe thinks that this has been a victory for the British position. Unfortunately, that realisation needs to dawn here, and I accept that that will take a bit of work. It is odd that not a single country elsewhere in Europe would recognise this as a federal blueprint.
Sir Stuart Bell: The Prime Minister referred to 18 June as an historical day, but is it not an historical day for all of Europe? He referred to bloody conflict, and is it not true that over the centuries we have fought the Spanish, the French, the Germans, the Italians and the former states of the Hapsburg empire, and that those wars are over for all time? He referred to the single market, and the 1.8 per cent. gross domestic product and 3.5 million jobs for which it is responsible. Has that not contributed to the greatest prosperity that we have ever experienced, and should the

1089
word not go forth from this time and place that, to adapt the words of a former Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, what kind of a people do they think the British are to turn their back on the greatest success story since 1945?
The Prime Minister: I obviously agree entirely with my hon. Friend, but there is another argument and, in a sense, a more modern one. Europe is indeed changing, and the countries that have recently joined the European Union share the British perspective for obvious historical reasons. I find it hard to understand why, when those new countries basically share the British perspective of Europe as a group of nation states, we should want to put ourselves in a marginalised position in Europe. That is what is so extraordinary about the position that has been taken. We have a huge opportunity if we are prepared to grasp it.
Sir Patrick Cormack: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his statements that Britain will retain its autonomy in matters of foreign policy with a constitution that provides for a foreign Minister and foreign policy that, it states,
"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support"?
The Prime Minister: Let me quote from the Maastricht treaty—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I quote from that treaty to show how ludicrous it is to suppose that what is in this treaty is any different from what we have had for over 10 years. The Maastricht treaty says:
"The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity."
This treaty says:
"The Member States shall support the common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity".
There is a notion that this is a great new development in the European Union, and it has been suggested that I would have to ask for the French President's permission before I did anything more with the USA. I should have thought that the one thing that has been obvious over the past couple of years—this may, or may not, recommend itself to people—is that we have pursued a highly independent foreign policy.
Mr. Robin Cook: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his robust and enjoyable presentation of the case for British membership of Europe? May I ask him to remind the House that the proposal for the new post of President of the Council of Ministers was first made by Britain, and that we supported it for several years to secure our negotiation? It would be perverse if those who worry about federalism were to persuade Britain to stop that post coming into being, when it represents a new person in Brussels speaking for the member states and the nations of Europe. Is it not a measure of the opportunism that we have heard today that if the Opposition had been in government they would have presented as a triumph, not a sell-out, a deal half as good as the one that my right hon. Friend has negotiated?
The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. Friend. It is true that there is a presidency of the European Council now, but it rotates every six months. It is important to get a full-time chairman of the Council because, at the moment, states rotate the presidency every six months and as a result, on the Lisbon agenda for economic reform, for example, it becomes difficult for the next presidency to pick up what the previous presidency has done. It is far more efficient for the member states and Governments of Europe to have a full-time chairman.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Under the constitution, all the existing EU institutions, including those that are riddled with mismanagement and waste at present, gain at the expense of national Parliaments and people. To take one example from the 250 failed amendments tabled by the Government representatives when it was being drawn up, the Government promised to remove all references to the European public prosecutor. The Government representative said:
"Unanimity does not mean that this article can be accepted".
In other words, he wanted it completely out. It was an unambiguous Government red line. Now the Government have accepted it, and I understand it was not even raised during the final negotiations. Does the Government's pledge to hold a referendum have the same status—in other words, is it a firm and unambiguous pledge that is abandoned when it gets difficult for the Government?
The Prime Minister: Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman why we agreed with the notion that there could be a European public prosecutor, provided that is done with unanimity, so we have to give our consent. It is precisely for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. There is a need to deal with issues to do with fraud and accountancy problems in the European Union, so how on earth does it help for us to disappear off into the sidelines of Europe? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that his view of Europe is that Britain should renegotiate its existing terms of membership. That is his point, is it not? Therefore, if we are to have an honest debate, why does he not accept that his objection is not to this treaty, but to Britain's existing membership of the European Union?
Mr. Speaker: I call Frank Field.
Mr. George Foulkes: Oh, no.
Mr. Frank Field: Oh, yes. Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that if other countries veto the constitution before he calls a referendum, the British people will still have their say on what they think of this move?
The Prime Minister: Yes. There is no question of any constitutional treaty going through without the express consent of the British people. [Interruption.] Of course—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the good of hon. Members shouting the Prime Minister down? They might not like the answers, but they should be quiet when the Prime Minister is giving his reply.
The Prime Minister: Exactly so. Regardless of how other members vote, we will have a referendum on the subject.
Mr. Alex Salmond: What is it about the workings of the common fisheries policy over the past 30 years that has persuaded the Prime Minister that it should be an exclusive competence, not a shared competence, as he told the House previously? The vast bulk of it is one of only four exclusive competences in the new constitution.
The Prime Minister: The common fisheries policy was entered into by the previous Government. It is sensible that we have it. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said on many occasions, that it is a cruel deception to pretend that the fishing industry's problems are to do with the European Union when, as he knows perfectly well, they are to do with the depletion of fish stocks. It is not a problem that exists just in this country or in the rest of Europe. It exists right around the world at present. It is to prey on people's fears in a wholly disingenuous way to suggest that if Britain got out of the common fisheries policy, it would help the British fishing industry.
Richard Burden: As we prepare for the debate on the constitution, in my region, the west midlands, the debate is at two levels. At one level, people are concerned about what they perceive to be a distance between Europe and its institutions and themselves, but at another level, when one talks to them, one realises that they understand that, for a manufacturing region such as ours, trade with Europe is vital to their jobs and the future. They also see the need to reach agreement. Given that, does my right hon. Friend agree that in looking ahead to the forthcoming debate we need to address the distance between European institutions and people's perceptions, but that we should give no quarter to those who are prepared to play fast and loose with the jobs of thousands of my constituents and of other people in the west midlands?
The Prime Minister: I agree with both points that my hon. Friend makes. I am sure that when people think about the matter carefully, they will realise that there is no reason to reject the treaty on its own terms. It does not give away our right to decide our tax, foreign policy, defence, immigration laws and so on. What it does is enable Britain to remain at the centre of decision making in Europe. When they think about it, people will not think it a sensible idea for Britain to marginalise itself in Europe when 60 per cent. of our trade is with Europe and so many of our jobs depend on European business.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The treaty that the Prime Minister signed requires member states to work more closely on co-ordinating their economic policies to provide the basis for an EU-wide economic policy. What arrangements has the Prime Minister made on that policy? Do we have a veto, or will qualified majority voting be used?
The Prime Minister: The treaty makes it clear that member states decide their economic polices. It is true that we want member states better to co-ordinate their economic policies, but that has happened for years. There is absolutely nothing wrong with such co-
1092
ordination, which does not interfere with our ability to determine our economic policy, as has been amply demonstrated over the past few years.
Tom Levitt: You, Mr. Speaker, will recall that just a few months ago, this House voted unanimously for measures to enlarge the European Union. The treaty addresses the problems caused by structures designed for six members, and makes those structures appropriate for 25, 28 or more members. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is bananas—straight or otherwise—for those who will the ends of European Union enlargement not also to will the means?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why every other country in Europe supports the treaty—if we oppose the treaty, we will be
the only country to do so. People recognise that a Union of 25 should and must operate differently from a Union of 15 or six.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Prime Minister tell us what advantage will stem from the appointment of a European Foreign Minister? Where will that Minister be located, which terms will rule their policy and what will that appointment cost? Bearing in mind the fact that the European Foreign Minister is one of a number of additional powers, does the Prime Minister realise that many people are disappointed? Instead of making new appointments that have no apparent purpose, he should concentrate on the financial scandals, which, to my knowledge, have resulted in the European Union being the only organisation in the world not to have its accounts signed by auditors for eight separate years.
The Prime Minister: The European Foreign Minister is currently called the high representative for the common foreign and security policy, and he will remain accountable to the Council of Ministers and will continue to conduct business as he does now. It is absurd to claim that we have given away our foreign policy or defence policy to the rest of Europe in view of events in the past couple of years.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Although my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made his opposition on some labour law issues clear, should we not welcome the implementation in this country of many other measures in the charter of fundamental rights? In particular, bearing in mind the fact that this country has the most restrictive labour laws in Europe, should we not welcome the strengthening of such basic rights as consultation in the workplace and protection against arbitrary dismissal?
The Prime Minister: As a country, we can change our labour laws if this Parliament agrees to those changes, but the charter of fundamental rights is essentially directed towards the institutions of the European Union and its member states, in so far as they act within the competence of European Union law. It would be wrong if the charter of fundamental rights were to lead to an enlargement of this country's labour laws. There may be arguments for such an enlargement, and my right hon.

1093
Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) and I could have that debate, but we should have it as a matter of domestic law.
Mr. David Trimble: The Prime Minister puts an optimistic gloss on the new constitution, but the truth of the matter is that it does not matter what the Government say, because the important interpretation of the meaning of its many vague provisions will be given by the European Court of Justice—and we know its record. All the energy that has gone into the treaty and that will go into trying—I believe futilely—to sell it to the British people is a diversion from the main issue that Europe should examine: namely, the relative economic failure of the core eurozone countries. That is the real problem, and the treaty diverts energy from it. The Prime Minister and his Government will make a fatal mistake if they go to the country in a general election before a referendum is held on the constitution.
The Prime Minister: In respect of the European Court of Justice, many claims about the treaty have been made about previous European Union treaties and they have turned out not to have any substance. [Interruption.] I know that many Opposition Members hold the perfectly honest position that Europe and Britain should have a completely different relationship. That is fair enough, but I do not believe that we have been prevented from taking the action, for example, on foreign policy and defence, that we want to take. It would be ludicrous to argue that we had been prevented.
I agree with one element of the comments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble): it is important for Europe to concentrate on economic reform and change. However, we are less likely to get that if we opt out of Europe.
Keith Vaz: I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on the excellent deal that they secured for Britain in Brussels. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, notwithstanding the end of the current discussions, Britain will continue to press for the reform agenda to make the European Union more efficient, effective and relevant to the lives of its citizens? Will he also confirm that all members of the Government at every level will be fully involved not only in putting the case for Europe but in the referendum campaign?
The Prime Minister: Of course. The debate and the struggle to win public support will be important. My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of economic reform and being part of the reform agenda. New countries are coming into Europe that support the British position. Of all the moments for Britain to opt for second-class status in the European Union, this is the least sensible.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: There is no question but that the treaty is intended to be a constitutional settlement. As the Prime Minister said, it further entrenches Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam and even the Single European Act. Some of us feel strongly
1094
that the British people have never properly examined any of them and have never been allowed to express their views on them. Yet now we are dealing with something that intends to extend and entrench the power of the European Union over the lives of the people of Britain. How, therefore, can the Prime Minister's word be trusted on any matter when, as has been said, the ultimate judgment on the detailed meaning of the treaty will be made by the European Court of Justice, which is now supreme over all the laws of this land as expressed through Parliament?
The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, the European Court of Justice has always had the power to determine the meaning of treaties. The treaty that we are considering has no special status—it is subject to the same rules as other treaties. That is why it is called, at our insistence, a constitutional treaty. I agree that a great debate will take place about whether Maastricht and all the developments in the European Union over the past 30 years were right. We will hold the debate but we should do that any recognise—I believe that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge it—that the real objection of many Conservative Members is not to the treaty but to all the treaties that have been signed in the past few years. He is honest enough to admit that, and his hon. Friends should do so, too.
Mr. James Plaskitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new constitutional treaty marks a fundamental and overdue change in the distribution of powers between Union institutions and the member states? Whereas current treaties, which grow out of article 235 of the Rome treaty, effectively sanction and encourage competence creep, article 9 of the new treaty puts the brake on it.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. A couple of days ago, the treaty was described in one of the Belgian newspapers as:
"A text in the service of Her Majesty… it was a text"
with a
"'Britainised' content that they approved… Great Britain set its mark on this game… the most determined European federalists had no option but to back down."
I could read out about 30 similar quotations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read the British newspapers."] We all agree that some of the British newspapers take a somewhat different view. That shows the nature of the debate. However, as it continues, it will become increasingly obvious that the problem is not the treaty but that some people believe that the existing relationship is wrong and needs to be changed, irrespective of the treaty.
The longer that that goes on and the more that it dawns on people, the more they will realise that the real agenda of many who are opposed to this treaty is to take this country out of its current relationship with Europe.
Ann Winterton: The Prime Minister said on television yesterday that he had agreed to the requirement for member states to co-ordinate their economic policies. Will he now answer the question posed a minute ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and tell us whether this so-called co-ordination will be decided by qualified majority voting?
The Prime Minister: The idea of member states co-ordinating economic policy is not a novel thing in this treaty; it has been there for ages. It makes absolutely no difference to the essential nature of the sovereignty of economic policy residing with us. Look at the past few years: it is perfectly obvious that we decided, for example, to give the Bank of England its independence and that we decided to pursue our own Budget and fiscal policy. We are perfectly entitled to do so and we will carry on being entitled to do so.
Chris Bryant: The Prime Minister will know that some politicians in this country have been arguing against not only this constitution but any constitution while saying that the European Union needs a charter of competences. Is not this a matter of semantics? After all, the United Nations has a constitution; it just happens to be called a charter. For that matter, it has a president. For the Tory Opposition, is this a case of rabid ideology or rampant opportunism?
The Prime Minister: I think it is probably increasingly the first, actually, which makes this a more serious position for them. I simply pose this question: if the Government had brought forward a treaty like the Single European Act or the Maastricht treaty now, with the Conservative party in its current situation, it would not have been very supportive of it. The fact of the matter is that the Conservative party has made its choice, for the moment at least. It has decided effectively to join at least the rhetoric of the United Kingdom Independence party, even if it attempts to keep its policy a little different. I say to Conservative Members that, in the end, whatever the short-term advantage, that is a long-term mistake.
Mr. James Paice: For a long while, it has always been the case that, under certain European competences, this Parliament and the British Government cannot legislate on issues on which the Europeans are considering legislating themselves. Can the Prime Minister confirm that under this constitution the list of such competences is extended and therefore that the powers of this House are diminished?
The Prime Minister: I do not accept that the powers of this House are diminished at all. Indeed, as I say, for the first time national Parliaments have a specific input and an ability to refer back legislation that is proposed. This is an advantage for national Parliaments.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am an unreconstructed pro-European. Would not some of us be thankful if foreign policy, particularly over the last two years, had been given to Brussels and if the Prime Minister had asked the French President about recent events and recent policies? May I ask why he thinks that Chancellor Schräder and President Chirac were so cheesed off with him?
The Prime Minister: I think we had better disentangle all those various points. First, no, it is not a good idea to say that we can exercise our foreign or defence policy only with the say-so of the French President, or indeed anyone other than ourselves. Secondly, I simply point
1096
this out to my hon. Friend: I have to disappoint him on that ground, but also on the ground that in the new Europe—the Europe of 25—a majority of states were with us in relation to the conflict in Iraq.
Thirdly, there are disagreements from time to time in Europe, and there was one on Thursday night, but I am sure that all of us will get over those disagreements because in the end it is important that we make progress.
Sir Michael Spicer: If the constitution were to go ahead, would the 1972 Act of accession still apply? Would it still be amendable by this Parliament?
The Prime Minister: I think that I am right that, legally, the treaty of accession would still apply. I will check the strict legal interpretation for the hon. Gentleman. The important thing about the treaty is that, for the first time, people are given the right explicitly—they have always had it implicitly—to withdraw from the European Union. If, for example, a Government of his persuasion were to come to power, with the policy that he espouses, they would be able to do that. In the end, no one can force us to be part of the European Union. I happen to think that we should be part of the European Union, because it is in the interests of Britain.
Mr. Stephen Pound: Sometimes, I look at this nation and despair. When the Conservative Benches ring with the inchoate fury and synthetic outrage designed solely to appease a party led by an orange-skinned, Spanish-resident escapee from the dregs of daytime television whose one-word manifesto is no, I despair. In the case of the various factions masquerading as an Opposition—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Could we possibly get a question to the Prime Minister?
Mr. Pound: As a Londoner, as a European and as a patriot, may I tell the Prime Minister that many of us support and endorse his work in Brussels and seek better for this nation than a Ruritanian role as a blighted backwater or, even worse, as the 51st state of America?
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend very much for that.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House where the consistency is in the Government's policy? Referendums on regional government will be held before the legislation is passed by this House, yet the referendum that he has talked about today will be held after the legislation has passed through the House.
The Prime Minister: When the issue of the referendums on Scotland and Wales was up, we were on opposite sides of the fence. I am well aware of why people want the referendum quickly—it is so that people should not have the chance to study the detail. I think that it is important that we study the detail, and on such an issue it is also important that Parliament is able to sit and study it. I am surprised—actually, I am not
surprised—that the Conservative party has decided that it really does not want that to happen.

Orders of the Day

  Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am pleased to have this opportunity to open the debate on the Second Reading of the Health Protection Agency Bill. The Bill establishes the Health Protection Agency as an executive non-departmental public body. I will start by outlining the background to explain why we need the Bill, given that the Health Protection Agency special health authority is already in existence.
  The establishment of the Health Protection Agency was first proposed in "Getting Ahead of the Curve", the chief medical officer's strategy for infectious disease and other aspects of health promotion, which was published in January 2002. The strategy brought together a number of proposals to establish a more systematic approach to health protection, of which the HPA is the centrepiece. From June to September 2002, the Department of Health conducted an extensive consultation exercise on the creation of the agency, to which it received 215 written responses.
  Following that exercise, in November 2002, the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), announced the decision to create the agency through a two-stage process. The first stage was to create the agency as a special health authority in England and Wales, which is able to carry out functions under the National Health Service Act 1977. The second stage, which will be put into effect by this Bill, is to establish the agency as a non-departmental public body, which will be able to carry out a wider range of functions.
  The two-stage approach enabled us to move speedily to set up the agency as a special health authority covering England and Wales on 1 April 2003. It also provided the necessary time for the Scottish Executive to complete its own consultation exercise to help determine what role the agency might have in Scotland, before we started the second stage. The rationale for creating the HPA was the recognition that the existing structure for health protection in this country was both fragmented and outdated. The shortcomings of the system were highlighted by the diversity and constantly changing nature of the threats to public health.
  We are all aware that killer diseases such as tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS are still prevalent in this country, while the recurrence of SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome—in China just last month serves as a timely reminder of the threat posed by the emergence of new diseases and by infections being imported into this country. Alongside those naturally occurring threats, we are also faced with the possibility of the deliberate release of biological, chemical or radioactive agents. Continued vigilance, combined with a strong and coherent response, is required to manage those diverse threats.
  Despite the need for a coherent response to meet the challenges, the specialist support for health protection on which the NHS and local authorities relied was
  1098
  fragmented among a number of different bodies. Advice on infectious disease generally came from the Public Health Laboratory Service. Support on chemical hazards was provided by the national focus for chemical incidents and regional service provider units. The health aspects of emergency planning were provided by regional advisers. Much of the action at local level in relation to infectious disease and other hazards was the responsibility of consultants in communicable disease control and their teams in primary care trusts, while advice on radiological hazards was provided by the National Radiological Protection Board. Additional services were provided by the National Poisons Information Service and the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.
  Mr. John Bercow: In respect of the application of the negative and affirmative procedures of the House flowing from different regulations applicable to individual clauses of the Bill, would the Minister take care to tell the House what the criteria were that informed the choice of one rather than the other in each case?
  Miss Johnson: I believe that these matters are normally determined on the basis of advice from parliamentary counsel on what would be most appropriate, rather than on any decisions by the Government. We are normally advised in relation to these matters whether something will require the affirmative procedure.
  None of those bodies was providing a poor service, but the whole system needed rationalising and strengthening in order to meet the challenges to health protection in the 21st century. It led us to conclude that the best way to strengthen the delivery of health protection services at both local and national levels was to merge responsibility for all those functions and individuals into a single organisation.
  That wide-ranging role for the agency is an important development because, when an incident occurs, it is not always immediately clear whether it has a chemical, radiological or an infectious source. The agency can function as a "one-stop shop", capable of providing the necessary expertise for dealing with any scenario involving a biological, chemical or radiation hazard. It should also enable greater cross-fertilisation of good ideas and good practice between the different sectors of health protection.
  That approach is consistent with the aims of the Department of Health's review of its arm's length bodies. The objective of the review is to rationalise the Department's ALBs and to reshape them for consistency with a modernised NHS. Many were set up to focus action in key areas and to respond to specific concerns. Now that many of the problems are being tackled effectively, it is time to rationalise the sector, reduce costs and return resources to front-line services.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 20 May that the first stage of the review had been completed and that the parameters for the next stage would be a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of ALBs; a saving in expenditure by ALBs of some £0.5 billion by 2007–08; and a reduction in posts of 25 per cent. in the same period.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State's announcement in May came after the passage of the legislation in another place. During the passage of the Bill so far, its expenditure and manpower implications have been stated as being neutral—no increase in expenditure or manpower—but it is relevant if the Government intend in the space of days, or perhaps weeks to announce changes in staffing and expenditure, or indeed changes in arm's length bodies going beyond what has already been proposed and what the hon. Lady has already described. Does she plan to say anything more about changes in arm's length bodies affecting the HPA which the House should know about now?
  Miss Johnson: I do not believe so. May I clarify, for the hon. Gentleman's information, the fact that the Bill does not entail any additional public expenditure or changes to public service manpower? We expect that as the agency is a non-departmental public body, its costs will be met from within existing resources available to the Department of Health and the national health service—and indeed, we might expect some savings.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for that answer, although I am not sure that the hon. Lady has quite taken my point. The Secretary of State announced a review of 42 bodies, two of which—the National Radiological Protection Board and the remaining functions of the Public Health Laboratory Service—were due to go into the Health Protection Agency anyway. Is the Minister telling us that although those bodies were cited among the 42 to be reviewed, they are not to be reviewed? Is no process of reviewing their structures, manpower or expenditure under way?
  Miss Johnson: Obviously, I shall not pre-empt any announcement that will be forthcoming fairly soon, but I have already given the hon. Gentleman my answer about the HPA and the National Radiological Protection Board. The point of creating the agency is that it is wholly consistent with the review of the arm's-length bodies, not least because it enables us, as he has acknowledged, to replace two bodies—the HPA special health authority and the National Radiological Protection Board—with one.
  Mr. Lansley rose—
  Miss Johnson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one more time.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me one more time—at least, on this subject; there may be others. Let us suppose that it was argued that some of the functions of the National Patient Safety Agency were duplicatory, or at least would benefit from being managed together with those of the Health Protection Agency. Is the hon. Lady saying that that might happen, and there could be an announcement weeks from now, so the House will have been debating the Bill on one basis, and then within weeks the Secretary of State or the Minister may propose that everything will change?
  Miss Johnson: No, I am not saying that. The hon. Gentleman is working hard to find something to
  1100
  comment on, but he is not succeeding. We do not expect to amend the Bill in the light of the review; I have already said that, and I can only reiterate it. There is nothing for the hon. Gentleman to get excited about—although he is doing his best.
  The HPA special health authority has now been in existence for just over a year. During that time, it has successfully passed the test—
  Mr. Peter Lilley: On the subject of things to get excited about, the hon. Lady says that those are arm's-length bodies, yet she seems to have given them pretty well unlimited powers. Clause 4(2) says:
  "The Agency may do anything which it thinks is… appropriate for facilitating, or… incidental or conducive to… the exercise of its functions".
  Does that mean that, for example, it will be able to detain people carrying an infection, to seize materials that it thinks are infected, or to impose charges and taxes? What is the limit on the powers conferred by the Bill?
  Miss Johnson: The point of that provision is to make it plain that the new agency will be completely or largely independent of Government in its functions. As the Bill passed through its nine and a half hours of consideration in another place, we responded to their lordships' concerns about ensuring that it has sufficient independence. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman comes from the other angle in such matters, but we are ensuring that the body is sufficiently independent.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Johnson: I shall allow one more intervention; then I intend to make some progress.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister because she has been generous in giving way, but I am afraid that her answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) simply will not do. Does the hon. Lady not accept that there is a cast-iron distinction between granting independence to an organisation and conferring unfettered power on it? If she does not recognise the difference, I wonder why she is at the Dispatch Box.
  Miss Johnson: I think that the hon. Gentleman, too, is trying to make something out of a very little matter. The Bill's intention is to transfer the functions of the National Radiological Protection Board into the organisation of the HPA—as he and his right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) know well—and to ensure that the organisations can do their job with broadly the same sort of remit that they now have. As I have said, however, the intention is also to ensure that the bodies' independence is guaranteed. That was felt by their noble lordships in another place to be a key element of making sure that the public's interest was protected by this move.
  I turn to the fact that we have had the—
  Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Johnson: I have said that I want to make some progress.
  Mr. Lilley: The Minister has not made any progress on her answer to me.
  Miss Johnson: I said that I wanted to make progress on my speech.
  During the time that the Health Protection Agency has been in existence, which is just over a year, it has successfully passed the test of ensuring effective business continuity from its predecessor bodies. That is no small achievement considering that it took on nearly 3,000 staff from about 80 previous employers. It has also taken the opportunity to establish itself as a modern, forward-looking organisation. It has committed itself to transparency and openness, to high standards of corporate governance, integrity and value for money and to working in partnership with other organisations to develop and deliver programmes and policies and ensure public involvement. Its work is based on the best available evidence together with high clinical and public health standards.
  The proof of that success can be seen in the way in which the HPA has handled a number of major incidents, the most serious being the emergence of SARS in 2003. From day one of the outbreak, the HPA special health authority was at the heart of the international effort to control the spread of the disease and played a central role in characterising what was then a new pathogen. The agency had representatives in China, Hong Kong, Vietnam and Canada and at the World Health Organisation where it led the modelling of SARS. A senior WHO official reported that the WHO would not have been able to manage that work without the UK input.
  At national level, the agency issued advice to the Government, health professionals and the general public on measures to control the disease. The implementation of those measures prevented the onward transmission of SARS from the few cases that appeared in this country.
  As well as addressing high-profile threats such as SARS, the agency has quietly got on with the job of improving day-to-day service delivery at local level. In particular, it has memorandums of understanding in place with every primary care trust in England, and has set up nine regional and 36 local health protection teams to bring a more unified and consistent response in health protection across the country. The new relationships and networks take time to bed down, and the HPA, the national health service and local government are continuing to work together to improve them. The special health authority is in the process of reviewing all its memorandums of understanding to ensure that for 2004–05, all PCTs will have access to a service that is responsive to their needs. We expect those arrangements to be taken over by the agency that is established by the Bill.
  The HPA has also strengthened our ability to respond to threats from chemical and biological terrorism. In particular, it has co-ordinated a number of training exercises and has recently issued a set of "clinical action cards" for GPs, which contain advice on identifying and treating victims of chemical or biological attack.
  1102
  In addition, the authority has established an international presence, enabling the UK to make an integrated contribution to a range of international initiatives. For example, it is working to ensure that there is effective international co-operation in the surveillance of emerging infections. That has enhanced the high reputation for health protection that was established by the authority's predecessor bodies.
  In that snapshot of what the HPA special health authority has achieved, we are demonstrating that it is now providing better co-ordinated arrangements for health protection than we had in the past, and that it is contributing to the delivery of an improved service at local level. That is a tribute to the hard work of all the staff who have been involved in its creation.
  Mr. Lansley: I refer back to the point that the Minister made about the HPA's regional services. Will she explain on what basis the HPA is structuring its health protection units? In some parts of the country, such as mine, those appear to be directly related to county and police structures while in others, such as London, they seem to be related to strategic health authorities. Is there a decided pattern to that?
  Miss Johnson: I would like to provide a more detailed response to the hon. Gentleman's point in writing. However, I am sure I hat the organisation will be based on what is deemed to be most effective locally and regionally. Also the organisation has inherited some slightly different arrangements from the various bodies that I mentioned—and they have become the HPA, in any case. It varied from area to area, so there was not a common starting point for the structures.
  Mr. Lansley: I am sure that the Minister takes a close interest in these matters and will be familiar with how the HPA has structured itself in Hertfordshire. Could she explain why, in Hertfordshire, which includes her constituency among others, it does neither of those things in being coterminous with neither the strategic health authority nor the county?
  Miss Johnson: I have already dealt with that question by referring to organisational effectiveness and the historical legacy that the HPA inherited.
  I should like to bring Members on to the Health Protection Agency Bill itself, which will complete the second stage of the two-stage process that I mentioned earlier. The current authority is able to perform a role only in England and Wales, whereas the Bill will establish the agency in UK-wide legislation. That acknowledges the fact that threats to public health do not respect boundaries, including boundaries within the UK.
  Clause 3 provides for the HPA to carry out all the functions currently discharged by the National Radiological Protection Board. That will happen on a UK-wide basis, as now, which is what responses to the 2002 consultation showed that users of NRPB's services wanted. Clause 3 also preserves and extends some flexibilities in the NRPB legislation, which will allow the appropriate authorities to direct the agency to take on additional functions it that becomes desirable in future.
  In future, the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations will look to the agency to provide the services that are currently provided by the NRPB. At

  1103
  this point, therefore, I would like to pay tribute to the work and staff of the NRPB. Since it was set up in 1970, the NRPB has served the Government and people of this country with distinction as an authoritative and independent source of scientific advice on radiation issues. It has built up an outstanding national and international reputation that is second to none as a source of expertise on radiological protection issues.
  Nevertheless, we believe that the service can be strengthened even further. Transferring the radiation protection functions to the agency will establish a more integrated source of advice to support the delivery of health protection services and it will also enable the agency to exploit the synergies between the various health protection functions. To facilitate that, the chemicals division of the HPA special health authority has been co-located within the NRPB headquarters building at Didcot.
  Mr. Mark Francois: The Minister will be aware that one of the specialist functions carried out by the NRPB was conducting an analysis of ionising radiation on request from people who had mobile telephone masts located quite near their homes. Understandably, that was a cause of considerable concern, and people could pay the NRPB to set up metering equipment and provide a very detailed analysis of the amount of radiation emanating from the masts and coming on to their properties A charge was made for that service, as I know because I have had constituency casework experience of the problem. Some people found the surveys reassuring, so if the HPA is going to undertake that function in future, would the Government be prepared, as part of the creation of the new agency, to review the charges made to carry out that function? As I said, it can be very reassuring, but it is also rather expensive at present. Are the Government prepared to be flexible about that?
  Miss Johnson: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should spend Government money on that—[Interruption.] I am not aware of any changes being envisaged on this point, but it will be a matter for the HPA to consider how best to continue with the functions that it has inherited. I acknowledge the interest in the issue of ionising radiation, which the hon. Gentleman has raised. We expect the services hitherto provided by the NRPB to continue to be provided by the HPA in the future.
  Transferring the functions to the agency will not compromise in any way the independent nature of the radiation protection advice that the HPA will provide, or lead to a reduction in its quality The new agency will be an executive non-departmental public body, which is what the NRPB is now. Every effort will be made to ensure that the change process is managed with the minimum amount of disruption to both staff and work. The two bodies are already working closely together and currently share the same chairman.
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: The Minister will agree that both radiation and bugs can cross boundaries. Why is it that artificial boundaries will be created by clause 2 in respect of infectious diseases, but not by clause 3 in respect of radiation and the work of the NRPB?
  Miss Johnson: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman refers to, precisely. There are several arrangements that cover various aspects of the changes that relate to the devolved Administrations, but—broadly speaking—those will bring provision much more into line across the UK and are likely to lead to a greater consistency of approach, including bringing Scotland into the new arrangements.
  As I mentioned, the Bill does not entail any additional public expenditure. Setting up the HPA special health authority has already illustrated the kind of developments that changes to arm's length bodies can achieve. It has shown how, without the need for the Department of Health to seek additional resources from the Treasury, the special health authority has been able to set up an emergency response division virtually from scratch; strengthen the ability to provide chemicals advice so that there is now the capacity to be proactive as well as reactive; and develop local and regional services. I hope that I have made it clear why the Government have introduced this Bill and I therefore commend it to the House.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the purpose of the Bill, although many hon. Members will be disappointed that she did nothing to illustrate how incorporating the functions of the PHLS and the NRPB will deliver improved public health or infection control in the future. I do not know how often the House has the chance to debate infection control and substantial threats to public health, but this was a classic opportunity to do so. However, the Minister seemed to have decided that that was not a very good idea. In the course of my remarks, I may illustrate why the Minister thought that.
  I join the Minister in paying tribute to the work of the PHLS and the NRPB. She illustrated her tribute with reference to SARS; it is interesting that she did not argue that there was a specific deficiency in past arrangements, but argued merely that the integration of functions was, by its nature, a good thing. The logical conclusion of that argument would be to combine everything into the Department of Health, with nothing done outside it. However, sometimes a specific focus is necessary. It should be noted that although the NRPB now accepts the proposals, just over a year ago it was concerned about the lack of independence and focus on its responsibilities in the arrangements. It will be important to ensure that all the functions of the HPA require a focus on such tasks, so as to maintain the work of the NRPB.
  The Bill has a simple structure. It is designed to bring together the functions of the HPA, presently a special health authority, and the NRPB, which is a non-departmental public body. The Minister was not clear about what special health authorities cannot do that non-departmental public bodies can do.
  I think that the difference lies in the degree of independence available to those bodies. As a special health authority, the HPA would be directly constrained by ministerial powers and the interpretations of their responsibilities under health legislation; whereas under the Bill, as a non-departmental public body, the HPA

  1105
  will have its own statutory remit and, if need be, will be able to make its own decisions as to its priorities and how to discharge them. I welcome the fact that the other place made clear in amendments that the HPA can determine for itself what information it should publish and when. That is entirely to the good.
  The Minister told us that the chief medical officer's document, "Getting Ahead of the Curve", published in July 2002, stated that the purpose was to bring together in one agency functions necessary to combat the spread of infection and threats to the public from a range of hazards, such as radiation and biological and chemical releases, including deliberate releases. As we made clear in another place, we shall not oppose the Bill, although in the light of what I have just said and, more particularly, of the constructive debate held by my colleagues in another place, I do not understand why the Bill needs a programme motion. I rather regret that. None the less, we wish the HPA success in its objectives. Notwithstanding our concern to maintain a centre of excellence in the agency for the former functions of the NRPB. we want a more co-ordinated and effective response to threats to public health.
  Before we discuss those threats, I want to question the Minister about organisation. I said that I was somewhat surprised that the Department is proceeding with the Bill in parallel with the review on arm's length bodies. Thus far in the Bill's proceedings, there has been no reference to the review's impact on the measure. The Minister said that there was an announcement on 20 May, but the original announcement setting up the review of arm's length bodies was in October last year, so the Bill and the review are running in parallel.
  My hon. Friends may not have had a chance to look at the review, but the Secretary of State said that he would review 42 bodies. Lost in the small print, however, was the fact that seven of those bodies are already due to be abolished, so there is not much point in reviewing them. Two of them come under the Bill: the Public Health Laboratory Service and the NRPB are due to disappear to establish the HPA. We know precisely why they were included in the review: so that the Secretary of State can keep his number count up. If he is to reduce by half the number of such bodies, he needs as many as possible in the first place.
  The Opposition note—as will, I suspect, the wider public—that 20 of the 42 bodies have been established by the Government since 1997. Once again, the Duke of York is marching the civil service and Government organisations up the hill, only to march them some of the way back down.
  We know what the Government propose, but we do not know what they currently intend in relation to the review. In May, when the Secretary of State wrote to the bodies concerned, it was made clear that announcements would be made in early July—the Minister will tell me if I am wrong. Early July is not far off and under the programme motion the Bill's Committee stage will finish by 1 July. Lo and behold, there is every possibility that, immediately after the Bill has reported, the Government will say that they are proposing something different. The Minister just will not tell us whether the Government are proposing something different on the powers, structure and
  1106
  functions of the HPA. Days after the Bill reports, everything may change. It would be an abuse of our current scrutiny of the measure if the responsibilities, or indeed the financing and staffing, of the HPA were to be radically altered by a Government announcement days after the Bill had reported.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I reiterate that we do not expect the Bill to be amended in the light of the review. I realise that the hon Gentleman may have written his speech and may want to demonstrate his commendable understanding of the calendar, which is fantastic—we are indeed approaching the beginning of July—but I gave him the assurance that he seeks in my opening remarks.
  Mr. Lansley: I also understand that the Minister is reading from her brief. At least I wrote my speech.
  The Minister says that she does not expect that anything announced will require amendments to the Bill. I was not necessarily talking about amendments to the Bill. If the intention were, for example, to transfer functions relating to infection control to the HPA from the National Patient Safety Agency, it would be perfectly possible to co so without changing the powers in the Bill. If the Government intended to change the HPA's staffing or expenditure, that would be possible without changing the Bill. However, Conservative Members will debate the HPA's objectives and how it can achieve them. Hitherto, we have been conducting that debate on the basis that the HPA will proceed with its current, planned staffing and expenditure. If the Minister says that the HPA's current, planned staffing and expenditure will be maintained when the review's results are announced in July, that is a different assurance from the one that she has already given to me. Perhaps she would like to give us that assurance—no, I
  did not think so.
  If the Minister cannot give us that assurance, it might be interesting to consider whether the Department is doing its job in the review. A number of agencies duplicate functions. It is always difficult to work out precisely what all those agencies are doing, but I suspect that some of the Department's work, particularly in the Government offices for the regions, some of the Health Development Agency's work and perhaps the National Patient Safety Agency's work in relation to infection control and, in particular, hospital or health-care acquired infection and MRSA may well complement but possibly duplicate the HPA's work. That raises questions about whether a further review of the HPA's functions should take place. I have chided the Minister, and it is a pity that she did not tell us that further efforts will be made to try to rationalise the functions of the arm's-length bodies and indeed the Department in that respect. That may be necessary if that is the HPA's purpose.
  The Bill will not simplify the relationship between the HPA and the NHS. For example, most of the old PHLS laboratories have transferred to NHS trusts. The Minister will remember the debates that we had last year on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. One of the questions asked at that time, to which I do not recall seeing clear answers subsequently, was the extent to which trusts will receive the necessary core funding through primary care trusts

  1107
  to support surges in capacity for emergencies and the research and development undertaken by microbiologists in those laboratories. That is one of the issues on which it would be helpful if the Minister responded. Last year we were debating the theory. In practice, have PCTs passed to the microbiology laboratories for which they are now responsible the necessary funding for those purposes?
  I mentioned last year—I confess that this has particular constituency relevance—that the PHLS laboratory at Addenbrooke's in my constituency would not be transferred to the trust but would remain with what is now the HPA. That raised a question among the biomedical scientists employed there.
  As an early implementer of the "Agenda for Change" proposals, Addenbrooke's was introducing—indeed, is introducing—new pay arrangements for its laboratory staff. On the same site, however, the biomedical scientists working for the HPA do not have access to the "Agenda for Change" job evaluations and consequent pay arrangements.
  I am sure that the Minister has that in mind. She might be able to tell me whether there will be further delay. "Agenda for Change" is already delayed until December. Last year, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), made it clear that there was a transitional issue, but that it would be minimised because of the relatively short time before the implementation of "Agenda or Change". The implementation date has moved from October to December, stretching out what might be a difficulty in the relative position of staff on one site.
  The relationship with primary care trusts is important. The Minister said that there are memorandums of understanding with every PCT, but that does not quite solve the problems. The problems go deep into whether public health issues are sufficiently resourced, focused on and prioritised in PCTs. Can public health functions be appropriately managed among 303 PCTs across the country? I am not in a position to judge such things; I have to judge them on the basis of what directors of public health and those in PCTs around the country have to told me. They feel that the system is too fragmented and marginalised and that only reactive work can be undertaken. The Minister made it clear that public health objectives, particularly on issues such as infection control must be proactive. I am afraid that, crudely put, ma pagers of PCTs are sacked when they do not meet hospital waiting list targets, but are not sacked for failing to meet any public health objectives. So all the effort and focus goes on the former. That raises the question whether, if it is possible for PCTs to sign a memorandum and not necessarily discharge their functions, and to let the HPA carry on its responsibilities, the public health effort overall will become disconnected.
  The Minister waxed eloquently on how things must be integrated, which brings me to an important point. If everything were properly co-ordinated, a strategy for dealing with infectious diseases could be established, implemented and followed through by one body. One would imagine that that is what the Government set out to do. It is curious, therefore, that time and again the chief medical officer in the Department of Health and his teams of people set strategies, but it is the HPA that
  1108
  is meant to be in the business of implementing infectious disease control and strategies thereby. As the NHS responds to the Department of Health and not to the HPA, the Department must turn the so-called strategies into action plans. What is going on? That is not happening; there is discontinuity between the two. I shall come to that in respect of a number of specific examples.
  I want to refer to hospital-acquired infection and MRSA. The MRSA rate has more than doubled since 1997. The Minister will no doubt remind us that mandatory reporting was introduced in April 2001 and say that that shows that there was under-reporting previously. However, even with the previous reporting arrangements, the rate has more than doubled since 1997 and we now know that the level is about 50 per cent. higher than previous reports suggested.
  I am sure that the Minister and other hon. Members have met constituents who have suffered from MRSA infection, whether after hospitalisation or otherwise. It is a life-threatening infection, especially among elderly and vulnerable people. The question that we must ask is: is it inevitable?
  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus accounts for only 1 per cent. of Staphylococcus aureus incidents in Dutch and Danish hospitals, whereas the proportion in England is more than 40 per cent. As for variation within the UK, the incidence can be seven times worse in Yorkshire than in Cambridgeshire. I am sorry to plug my constituency again, but the Minister and I visited Papworth hospital on Friday to join the celebration of 25 years of heart transplant surgery at the hospital. I recall on a previous visit talking with the medical microbiologist who is responsible for infection control at Papworth—the necessity of minimising infection
  among immuno-suppressed transplant patients is obvious, and the measures taken at Papworth are stringent. The hospital is not new—anything but. Staff at Papworth often work in difficult and cramped conditions in rather aged buildings, but they achieve extremely low rates of hospital-acquired infection, and I suspect that that is part of the reason why Cambridgeshire has such a good overall result.
  There is no inevitability about the rate of hospital-acquired infections—it could be far lower. Just a few weeks ago, I visited Redditch hospital—I had expressed an interest in visiting the stroke services and the ward for stroke patients, but we had an interesting visit to the orthopaedic ward. The nurse in charge of the orthopaedic ward told me that that no one with an infection was coming on to her ward. If someone was to be referred to her ward, she would know whether they had an infection, and if they had, they would, in effect, be kept in isolation and barrier nursing would be used. She was adamant: no one was going to acquire an infection while they were on her ward. The reason we were unable to visit the stroke ward next door was that there was infection in that ward.
  That tells us that what is needed is the ability to manage wards properly. There must be the power to ensure that risks are not taken, that infection is kept out, and that standards of hygiene and measures such as hand-washing are enforced.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I, too, am concerned about the number of deaths occurring in

  1109
  quite major hospitals near my constituency. What role does my hon. Friend see for the HPA in raising standards of cleanliness and in ensuring that barriers to infection are instituted in hospital wards, so that there is better protection?
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that interesting question. The HPA's role is important, but it is essentially about surveillance—discovering the extent to which there is infection and the extent to which it is acquired in hospital, and reporting on the circumstances. However, there is discontinuity between that role and setting out the action plan—what is to be done about the problem. It was the chief medical officer who followed up previous documentation by publishing in December "Winning Ways", his action plan for dealing with MRSA and hospital-acquired infection. It is not the HPA's responsibility to set out how the NHS goes about preventing hospital-acquired infections. I shall not go through everything that the chief medical officer said about spending additional money on research and development, having directors of infection control in each hospital, minimising the use of invasive procedures and reinforcing guidance.
  Disappointingly, the Government have not understood that this is fundamentally about good practice and giving patients a basis on which they can make judgments about hospitals and about where they are referred for treatment. People rarely know the infection rates, including those for MRSA, of local hospitals to which they may be referred. Unfortunately, there has to be a scandal before people begin to learn about conditions in their local hospital. It should not be like that. Patients should know such things, which would enable them to exercise choice. We will make such information available, which is a powerful illustration of the way in which the NHS will be incentivised and required to respond to patients' priorities. Hospital-acquired infection rates, particularly those for MRSA, should be routinely published to facilitate patients' decisions about where they wish to have their elective treatment. As a result, hospital management, instead of ticking performance indicator boxes to say that they have a process in place and have appointed a director of infection control, will bring down infection rates.
  At the moment, the Government fool themselves and the public by publishing cleanliness standards. In 2003, according to the Government, there were no hospitals with poor cleanliness standards; 78 per cent. had good standards, up from 22 per cent. in 2000. However, 15 of the 20 hospitals with the worst MRSA rates were given a good cleanliness record, so there is no relationship in the Government's mind between cleanliness and the levels of hospital-acquired infection, particularly for MRSA. However, for the public, a high incidence of MRSA is critical to their judgment about whether or not a hospital is clean.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Surely, if my hon. Friend is right and the HPA's main function is surveillance, he is making a strong case that it has a lot more to do in its new form than it ever had to do in its old form if it is to carry out that function effectively.
  Mr. Lansley: Yes, I am making that point, and that work has to be done in a way that ensures that the agency's responsibilities and those of the Department of Health are meshed together. However, it is not just about the agency's or Department's functions but about managers' response. More research and development is needed so that new technologies can be introduced to support effective infection control. Like many Members, I have been to see people who are working on new technologies, some of which have been piloted in hospitals across the country. Their introduction is urgently needed, and the agency could certainly help with that. We need to make progress on dealing with the problem, because we cannot necessarily resist not only MRSA but VRSA—vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
  Dr. Murrison: VRSA is even worse.
  Mr. Lansley: As my hon. Friend can substantiate from his medical knowledge, VRSA is very serious. MRSA is a dangerous infection, but at least we have an antibiotic to respond to that threat. However, that antibiotic is not effective against VRSA, so people suffering from it would have serious problems.
  Certain things need to be achieved to close the gap between the role of the Department and that of the HPA. On Second Reading, immediately after the Minister in another place, Lord Warner, had spoken, my noble Friend Lord Fowler made a speech about HIV/AIDS and sexual health—there is no one better qualified to make a speech on the subject than him—and he regretted that the Minister had not spoken about the issue, particularly HIV.
  Neither did the Minister responsible for public health say anything about sexual health or HIV/AIDS when she introduced the Bill to this House this afternoon.
  Miss Melanie Johnson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Lansley: I beg the Minister's pardon. She referred to HIV/AIDS, but she did not tell us what the Government were proposing to achieve additionally in relation to it, or about any specific functions that were planned for the HPA in that regard.
  In the 1980s, as Secretary of State, my noble Friend Lord Fowler led a powerful, hard-hitting public health campaign. It was about not only HIV but safe sex, and it was intended to be communicated to the wider population and to create peer pressure among young people who might otherwise engage in unprotected sex. It was effective, and it was one of the reasons why, until recently, the rates of HIV infection acquired in the United Kingdom were substantially below those of other countries. From memory, I believe that the numbers in this country were a quarter of those in France.
  More recently, however, the incidence of HIV has risen. Indeed, the incidence of acquired infections has risen pretty much across the board. The levels of chlamydia and gonorrhoea infection have more than doubled, and the level of syphilis infection has increased by a staggering nine times the previously recorded infection rate. The HPA's latest update report states that, over the preceding year, there had been a 20 per

  1111
  cent. increase in the number of those living with HIV in the UK, and that there had been an increase in heterosexual acquired HIV as well as an increase in the number of people entering the UK from sub-Saharan Africa who were infected with the Virus.
  The HPA has had things to say in that regard, but will the Government act? The question is whether they will go beyond a national strategy and set out standards to which the NHS has to respond. In terms of the Government's structuring of such matters, that would involve a national service framework for sexual health. In the absence of such a framework, the money that the Government say that they are investing will not necessarily get through to, for example, the genitourinary clinics and will not help to bring down the time that people have to wait for treatment.
  I accept that there are exceptions regarding waiting times. I was at St. Mary's hospital in Paddington today, which continues to see patients virtually immediately—certainly on a same-day basis. However, that is the exception rather than the rule. The average waiting time for treatment across the country has lengthened; it is now between 10 and 12 days, and in some places it is as long as six weeks. That service simply does not meet people's needs. To combat sexual health problems, we must not only provide an immediate service for patients—for whom these are sensitive issues—but minimise the risk of onward transmission and infection. Over the course of weeks, there could be a multiplication of such risks for the population generally. Have the Government proposed such a national service framework? No, they have not, and it will fall to us to do so if they do not.
  Tuberculosis—especially multi-drug-resistant TB—is
  a serious global problem that is rapidly also becoming our problem.
  Mr. Francois: I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting his flow, but I shall have to depart in a moment to go up to European Standing Committee A, which overlaps with this debate, and I want to put one suggestion on the record before I go. My hon. Friend will be aware that an element of the Bill deals with homeland security, and that the HPA has a potential role in that regard. The paragraph of schedule 1 that deals with staff states:
  "The Agency may appoint such staff and on such conditions of service as it thinks fit."
  May I suggest, through my hon. Friend, that it might be useful if the HPA were to appoint liaison officers to serve with both the regular regiment responsible for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear issues in homeland defence and the contingency reaction forces that would need to react to a CBRN incident, so that, in such a dreadful eventuality, HPA liaison staff would be there on the ground with the appropriate military units and would be able to make an initial response that could be communicated back to the agency? We know from experience in other countries that the early identification of a threat is critical to saving lives.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose expertise on the subject of response to such emergencies is greater than mine. Clause 5 sets out a general duty to co-operate, which is presumably intended to embrace
  1112
  local authorities, the Ministry of Defence and everyone concerned with response to civil emergencies, but the Bill tells us nothing about how that duty will be exercised. I hope that in the course of questions from the Opposition and debate in Committee, the Government will flesh out how they intend that co-operation to work. They were tested on the matter in another place and had little to say. We will return to it in due course.
  The chief medical officer's strategy document, "Getting ahead of the Curve", identified TB as a "massive international health problem" and showed that the illness, which had dramatically declined in the UK until the late 1980s, was making a comeback. The CMO report listed reduction strategies that had worked in the past, including immunisation and treating those in the very early stages of infection. It suggested that the Department of Health put in place a TB action plan by "early 2003".
  In March this year the World Health Organisation confirmed that drug-resistant strains of TB common in eastern Europe and central Asia pose a major threat to the European Union. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether there has been any incidence of multi-drug-resistant TB in the UK. I am aware from my visit to St. Mary's, Paddington that for reasons of civil emergency and in relation to TB, the number of cases of which is rising sharply, isolation rooms and arrangements have been put in place, so the hospital could deal with multi-drug-resistant TB, should it encounter the disease.
  However, the TB action plan has still not appeared. The Minister's predecessor in 2002 promised it
  "by the end of the year"—[Official Report, 4 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 137W.]
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) asked in March 2004 where the action plan had got to, it was promised
  "in the next few months",—[Official Report, 25 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1051W.]
  but there is still no indication from the Department when it will be published, let alone implemented.
  According to the British Thoracic Society, up to half of patients attending accident and emergency departments with TB are "slipping through the net". The BTS considers, and I think it is a fair concern, that the homeless, refugees and asylum seekers are particularly at risk, and points out, along with others, that the incidence of TB in some London boroughs is at third-world levels. In Brent there are 116 cases per 100,000 population, and in China 113 cases per 100,000 population—broadly equivalent. TB in Britain rose by 20 per cent. in the past decade, but in London by 80 per cent.
  Why is there no action plan? Why are Ministers avoiding the sensitive issues of screening for disease or identifying the groups at risk? We have examined the issues. We do not believe that compulsory screening is the way forward, but Ministers have access to the HPA and their own surveillance resources, and their appraisal may be different. This would be a good time for the Government to tell us when they propose to publish the long-overdue TB action plan.
  On hepatitis C, the Minister corrected my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). The Government estimate that there are 200,000 people with

  1113
  hepatitis C, but there may be significantly more. The majority are undiagnosed. Effective treatments are available. "Getting ahead of the Curve", the report produced by the chief medical officer, stated that
  "good surveillance is the cornerstone of a system to control infectious diseases".
  However, we do not have surveillance; we have an awareness campaign, which does not appear to be working.
  In a report in December 2003. the HPA found that transmission among those who inject had increased. The action plan—a familiar refrain, Madam Deputy Speaker—was first promised in 2002, and by May 2003, it was promised
  "in the next few months".
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), now says:
  "The plan will be forthcoming over the summer and into the autumn".—[Official Report, 8 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 142.]
  Delay may be costly.
  In 2002, the CMO said:
  "Whilst costs of not treating are low initially, as the disease progresses, many more people move to decompensated cirrhosis where the treatment costs, which may include liver transplantation, increase dramatically".
  The disease is undiagnosed in 90 per cent. of cases, and up to 85 per cent. of people with it will develop chronic disease if it remains untreated—many such people would suffer the severe consequences arising from advanced liver disease. Surveillance now will forestall those costs later.
  Finally, has a national pandemic strategy on flu been agreed between the Department of Health and the HPA? Do the Government intend to stockpile antiviral drugs such as Relenza and Tamiflu? Avian flu was only a precursor to the threat that we may face—we do not know when the threat will occur, and it may take some time. The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome shows the speed with which a new virus to which we do not have immunity can travel around the world. As Ministers know, developing a vaccine when a virus is introduced into this country can take months. The availability of antiviral drugs is important to offset the risks associated with the outbreak of such an infection. I do not know whether this judgment is correct, but it has been put to the Government that stockpiling antiviral drugs would enable us to respond to such a threat. Is stockpiling happening, is it intended to happen and is a strategy in place?
  In this debate, we have heard two different speeches, one about public health and one about organisational matters inside the arm's length bodies of the Department of Health. As far as the public are concerned, public health matters: a sexual health and sexually transmitted infections crisis is occurring; TB is rising and we do not have an action plan; perhaps 200,000 people with hepatitis C could be identified and treated, but such plans do not, as yet, exist; and while the incidence of HIV increases, the response is uncertain.
  The Government have failed to live up to their responsibilities on infection control. More than any other aspect of health care, public health is the
  1114
  Department's concern. We are currently debating obesity, which has increased contrary to the Government's so-called public health objectives. Binge drinking has increased, and while smoking has reduced among men, it has not significantly decreased among women. The Secretary of State for Health helps no one by treating smoking as one of life's few remaining pleasures.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Under this Government, perhaps it is.
  Mr. Lansley: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall not go down that path.
  Right across the board, the Government have not delivered a public health strategy. They have not delivered specific strategies for the particular infectious diseases hat are the subject of this afternoon's discussions and that are the responsibility of the HPA. It is a travesty to say that those infectious diseases will be better combated by the creation of the HPA, when the responsibility still lies with the Department, which, even in response to the CMO's recommendations, has failed to ensure the deployment throughout the NHS of the resources and standards of care to deliver the action plan.
  We are content not to oppose the Bill, but its contents are no substitute for a Government who can give the necessary lead on public health and provide the public health strategies and the ways in which to deliver them that are needed in the light of the current Government's failures on public health. We therefore criticise the Government but not the Health Protection Agency. We want it to deliver its functions more effectively in future.
  5.40 pm
  Liz Blackman: I shall be brief and use my time to ask a few practical questions about the nuts and bolts of the Health Protection Agency. It is generally agreed that the Bill is timely. It creates a more responsive body to deal with a climate of increasing threats and risks, which include: the escalation of known diseases such as TB, HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections; the appearance of new diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome; and the threat of the release of pathogens—small pox, anthrax and chemical and radioactive agents.
  A weighty responsibility to provide specialist support for health protection o the NHS and local authorities is placed on the body but a more co-ordinated response was needed to find a way forward. The Government's two-stage approach has been logical. They created a special health authority in England and Wales and subsequently moved to the UK-wide body that we are considering, thereby acknowledging the risks that the whole UK faces.
  There is a rationale for the creation of such a body, which will provide wide expertise in a single framework and, most important, a single reference point. It should create a co-operative ethos. There will be cross-fertilisation of good ideas, scope for high standards across the board, the spread of best practice and an enhancement of the UK's international contribution through initiatives and surveillance.

  1115
  It is encouraging that work is already well under way through the special health authority, which focuses on improving skills, widening research, co-ordinating several training exercises, setting up nine regional and 36 local health protection teams, creating memorandums of understanding with the local primary care trusts and, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said when she opened the debate, playing a vital part in combating the SARS epidemic. The modelling work that it contributed was especially valuable and the World Health Organisation complimented it on that.
  The Bill creates a body that has a legislative basis for exercising health protection functions in every part of the UK. Working practices already reflect that, for example, in the unified HIV/AIDS surveillance programme throughout the UK. It also improves the body's flexibility to respond to future threats by allowing the agency to be directed to take on other powers, enabling future flexibility and allowing devolved Administrations to shape the use of the agency to fit their needs.
  I read the Hansard report of the debate in the other place. I was surprised that the Opposition did not mention it because it was a lively debate on the way in which the agency will publish and be allowed to publish information and advice. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was right that the measure confers strong powers on the Health Protection Agency. That is encouraging and gives the agency a great deal of freedom and opportunity to publish what it likes when it likes. However, there is obviously a proviso that it does not contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 or publish information that is not in the public interest. It also has to publish an annual report, which, I hope, will be debated in the House.
  What will make the agency maximise its effectiveness is not only sensible structures, but a high degree of cooperation from people, as well as their preparedness.
  There was also a lively debate about primary care trusts, to which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire referred. It has to be said that there are concerns that PCTs receive 75 per cent. of the NHS budget and have an enormous range of responsibilities, but I do not go down the hon. Gentleman's road of saying, "Well, so they can't cope."
  We know already that there are differently performing PCTs, and the key to ensuring that this measure works and that PCTs play their full part in relation to the agency is giving them support, but also ensuring that mechanisms are in place to support their capacity to respond to what the agency requires of them. Where will the facilities to monitor their performance and any necessary additional support be located? Will the Minister say something about that? Similarly, local authorities have an enormous role to play. How will their performance in this regard be monitored and their quality assured across the board?
  Clause 5 says:
  "In the exercise of its functions the Agency must co-operate with other bodies which exercise functions relating to health or any other matter in relation to which the Agency also exercises functions."
  I accept that it is not sensible to name the bodies in the Bill if that has never been practised, but it would be interesting to know the range of other bodies that we are
  1116
  thinking about that may have a relationship with the agency and how they are to be prepared to work with it as effectively as they can.
  I want to flag up the issue of information exchange, which is vital if the agency is to work to its maximum. What protocols will be put in place to ensure that that goes smoothly? This was flagged up in another place by Earl Howe:
  "If a local authority, in pursuit of its duty of co-operation, receives sensitive personal data of a medical nature, who in the authority, and indeed outside, should be entitled to read that information? How should it be stored? Suppose after a while there is no strict need to continue holding the data, because the matter has been dealt with, what should be done with the files? Should the local authority retain the data just in case, or should they be destroyed? All these questions arise as a matter of practice."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 April 2004; Vol. 660, c. 941.]
  So, it is important as we progress that these issues are clearly dealt with.
  The other issue involving information exchange is information technology infrastructure. Will the Minister say a few words about where we are with that infrastructure, which will allow the speedy and accurate exchange of information between the agency and the various bodies that it will work with?
  That is not meant as a criticism of the Bill, which I welcome. It is extremely encouraging that the special health authorities are making such progress already. I consider this an extremely positive move, but I would like the Minister to comment on the issues I have raised.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I rise to give some support to the Bill, which should make progress through the House. It certainly has the support of the Liberal Democrats, just as it had in the other place, but with a number of caveats.
  I wish to pose some questions.
  It would be a mistake to see this Bill as simply a legal formality. It is more than that: as other Members have said, it is an opportunity to examine a key part of the nation's public health machinery, which should safeguard us not just from the microbiological, chemical and radiological threats that nature throws at us but from those that can be engineered by man, both for benign and malign purposes. As we have heard, the new agency has been up and running as a special health authority for a little more than a year—it has celebrated its first anniversary, which is something to be celebrated, given that some of the bodies that have been introduced by this Government do not reach a second year before they are abolished.
  I want to pick up on several issues. First, on the arm's length review, about which there has been quite an exchange across the Dispatch Box, I think that I am clear on the Government's current position. On the potential effect of clause 2(1)(a), to which we can return in Committee, reference is made to
  "protection of the community (or any part of the community) against infectious disease and other dangers to health".

  1117
  That is a broad remit. It could open up the agency to taking on functions to address other public health issues, perhaps in relation to lifestyle and preventable causes of disease. We might explore whether it was in the mind of the parliamentary draftsmen, who advise the Government on these matters, to give it that degree of flexibility for future innovation and development. From what we have heard from the Minister, however, it appears that that is not on the agenda at this stage. Having said that, given that we have heard that the public health White Paper will be delayed until the autumn, and given the publication in February of Derek Wanless's report identifying a number of gaps in the public health machinery in this country, especially in respect of health promotion, education and the essential capacity to evaluate public health measures, is the HPA likely to celebrate its second anniversary completely unchanged, with the status quo that it currently enjoys, or will the opportunity be taken—which, I think, should be taken—to give it a wider role in driving forward and developing a public health agenda in this country?
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made an important point about the success in the 1980s of some of the public health promotion campaigns in relation to HIV/AIDS. To some extent, that capacity has been lost. Derek Wanless, in his report, identified the fact that in the process of combining and reorganising a number of public health functions, the health promotion and health education function seemed not to be assigned either to the HPA and its predecessor bodies or to the Health Development Agency. That is a great pity and a great gap in the Government's capacity to be able to move forward on a public health agenda. For that reason, I hope that the Minister can say whether that gap will be closed, first, by the declaration in the White Paper and, more importantly, by ministerial action to put in place the necessary organisations.
  Mention was also made of the need to pick up on concerns about the explosion in sexually transmitted infections in this country. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire went through the litany of appalling statistics, which make shocking reading. Undoubtedly, the HPA, in its surveillance role, enables us to get a clear picture of the scale of the task that faces the country, the Government and us all. I have no doubt that there is a need for a national service framework in respect of sexual health, not just to deal with treatment issues—the deficits have been well rehearsed in the Health Committee's inquiry—but, more importantly, in terms of health promotion and the capacity to diagnose. That is an important part of the wider public health debate that we need.
  My second concern is the need to ensure that the UK has a robust system of microbiological surveillance, capable of reacting quickly to and dealing with threats that might be perceived. I remain unconvinced of the wisdom of transferring most of the Public Health Laboratory Service's microbiological laboratories to NHS trusts, not least because of the formal submission of the PHLS board during the consultation phase last year, in which it expressed concern that the fragmentation of the service would lead to a loss of an efficient co-ordinated response to the detection and
  1118
  control of infectious diseases. Many around the world saw the PHLS network as setting a standard to which others aspired. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in the USA must rely on the fragmented network that we are now in the process of creating. It does not have a federal structure, with federal laboratories and capacity. It looked covetously at the arrangement that we had in this country, and, I understand, is seeking to emulate the structure from which we seem to be moving. It would be useful to examine in Committee whether we can be confident that the fragmentation of the system will give us the robust surveillance that we need.
  From written answers, and from exchanges today, I understand that this place and the other place have been reassured that all this will be dealt with through a memorandum of understanding between the HPA, NHS trusts and so on. With primary care trusts and NHS Trusts confronted with so many "must dos" from Whitehall, where exactly does a memorandum of understanding fit into the hierarchy of standards, targets and tick boxes? It is not clear. Is it not just a gentleman's agreement between those organisations, which in reality has few teeth and little ability to gain traction when it comes to PCTs' commissioning decisions and the allocation of their limited resources? If the HPA does have cause for concern that a laboratory lacks sufficient staff or financial resources to be a satisfactory part of the surveillance network, what is the mechanism to call that in, examine it, and scrutinise it? I hope that the Minister will be able to rehearse precisely what would be done in that situation to safeguard the public interest and to make sure that we have a satisfactory surveillance system in place.
  I understand that a possible part of the answer will be that the Healthcare Commission will take on the role of inspecting Microbiological laboratories and that a new inspector will be appointed for this purpose. Why do we need an inspector of a system that was once part of an organisation, but for which responsibility is now dished out among NHS trusts? Is that not just a regulatory solution to a problem caused by the Government's changes in this area? Would it not be better to have a unified surveillance network?
  The concern is about not just fragmentation of surveillance but overstretch of public health professionals working in PCTs. Many of those staff, particularly directors of public health, are acting up to that position because there are vacancies. In some cases, they are doubling up, because there are not enough directors of public health medicine around the country to do the job. There are shortages, and there are vacancies to be filled. At the moment, many of those directors find themselves being deployed in crisis management mode, not in terms of fighting infection but in terms of helping PCTs to deliver the Government's must-do agenda. As a consequence, there is little time to engage with the HPA on such issues as surveillance, diagnosis and management and control of outbreaks of infection.
  As has been mentioned, how will the duty to co-operate contained in the Bill work in practice? Who will initiate that duty? Who will co-ordinate it? Local authorities, for example, have emergency planning roles. Under the clauses dealing with a duty to co-operate, will they have a right and an ability to call in the

  1119
  expertise of other agencies to enable them to discharge their responsibilities? How will that fit together? The hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) mentioned data and information sharing, which also fits in. Just having a duty to co-operate, without adequate explanation from Ministers as to how it will operate in practice, seems an insufficient safeguard for the public at local level.
  As has been said, the Bill has already been considered in the other place, and I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones for his hard work on it.
  That brings me to the third concern, which my noble Friend raised in the other place: the HPA's role in respect of zoonotic infections. During exchanges, the Minister, Lord Warner, confirmed that the HPA has the lead role on zoonosis in humans and has contributed to work across the world on things such as combating avian flu. However, the question that was not addressed at each stage of the Bill in the Lords—I hope that it will be tonight—is precisely where responsibility lies, and what role the HPA plays when an outbreak occurs in the animal population and there is a clear and perceived risk of transfer to humans. Who has overall responsibility? Is it the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the HPA, or the Department of Health? Can it be made clear who has the lead responsibility in those circumstances? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question.
  The HPA has the key job not just of surveillance but of controlling infections. I am thinking in particular of the vexed question of hospital or, as we are now required to call them, health-care acquired infections. It is interesting that we now call them health-care acquired infections, because the current surveillance enables us to know only about infections in the context of the hospital setting. We still have little information about the extent to which infections are picked up in ether care settings. I hope that Ministers can give us some information about what is intended further to strengthen the monitoring and surveillance systems to deal wish that.
  Just last week, there were reports that deaths from MRSA—methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus—infection could double within the next five years because the bacteria is becoming increasingly resistant to the antibiotic vancomycin. That resistance has been noticed in the United States of America and in Japan, but so far it has not been found to be prevalent in this country. However, scientists at the university of Bath, university of Bristol and Southmead hospital say that all five major types of MRSA, including those seen in the UK, are now beginning to show signs of resistance to vancomycin. At this point, there are treatments that still work, but the concern is that time will be lost because of a trial-and-error process to find the right combination of antibiotics. At this stage, the HPA tells us that it has not found a VRSA problem in this country, but clearly it is becoming an issue for us.
  Clearly, efforts to instil and to reinforce a culture of zero tolerance of poor hygiene practice need to be redoubled. MRSA and other infections are not a fact of life with which we should attempt to reach an accommodation. To reach an accommodation with those infections is to accept that we will not be able to defeat them.
  1120
  When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), a question about research to develop new antibiotics to enable us to deal with concerns about the greater resistance to antibiotics of a number of infections, he said:
  "I am not aware of any, but the problem is of great concern to the Government and to the pharmaceutical industry. As someone who used to work in the pharmaceutical industry and whose pension is in part in its hands, I can assure him that I, more than anyone, would like to see new classes emerging. However, as far as I am aware, they do not exist and that is an issue for us to address."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 13 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 237WH.]
  That was a perfectly legitimate response. It was helpful. The question is: how are the Government addressing that? I raise that in the context of the recent publicity surrounding the HPA's proposals to develop a vaccine development facility at Porton Down. I ask the Government whether they could outline tonight what they plan to do. Do they plan to have partnership arrangements with the pharmaceutical industry, to implore that industry to act, or to take direct action themselves of one sort or another—to ensure that there is a pipeline of antibiotics, so that we do not eventually reach a day when no antibiotic can stop those infections?
  One tool in the fight against infections is the use of isolation rooms. The Government will tell us that there is already guidance about the provision of such rooms. When I asked Ministers written questions about that to find out how the Government are satisfying themselves that that guidance is being followed through in practice, I was told that they had no plans to monitor compliance with the guidance.
  That is a cause for concern of itself but, when one asks whether guidance more generally to do with hygiene practice in hospitals is being monitored and audited systematically, we are told that it will be part of the work load of the Commission for Health Improvement but that there will not be a published national audit of the work that is done to ensure that there is compliance with those standards. Surely the public deserve to be able to satisfy themselves that their local hospital complies fully with those guidelines. How can Ministers satisfy themselves that those guidelines are being properly and sensibly adhered to locally? At the moment, there is no mechanism to enable them to do that.
  When I undertook a survey of health trusts just a couple of years ago, the Department of Health sent an e-mail suggesting that it would be far better not to answer my questionnaire but to direct me to the guidelines that were issued by the Department, rather than tell me what it was doing on the ground. It is a cause for concern that the Department did not seem to think that it would be a good idea for a Member of Parliament to find out whether guidelines were being followed and whether infection-control measures were being taken. Indeed, I was told in written answers that it would be disproportionately costly for the Department to collect that information.
  It seems that the Government's answer on isolation rooms is, "They will arrive by happenstance. They will arrive as a consequence of modernisation programmes in individual hospitals and new-build programmes but there will not be a concerted effort to ensure that they

  1121
  happen systematically." We heard just last week that, in a new hospital in Norfolk, the necessary air conditioning arrangements to ensure that the isolation rooms did not contaminate the rest of the hospital were not made. As a consequence, the rooms were allowing infection to spread around the hospital.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): May I put the record straight, because there has been misinformation on that subject? Those positive pressure rooms were never used for the purpose intended. The problem was discovered before they were ever used. There was never any risk and there was never any infection spread through the hospital.
  Mr. Burstow: That is a good answer to a point but it raises concerns that those rooms were not used for their intended purpose because they were never fit for that purpose. The NHS is still not systematically providing the isolation rooms that are needed. What we hear in the Minister's reply is that we have a hospital that has purpose-built rooms that are not fit for the purpose and therefore cannot be used. I am grateful for the clarification but it does not come as a complete comfort.
  In 2000, in response to a National Audit Office report, the Government decided rightly to introduce a mandatory reporting system for MRSA. That was a welcome step. It revealed how big a problem it is. Since then, Ministers have rightly said that they intend to expand that surveillance system to capture information about other types of organism that cause illness and problems in hospitals. Again, it is unclear from all the written answers I have seen and from other exchanges on the matter in the past year what the timetable is for the roll-out of those other infection-surveillance systems. It would be helpful if that could be set out in detail today, in Committee or, more probably, in answer to a written question, so that we are clear.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned the patient environment action teams and the traffic light system that is used to give the public what I would call false comfort when it comes to issues of cleanliness in our hospitals. The truth is that the whole initiative should be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act 1972. It does not address the key concerns about hygiene in our hospitals, yet it gives people the impression that it does. Even today, there are still occasions when it is cited as a measure in the Government's fight against infection in our hospitals. It is nothing of the sort. It is a useful programme in what it does, but it is not part of the fight against infection.
  The Bill puts in place the agency. It defines its powers and its relationship with the Department of Health, but some public health experts and academics have expressed the view that the laws governing public health need to be updated to deal with issues such as SARS.
  It would be useful if the Minister could give us some indication of the Government's thinking about whether there will be such a fundamental review in legislation, and if so, when we can expect to see that legislation.
  IT has been mentioned already, and I want to seek further clarification. The NHS has embarked on a massive IT procurement programme spanning several
  1122
  years. Good IT and communications will be important in making the surveillance network work effectively, but it is not at all clear Precisely where the HPA fits into the NHS procurement timetable. Can the Minister tell us?
  The Bill will put in place an important part of the public health infrastructure, but it deals only with the control of infectious disease, which is a significant part of the public health agenda but by no means the whole picture. That agenda also needs to address preventable disease, which often results from lifestyle in terms of sexual health issues smoking, obesity and so on.
  The Wanless report earlier this year painted the sorry picture of a history of stop-start—boom and bust, we could call it—in public health: reports were commissioned, but then gathered dust for years; reports were published and targets were set, but were never achieved. Under both the present Government and previous Governments, public health has been poorly served. The Bill is a useful measure, but a lot more will be needed in the White Paper if there is to be real progress in public health and a real improvement in the health of the nation
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Adrian Bailey: I welcome the Bill. I realise that as the attention of the nation is focused on events in Portugal, or perhaps on Wimbledon, it may not loom large on the public's radar, but although it is small it is important, and could have a profound effect on everybody in the country.
  The Bill is a logical progression in the organisation of the special health authority, and builds on the good work of that body over the past year. It is part of our civil contingencies strategy. In introducing the Bill, the Minister outlined the different bodies that will comprise the Health Protection Agency, and I shall not repeat all their names, but the essential thing is that they are all highly respected for their work over the years. They have expertise and they have carried out research, but they have all developed independently. Combining them into a single body will enable them to share good ideas and best practice.
  The need for that to be done was highlighted by what the Minister said about potential terrorist attacks. When such an incident occurs, it may not be immediately obvious which body is best equipped to respond. Perhaps more than one body should be involved—perhaps all of them. It is therefore logical to combine them in one Health Protection Agency, not only to speed the response, but to develop over time a culture of partnership working to maximise their effectiveness.
  I welcome the Bill because it also goes far beyond emergency response The agency will be an essential element in the strategic planning of health care. The specialist support for the rest of the NHS in terms of health protection will be better delivered by one body than by fragmented sources.
  The NHS is delivering an excellent and improving service to millions, day in, day out. None the less, its role is essentially reactive and patient-driven. In responding to the health needs of millions, it is acquiring information and data that could be immeasurably useful in identifying health trends and shaping public

  1123
  health policy. By collecting those data, analysing and interpreting them, the HPA will be able to identify gaps in health provision and shortfalls in capacity.
  As a national non-departmental organisation, the HPA will be able to assist the development of public health policy. It will be able to inform the debate on lifestyle choices, improving health and other areas of Government policy, so that others too, can play their part in promoting public health. The agency will have the opportunity to develop authority on health policy, which Governments will ignore at their peril. Previous speakers have mentioned the debate in the other place about the independence of the reporting, and I welcome that too.
  When Governments make recommendations on lifestyle and health policy, they are sometimes publicly vilified as promoting a nanny state. I believe that the work of the agency and its recommendations will provide an authority that will re Rice the chance of future Government health policy being depicted in such a negative way. The agency will have independence and authority, and therefore credibility. which will assist the Government in promoting health policies that will benefit everybody.
  In the essential successful working of the HPA, I regard partnership as the key theme. The quality and expertise of the agency is unquestioned, but it is not a big organisation, and it cannot transform public health policy on its own. The way in which it works with Government and with other local and international health agencies will determine how successful it is.
  I welcome the setting up of the nine regional and 36 local health protection teams, but in the other place Lord Warner commented that there had been
  "earlier difficulties with some PCTs"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 January 2004; Vol. 656, c. 15.]
  I hope that the memorandum of understanding that governs the relationship between the HPA and the primary care trusts will resolve those difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) defined the issues that need to be clarified, and effective working between the HPA and the PCTs is essential if the agency is to realise its full potential.
  The public health challenges that face the Government, such as hospital-acquired infections, TB, and above all, sexually transmitted diseases, have already been mentioned. I shall not repeat the statistics that have been cited in the Chamber already, but it is important that the HPA, in its surveillance role, should be able to provide backing for the other Government organisations, designed to construct a strategy to combat and eliminate those problems.
  There are issues yet to be resolved about precisely what the role of the HPA, as opposed to that of the local health organisations, will be. I am concerned that if we do not achieve early success in that regard, that role may be questioned, as a result not of tie agency's problems or incompetence, but of failure in other areas of policy delivery.
  That would be regrettable, and I ask the Government to look at those problems and ensure that the HPA's work is effectively translated into action on the ground to deal with them.
  1124
  Little has been said on partnership working internationally, so I shall touch on that. The report by the chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson, "Getting Ahead of the Curve", highlighted different threats to world health. It would seem that as soon as we eliminate one health hazard, another potentially more deadly one appears. Among the reasons that have been cited for that are global trade, migration, animal diseases and environmental changes. Those are in addition to the man-made risks, whether industrial risks or terrorist activity.
  Even Sir Liam Donaldson cannot have realised when he made his report in January 2002 how prophetic his utterances were to be. In a short time, we had the outbreak of the SARS epidemic, a truly international health threat arising from the very factors that he had outlined. My understanding is that the HPA played a vital role in the World Health Organisation's work to combat SARS, and it has subsequently signed a memorandum of understanding with a new health protection agency in Hong Kong specifically targeted at research, training and emergency planning relating to diseases originating in the far east. I see that as a most important development, and a potential health prototype that should be introduced in other areas. Will the Minister consider the possibility of setting up similar organisations to cover other parts of the world? The most obvious is Africa, where a range of infectious diseases run rife, to the detriment of the health of millions of people on that continent and with serious potential implications for people on other continents.
  Britain has huge expertise in the bodies that comprise the HPA. By bringing those bodies together, the Bill will improve communication, assist policy development and enable collective expertise to be targeted more effectively. It provides a model that could be developed by and with other countries, which could have a profound impact on public health throughout the world. I therefore welcome the Bill and support its Second Reading.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: I had intended to follow the excellent example of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and focus exclusively on the health policy aspects that the Bill raises, rather than on the bureaucratic reshuffle on which the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) focused and on which the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who has temporarily left the Chamber, made a thoughtful contribution. However, in view of the Minister's failure to answer my question on the powers that this body is being given, I feel it necessary to return to that issue.
  The Bill gives as the main functions of the new body
  "the protection of the community… against infectious disease"
  and
  "the prevention of the spread of infectious disease".

  1125
  That is fine; we all support those objectives. However, the Bill goes on to give the agency apparently unlimited powers to achieve those objectives. It says:
  "The Agency may do anything which it thinks is—

  (a) appropriate for facilitating, or

  (b) incidental or conducive to,

  the exercise of its functions."
  I find that surprisingly open-ended. The Minister, who appeared to be rather unfamiliar with that provision, said that it was intended to enable the body to be independent of the Government, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, a body does not have to be omnipotent in order to be independent. Clearly, that provision has nothing to do with restraining interference from Ministers.
  I would therefore like the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), when he winds up, to tell the House what powers the agency will actually have. Will it, in its attempts to fulfil its function of preventing the spread of disease, have the power to detain people suspected of being infected? Will it have the power to distrain property thought to be carrying infection? Will it have the power to levy charges or impose fines on those who interfere with its attempts to restrict the spread of infection? Those are important issues. There could be arguments for giving a body such powers, but it would be unusual for the House to give them away without any restraint at all. without specifying in the Bill the circumstances in which they could be used and without any recognition by Ministers that such draconian powers were being conferred on a Government agency, albeit one acting at arm's length from the Government.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: My right hon. Friend has been in the House much longer than I have. In his long experience, has he ever come across a Bill that has given such an open-ended mandate to an agency in that fashion?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have cast my mind back to see if I can remember such a case, but I cannot. That might be—I have some sympathy with the Minister on this—because when one is dealing with a long Bill, one often approaches the Dispatch Box with some trepidation that one might be asked the meaning of one of the obscure and complicated clauses. One therefore tries to focus on what those clauses mean and perhaps misses the more obvious clauses at the beginning, so I may have missed such clauses in other Bills. However, I am not aware of this Bill having any precedent. I hope that the Minister will tell the House why this provision is included in such an unrestrained and draconian fashion.
  I really want to focus on the main issue raised by the Bill, which is the prevention of the spread of infections and in particular, the control of hospital-acquired infections—an issue of growing importance to the public, although the Under-Secretary did not mention it in her speech, nor does the publicity material on the Bill issued by the Government. That is a hugely important issue, so it is extraordinary that the relationship between this body and that problem was not discussed at the Dispatch Box.
  1126
  We know that nearly one in 10 patients who enter hospital acquire an infection there that they did not have beforehand. We know from the National Audit Office that an estimated 5,000 people at least die every year from superbug infections acquired in hospitals and that up to 20,000 may lose their lives through some involvement of superbugs in complicating other factors. We know from the European Union that the problem is more prevalent in British hospitals than in those of anywhere else in the European Union with the possible exception of Greece We know, too, that the problem is getting worse more rapidly in this country than anywhere else in Europe. We should like to know what role the Health Protection Agency will play in tackling that important problem.
  That is an important aspect of health to which the Government's main approach does not appear to be relevant. The Government's main approach is that all health problems can be solved by having billions of pounds rolled at them in the hope that they will eventually be tackled. However, if we succeeded in tackling the problem of hospital-acquired infections, far from needing extra resources, we would save many lives, and release vast resources for the treatment of other illnesses or to save the Exchequer money.
  It is extraordinary how little attention has been paid to that issue until recently. When I compare the uproar at the five people killed in the railway accident at Hatfield near my constituency—every one of whose loss of life was a personal tragedy—to the reaction to the fact that an estimated 5,000 people a year die as I have described in our hospitals, I cannot help but think that the treatment given to the matter by Government, politicians and, until recently, the media, has been disproportionate.
  When one thinks of the disparity between the Government's pursuit of what turned out to be illusory threats of biological warfare in the middle east and the actual biological warfare being fought and, it would seem, lost in our hospital wards through dirty and unwashed hands, one cannot help feeling that there is a disproportionate failure to recognise the seriousness of the problem.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: My right hon. Friend is most generous in giving way. One is tempted to comment on the paradox that he just raised by recalling the statement once made about a small number of deaths being a tragedy and a large cumber of deaths being a statistic. My right hon. Friend rightly points to basic failures such as not washing hands as being responsible for some deadly infections. Why, then, should we need a Health Protection Agency to put something right, when we all know what is wrong?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes another very good point. I hope that we do all know what is wrong, and I intend to investigate further the causes of this problem.
  I became interested in the subject partly as a result of cases that I encountered in my own "surgery", as we tend to call our advice bureaux in our constituencies. Over the years, I have met people who lost relatives as a result of infections acquired in the course of hospital operations or who themselves had acquired the infection and been maimed permanently by it. I was subconsciously aware that there was an issue there.

  1127
  Some years ago, I wrote a paper about the health service entitled "Patient Power". While I was working on it, I discovered the National Audit Office estimates of the scale of the problem. I campaigned for the publication of information authority-by-authority, hospital-by-hospital, on these sorts of problems, so that patients would have the power to take informed decisions on the basis of that information. It was as a result of the subsequent publication of such information that I learned that the trusts in my own constituency had very poor records at that time and were near the bottom of the national league table. Indeed, one was virtually at the bottom. I am happy to say that both those trusts now take this issue seriously and that both have improved their ranking markedly—they are now close to the national average.
  A little while ago, I had a meeting with the infection control directorate at the East and North Hertfordshire NHS trust, and a lengthy briefing from the clinical standards officer at the West Hertfordshire trust. I am glad that this issue is now being given priority locally: I would like to see it given an even higher priority at the national level and I hope that the HPA will play its role in that.
  We have to ask ourselves why, given the manifest dedication of most people who work in the NHS, to whom I pay tribute, does this problem exist, and why have we as a nation been so slow to face up to it? Part of the answer to the latter question lies in the fact that, as a former health Minister said, the NHS has become part of our national religion. As a result, we are reluctant to think that anything can go wrong within it. We do not want to accept or face up to the fact that it can be a place where illnesses are caused and acquired as well as cured and treated, but we must accept it. Moreover, the Government must face up to it. I am afraid that some people in government are still in denial about the problem and believe that it can simply be spun away or ignored, but it cannot and it must not.
  I shall not develop at great length—at least, not at this stage—the disgraceful episode that occurred last autumn. The Government issued a statement to try to pretend that they were doing something about the problem, but when asked to bring the statement before the House, they admitted that they were doing nothing new at all. That was symptomatic of the their attempts to deny the problem. The Minister's failure even to mention it today in the context of the Bill suggests that some in government are still in denial about the seriousness of the problem.
  Dr. Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend feel that one of the reasons why less attention is given to MRSA infection in hospitals than it should is that the people most affected by it are elderly patients? If it carried off larger numbers of younger people, perhaps there would be a stronger lobby. Is it not a disgrace that our elderly people are coming to think of host hospitals as places where, if they enter, they may not come out alive?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend's critique is valid. It is true that less attention is paid to the problem than would be paid to it if the majority of the victims were not elderly. However, let us not conceal the fact that people in the prime of life are affected, too, including an increasing number of children. All ages will be at risk if we do not tackle the problem vigorously.
  1128
  Why is the position getting worse—and getting worse faster—in this country than in most of our continental neighbours' countries? A number of explanations have been put forward. When I last spoke about the problem, Government Members suggested that it was due to the privatisation of the cleaning services in hospitals. On this issue, none of us should take refuge in defensive or doctrinal attitudes about what happened in the past. We should not be making partisan points. If the problem did result from the privatisation of the cleaning services, it should be changed. I would fully support that. I want to save lives, not impose a particular doctrinal arrangement on the organisation of the health service. Let us be clear: is this a serious charge? If it is, why have the Government done nothing to alter those arrangements and to bring back the cleaning services in house? Clearly, the Government do not believe that that is the cause of the problem.
  David Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman may be indirectly referring to me, as I sometimes raise that very issue—though not in the arbitrary terms that he suggests. Does he accept that the outsourcing of hospital cleaning can contribute to or worsen problems that already exist on the wards, even though the root cause of the problem may be a lack of adequate hand washing in the wards and elsewhere?
  Mr. Lilley: If I accepted that, I would want to do something about it and change it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is sincere and dedicated, would want to, too. Sometimes, however, I believe that others make the point for purely partisan political purposes. If the Government believed that analysis, they would surely want to change it. They do not believe it. Why not? I suspect that it is because it is not true.
  Some colleagues went with the BBC to Germany to investigate the same problem in German hospitals, which were pristine and sparkling clean, as one would expect, and run with Teutonic efficiency. The BBC journalist said that he imagined the Germans had such clean hospitals because they did not privatise their cleaning services, but the German doctors responded by saying, "Of course we do". They wanted expert, specialist people to clean their hospitals; they did not want the job to be left to people such as themselves who were not experts in the matter. The BBC journalist told the German doctors that it was a problem in our country and had led to poor standards, but they responded by saying that if the cleaning companies did not get it right, why did we not change the supplier or the cleaner? One thing that our present system does allow is changing the cleaner to secure a better one. Would it not be best to do that, rather than change the system?
  I visited a BUPA hospital and asked the same question. That hospital was also sparkling clean and infection free. I asked how that had been achieved and whether the hospital did all its cleaning in house. I was told that outside cleaners were used, but that the contract was managed properly. The hospital authorities insisted that the contractors had named cleaners responsible for each ward and the responsibilities were more than just for cleaning. They included changing the light bulbs, ensuring the supply of loo paper and so forth. That brought pride of ownership.

  1129
  It may be that the structure of the NHS does not allow NHS managers to manage their contracts properly. We should consider whether medical staff should have a greater say in handling such contracts and ensuring that contractors meet the highest possible standards of cleanliness.
  The NHS may be too centralised. Indeed, I asked the BUPA manager why he could do what NHS managers seemed unable to do. He said that he had been an NHS manager and the problem was that the NHS was so centralised that all initiative was stifled and it was difficult to introduce the sort of changes that he had made in his smaller hospital. The NHS may have problems that we should tackle, but we should not do so on a partisan, doctrinal or point-scoring basis. We need to get it right and save lives.
  Lack of ward cleanliness is not the prime cause of hospital-acquired infections or superbugs. It is essential that wards should be clean, although the impact on infection is probably secondary. However, standards of cleanliness influence the whole climate of a hospital. If one works in a clean, sparkling, bright and fresh environment, where every part of the hospital is clean—the loos and the entrances, as well as the wards; under the beds as well as beside them—one is more likely to be meticulous about observing the protocols for cleaning one's hands.
  The failure to wash hands between contacts with patients is the main way in which infections are transmitted in hospitals. The National Patient Safety Agency says that the hand-cleaning protocols are observed only 40 per cent. of the time in hospitals. That is a serious matter. Why should it happen? One explanation, which first appeared in a newspaper article and was republished in a pamphlet, is that the hospital authorities—matrons and other staff—do not have the power to discipline and insist that staff adhere to the protocols. The author, Harriet Sergeant, carried out research in hospitals and described one occasion in particular. She wrote that the matron
  "had shown me the apron and glove dispenser at the entrance of a side room containing an MRSA patient. Every nurse, she said, had to don a disposable apron and gloves before touching the patient, then remove them before leaving.
  As we chatted, I noticed a nurse walk in, see to the patient, then depart. She had not touched the dispenser. This was done in front of the matron and the infection control manager. Neither appeared to notice. In astonishment, I interrupted the two women. Had I misunderstood? It appeared not."
  The article goes on to say that the matron
  "tut-tutted. 'You've got to have eyes in the back of your head with these girls,' she said. The infection control manager nodded sympathetically—'Doctors are far worse'," she added. There was clearly no question of a reprimand for the nurse.
  The high levels of hospital-acquired infection are an indictment of NHS management, who have failed at every level to exert authority and pull together the groups involved for the benefit of the patient."
  I do not suggest that that story is typical, but it was told by someone who spent much time researching the issue. Ministers should say whether they are satisfied that matrons and others in authority in hospitals have the power to insist that staff follow protocols properly. If Ministers are not satisfied, they should produce proposals to reinforce and enhance the authority of those in charge.
  1130
  We should have every sympathy with the nursing and other medical staff involved, because the protocols put considerable demands on them. According to the NPSA, if nurses washed their hands with soap and water, they would have to spend 56 minutes—nearly an hour—of every eight-hour shift washing their hands to meet the requirements of the NICE protocols. If they use alcohol-based rubs, the time is drastically reduced to 18 minutes, but that is still quite a long time. A nurse may have to wash her hands up to 40 times in an hour.
  Considerable demands are made on nursing staff and we should investigate, whether that could be improved by introducing new Products. Since taking an interest in this subject, I have been contacted by several companies that claim to have new products that would disinfect hands better, without chapping them or requiring such frequent application. They say that their products are wonderful and would meet all requirements. I am not here to act on behalf of any pharmaceutical company, but they claim that because the protocols are laid down centrally by NICE, new products, such as those that do not contain alcohol—the protocols specify that hand cleansing must be done either with soap and water or with products that include alcohol—are precluded from consideration, even though they might be gentler on hands and not require such frequent application. The agency should investigate those alternatives and encourage the development of new procedures and innovatory products. That could make it easier for staff to meet the requirements and prevent the transmission of disease from one patient to another.
  Since I took up this issue, people email me and share their expertise. A former consultant microbiologist in an NHS hospital sent me an article he had written for the British Medical Journal. It said:
  "We have managed to keep MRSA out of our rehabilitation unit by a combination of pre-screening, rigorous hygiene and vigorous treatment. Any patients referred from the acute hospital wards require two clear sets of swabs—and if we find (for they are all swabbed on arrival) that they are MRSA positive then they are isolated and treated until clear."
  The email also states that
  "we have been put under pressure to relax our criteria because they delay transfers. It has been argued that our policy is out of step with the rest of the hospital; but then so is our infection rate. One patient of ours appeared to acquire the organism on the unit twice, each time after the visit of a surgical team.
  My correspondent also says:
  "With the imposition of targets, for instance the target to move people out of casualty departments within a set time, infected patients may get moved from ward to ward, thus exposing new staff and patients to the organism."
  That is a third explanation: targets are getting in the way of the application of the protocols and causing patients to be put at risk and shuffled around hospitals, which—as the Government's chief medical officer admits—is one of the causes of the spread of the disease in hospitals.
  Someone else wrote to me claiming that lack of research is the problem. He pointed out that in many other countries, research has been done and use made of bacteriophages, which eat viruses. He said that there is scope for research in that area, which might develop methods of tackling the problem that do not involve the use of antibiotics. Again, the agency could—and in my view should—do work in that area.

  1131
  It is also open to question whether we use antibiotics correctly. I do not just mean whether we use them too profusely, which is often suggested to be the problem. The Academy for Infection Management has been arguing that the delayed use of antibiotics, while waiting for laboratory tests on a particular infection, allows infections to take hold and spread; and that it would be better to use early after the discovery of an infection a broad spectrum antibiotic against the likely range of causative pathogens, especially the sort of agents that do not seem to give rise to resistance to those problems. The seven-year study known as MYSTIC—meropenem yearly susceptibility test information collection—suggests that drugs based on meropenem can do that and that, if used, would cut down the spread of those diseases and vastly reduce the need for people to go into intensive care units.
  Thus there are things that could be done. It is sad that, in the context of the Bill, the Government do not mention the problem that I have of outlined. It is sad that they seem reluctant to look creatively at what can be done and that, when faced with the problem, they simply regurgitate existing measures, pretending that they are new but admitting on subsequent questioning that they are not. It is sad that they are still in denial about the scale and seriousness of the problem.
  My overall conclusion is that if we are to tackle the problem, we must bring the Florence Nightingale culture back to our hospital wards, so that at every level people realise the importance of preventing such infections from taking hold and spreading. We must use every kind of imaginative development to ensure that the process is made easier for the medical staff who, in other respects, serve us so well in our hospitals.
  6.51 pm
  David Taylor: Like previous speakers, I welcome the Bill, which will clarify and codify the responsibilities of the HPA, with immense benefit for the population of our country.
  The contribution of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was very interesting, although I do not intend to speak at such length. First, I want to focus briefly on the specific duties of the agency in connection with radiological protection. I want to cite a constituency case that has been going on for some years, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), can give me some good news about that problem. Secondly, I want to examine the bodies with which the HPA must co-operate and from which it must accept direction. One such Government agency—the Environment Agency—appears to be delinquent and tardy in its response to a radiological problem.
  The Bill makes it clear that the HPA will absorb the National Radiological Protection Board and its prime functions, which, as set out in the helpful research paper, are
  "the acquisition of knowledge about the protection of mankind from radiation hazards… to provide it formation and advice to persons (including Government departments)"
  it is to that point that I direct the Minister's attention—
  "in relation to protection from radiation hazards either of the community as a whole or of particular sections of the community".
  1132
  The latter point relates to my constituency case. Will the Minister expand a little on how the agency will carry out that role, which was previously the responsibility of the NRPB?
  Clause 3 (4) states:
  "If a Health and Safety body asks the Agency to enter into an agreement with the body for the Agency to carry out any of the body's functions relating to radiation… on the body's behalf, the appropriate authority may direct the Agency to do so."
  Can the Minister tell me whether, in certain circumstances, the Environment Agency is considered a health and safety body? Can the Bill, when an Act, be used by my constituent to try to encourage the Environment Agency to act more effectively than it has been able to do so far?
  Clause 5(1) states:
  "In the exercise of its functions the Agency must co-operate with other bodies which exercise functions relating to health or any other"
  related matter. Subsection (2) notes that a body
  "other than the Agency mentioned"
  has a duty to co-operate with the agency. There is a mutual duty to co-operate, so can the Minister tell me whether the Environment Agency would be classified as a relevant body for the purposes of that clause?
  I shall give a little detail about the case I mentioned. It relates to the disposal of radium sources and comes under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. I shall not go through the whole nine years of the case so far, but will highlight the problems for my constituent's firm, although the firm itself is not in North-West Leicestershire. My constituent states that, in 1995,
  "what is now the Environment Agency"
  issued an edict requiring
  "all Lightning Protection systems incorporating devices containing radioactive materials to have the devices removed, dismantled and disposed of by the year 2000".
  That was mostly complied with, but many devices were removed only after the deadline and some remain. Will the HPA have an advisory role about those residual lightning protection systems, especially when installed in locations such as school premises?
  In good faith, my constituent's firm continued to strip out those devices containing radioactive materials for some time but found that it was unable to dispose of the material satisfactorily. With the encouragement of the Environment Agency, the firm had taken into storage radium foils from premises and from competitor companies in the expectation and belief that there would be an ongoing route for disposal. However, four years after the deadline, the Environment Agency has not been able to provide my constituent's firm with such a disposal route, so it is storing radiological waste at its south Nottinghamshire headquarters that at some stage may prove a hazard to the people who currently work in the building, to future occupants of the building or even to people who may break into it—there have been thefts of equipment from the offices.
  The firm asks:
  "What are we supposed to do with this waste? What happens if our small company gets into difficulty leading to closure or… our offices are broken into? It strikes us that someone needs to take responsibility for sorting this out and not leave just our waste but presumably other radium source waste stored in small relatively unsecured pockets around the UK."

  1133
  When the HPA takes over the duties of the NRPB, will it have that responsibility?
  The firm notes:
  "Currently we hold many hundred sources of Radium 226 totalling an equivalent of 976 Mega bequerels."
  I conclude by summarising my questions for the Minister. Is the Environment Agency a health and safety body for the purposes of the Bill? Does it have a mutual duty of co-operating with the HPA and would it, therefore, have an interest in the case that I briefly set out? I should have liked to set it out at greater length in an Adjournment debate, but although I have been trying for several weeks I have been unable to obtain one. What advice can the Minister give me to pass on to my constituent and his firm? As the years roll by, they are getting extremely concerned about the possible health hazards of the material that they stored in good faith, at the behest of the Environment Agency, which has neglected its duty to offer the means for the safe and satisfactory disposal of those materials. I shall listen very carefully indeed to the Minister's reply.
  7 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: The House owes a debt of gratitude to all those hon. Members who have spoken following the initial brittle, unfleshed skeleton that the Minister outlined at the outset, for trying to add some substance to the debate. When one looks at the Bill's fine print, one sometimes forms an impression that it is designed largely to try to get round some of the self-inflicted problems brought about by the way in which devolution impedes the carrying out of the functions of the existing agencies, rather than introducing any major or substantive change to the way that the problems that the agencies are supposed to address will be addressed.
  It was a pleasure to listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) renewing his gallant campaign on behalf of the victims of MRSA. I find it quite incredible that, in the 21st century, it is necessary for a politician of his seniority to have to plead with those who work in the health services to adopt the measures of basic hygiene, basic cleanliness and basic common sense that Florence Nightingale pioneered more than 150 years ago. It is quite deplorable that so many hon. Members find that our constituents tell us terrible tales of relatives—often elderly folk, as I said in an intervention—who go into hospital for one ailment and then contract an infection that, all too often, proves fatal.
  My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Health outlined the case for considering topics such as MRSA, HIV, TB and hepatitis C in the context of the Bill. He was right to do so, but the dimension that I wish to address is that which concerns the defence aspect, for which I have some responsibility on the Conservative Front Bench. The Bill has been portrayed as establishing an agency that will fulfil a valuable role if this country is subjected to chemical, biological or radiological assault. That needs further clarification because the sort of measures that are necessary to deal with those types of threat are very different.
  A chemical attack, if carried out, has a very quick effect. That was well seen in the sarin attack on the Japanese subway. A biological attack, by contrast, if
  1134
  carried out against animals, may make itself apparent somewhat more slowly, and if carried out against humans, much more slowly still. A radiological attack can be very slow indeed in making its effects apparent. So entirely different types of plan must be ready to deal with those emergencies if they come to pass. The threat and the attack need to be contained. If the attack involves one of the longer-lasting or slower agents to act, it needs to be traced and then treated. The Bill does not make it clear who will actually do that work.
  The research paper on the Bill prepared by the Library points out that the existing agency had already been involved in some exercises. I quote from the briefing material:
  "Two exercises based on the release of smallpox have already been conducted to assess the effectiveness of the major incident plans. More recently a field exercise based on the deliberate release of sarin, involving more than 200 volunteer casualties, was conducted in Newcastle. The exercise also included a desktop training exercise, where members of the health and emergency services planned a response to additional major emergency incidents."
  It quotes Dr. Nigel Lightfoot, director of the emergency response division at the Health Protection Agency, as saying:
  "We are very pleased with the way in which the day has gone. The procedures involved in the field exercise went so well that we finished an hour ahead of schedule."
  I felt on reading those words that there was something terribly British about all this and something terribly amateurish. I am concerned that, in focusing on the structures of the agencies to the extent that the Government have, they are taking their eye off the central question of how the agencies will relate to the people on the ground who must cater with a disaster if one were to occur.
  When the issue was raised in Committee in the other place on 3 March, Earl Howe said:
  "The first question that we must ask is how the provisions of the Civil Contingencies Bill interrelate with those in this Bill. The Health Protection Agency will have a major role to play in many types of civil emergency, yet the most that is hinted at in the Bill is that it will be obliged to,
  'co-operate with other bodies… which exercise functions relating to health or any other matter in relation to which the Agency also exercises functions'."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 March 2004; Vol. 658, c. GC 287.]
  But what are those bodies with which co-operation must take place?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) was involved in his responsibilities of shadow Minister for homeland defence—even though we do not have a Minister for homeland defence, despite the fact that we should—in taking the Civil Contingencies Bill through Committee. In doing so, on 29 January, he made a point about the civil contingencies reaction force—the volunteers on whom so much will depend if an attack is mounted and to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) alluded in an intervention. My hon Friend the Member for Newark said:
  "It is no coincidence that the CCRF has found itself extremely stretched in terms of declaring itself operationally ready. Just before the Bill's Second Reading—strange to relate—the Government said that the force was ready. However, the facts are rather less than the theory."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 29 January 2004; c. 89.]

  1135
  My hon. Friend went on to point out that, of the 7,000 CCRF volunteers who are supposed to be under arms, only 5,000 are physically accredited as part of the organisation. He then went on to make an extremely important point that further cuts that total: the sort of people who volunteer to undertake such dangerous duties are all too often the same people who already have a reserve liability with the armed forces and who, in the present climate and intensity of military operations, are already on call for dispatch to active service outside the United Kingdom's boundaries. So we do not have anything like that total of volunteers readily available, but the same applies, a fortiori, to the regular armed forces.
  The regular armed forces, with the normal emergency services, would be in the front line of tackling any of those catastrophic attacks if they were to occur. We know perfectly well the strain under which they are already labouring. Their morale is not improved by constant reports of imminent announcements from the Secretary of State for Defence—which have yet to happen but which we are pretty sure will happen—of major cuts in front-line forces. So we must ask ourselves how the new agency will be able to deliver what it is supposed to deliver.
  It is not even clear where the borderline will lie between what the agency is supposed to do and what the emergency services, armed forces and reserve civil contingency forces are supposed to do. When one looks at the Bill and in particular at clause 3, one sees under the heading "Radiation protection functions" that
  "The Agency has the following functions in relation to risks connected with radiation (whether ionising or not)"—
  and it gives two:
  "(a) the advancement of the acquisition of knowledge about protection from such risks;
  (b) the provision of information and advice in relation to the protection of the community (or any part of the community) from such risks."
  On reading that subsection, one is inclined to agree with the interpretation of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, who said in response to one of my interventions that, as far as he could see, much of the role of the Health Protection Agency is one of surveillance—as well as, perhaps, tendering advice. One wonders, given the agency's independence, what sort of advice and guidelines it will be given on how it should try to prepare the public for what might be a devastating attack by chemical, biological or radiological means.
  If I may be forgiven, I shall cast my mind back to the most recent occasion that I can think of when the problem of how much sensitive and worrying advice to give to the public was last aired. The year in which I remember that being a particular issue was way back in 1980, when there was beginning to be the stirrings of concern about the involvement of the United Kingdom both in a new generation of its own nuclear weapons and the basing here of certain American nuclear weapons. The anti-nuclear campaign pressed very hard for the Home Office advice to the public to be published, and under that pressure, it was published in the form of the "Protect and Survive" booklet. When it was published, the very people who had pressed for its publication proceeded to mock it, to rubbish it and to say how useless it was. I would not be surprised if the Health
  1136
  Protection Agency found itself faced with a dilemma when it considers that precedent, which I am sure will be brought to its attention.
  After all, we experienced an incident in this Chamber, after which it was said that not even the people present at the time had been given the correct advice on what to do in the event of the possibility that something of a chemical or biological nature had been thrown into the Chamber. Yet, when the security services came forward with advice on what they think we ought to do, straight away people were saying, "You are alarming the public; you are being unnecessarily alarmist. You are cutting off the House of Commons from the people." These issues are not easy ones to deal with. I hope that the Minister in his reply will make it clear to what extent it will fall to the new Health Protection Agency to decide what sort of information should be made public to educate the British people on how best to protect themselves in advance of such a terrible incident, and to what extent it will do so under Government authority.
  David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman describes the dilemma that the Government face, but the present Opposition face such a dilemma too. The Government are either over-zealous, nanny-stateist and alarmist, or they are neglectful of their duties, derelict in their duties and ought to be doing more. The Opposition have made a living out of that for the past three months or more.
  Dr. Lewis: That would be a fair point if the hon. Gentleman could show that the Opposition have made any remark about the nanny state or over-zealousness in the context of the serious issues that we are debating. I have been present for the entire debate and have not heard one such point made from the Opposition Benches. It obviously depends on the subject under consideration. When the Labour Government inflict their opinions on the public about ways in which they should conduct their lives that fall far short of the implications for serious security or life and death of the issues that we are discussing, it is quite right for us to describe them as over-fussy. When dealing with matters of gravity, such as those before us, the hon. Gentleman will not hear comments of that sort from the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Lansley: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, which he is setting out very well. Does he agree that the criticism that we might be trying to have it both ways is able to be made only when the Government have failed to tell us how they propose to deal with these matters? There is a problem with discussing the Bill in that clause 5, by its structure, effectively says nothing more than that the Health Protection Agency will co-operate with other bodies, unspecified, and that other bodies, unspecified, will co-operate with the Health Protection Agency. The argument about a list of such bodies is secondary. We need some idea of the manner in which the co-operation is to be carried out, by whom and in what structure.
  Dr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In particular, we need to know the chain of command. What does the co-operation involve? Let us suppose that the Health Protection Agency decides that certain steps must be taken instantly in the case of a quick-

  1137
  acting chemical attack, a slow-acting biological attack or a very slow-acting radiological attack. Let us suppose that the Health Protection Agency comes up with the idea, "We'll need troops to do this and emergency services for that", but the troops and emergency services say, "That's all well and good but we haven't got the forces available", or "We've worked out rather different ways to tackle the problems." It sounds as if the people who will be theorising and conducting the surveillance—the people who are affected by the Bill—are not properly connected to those who will have to do the real work on the ground in such dire circumstances.
  David Taylor: To set the hon. Gentleman's point in context, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) rightly focused on MRSA conditions and the worsening of that problem. All the increases in morbidity and mortality associated with MRSA pale into insignificance when compared with that linked to obesity and smoking—passive or otherwise. So, on the one hand, we have the overzealous nanny state, and on the other we are told that the Government are washing their hands of responsibility for MRSA—pun intended.
  Dr. Lewisrose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman is tempted too far down that line, he might recognise—as I hope will the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor)—that that point is taking us a little far away from the subject of the Bill.
  Dr. Lewis: I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With your indulgence, I shall respond with a single sentence. There is all the difference in the world between people who choose to overeat or to smoke and people who go into hospital because they are ill and who then fall victim to a hospital-acquired infection, without having exercised any choice.
  In line with your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I return to the Bill. I am concerned about the lack of clarity about connections between those who will be governed by the operation of the new agency and of the legislation and the emergency services, the armed forces and the civil contingencies reaction force. I was impressed by the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, who referred to clause 4(2), which states:
  "The Agency may do anything which it thinks is—

  (a) appropriate for facilitating, or

  (b) incidental or conducive to,

  the exercise of its functions."
  What does that mean—the agency may do anything? Ought implies can, according to the basic moral philosophy lectures that I recall from all too many years ago, but we do not know what the agency's powers will be. I suppose it means that, provided that the agency has the power to do certain things, it will have the discretion to do them—but in what areas will it be able to exercise its authority? We do not even know whether the agency will have the power to require the emergency services,
  1138
  the armed forces or the reserve civil contingency forces to co-operate with its schemes. The subsection means both everything and nothing. It is all rather mystifying.
  Having touched on the information that the organisation may issue, the relationships that it might have, and the command structure that it needs but that is not clearly set out in the Bill, I am concerned that we are being asked to sign a blank cheque. If the Bill was about the ordinary business of life, we could say, well, sometimes we just have to leave discretion to people in high places to use their judgment as best they may; but the Bill deals with exceptional and grave situations. Whenever an attack occurs, be it a conventional military attack or an unconventional terrorist attack, the odds are that it will not have been predicted. All history indicates that that will be the case. We therefore have to work on the assumption that something will happen at some stage, and that when it happens it will be unexpected. For that reason, we need to have confidence that the structures ate in place to mitigate the impact of such an attack when it occurs—it will be too late to plan when the attack is under way.
  We are being asked to sign up to a template with few features, a plan with few details, a strategy with few conditions or explanations attached. As the Bill progresses, we will need a great deal more reassurance from the Government that they know what they are doing and that the agency will be something more than a purely bureaucratic and administrative reshuffling of the deckchairs on the deck of the Titanic.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Mark Francois: It is, as ever, a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who speaks with great authority, especially in relation to homeland security and defence. I cannot outdo his great knowledge of the subject, which was evident in his speech, but I should like to make a brief contribution from a certain perspective. I served in the Territorial Army for some seven years during the cold war. Part of my role was to serve as what was then called a nuclear, biological and chemical, or NBC, instructor. It was my job to train those in my unit to prepare for an attack using such weapons. The nomenclature has changed: in the 21st century, we speak of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear—CBRN. The acronym has changed but the principles remain the same, and although I might be slightly rusty, points from the training that I did are relevant to the debate and, in particular, to the homeland security aspects of the Bill.
  Like other hon. Members, I am concerned about clause 5, which relates to co-operation. It is a brief clause, which lacks detail. Subsection (1) states:
  "In the exercise of its functions the Agency must co-operate with other bodies which exercise functions relating to health or any other matter in relation to which the Agency also exercises functions."
  That is extremely loose wording. In parallel legislation, the Civil Contingencies Bill lays out in detail the responsibilities of the various agencies that would be involved were such a nightmarish scenario ever to transpire in the United Kingdom. Part of the feedback from the emergency planning community is that hitherto—under Governments of different colours; my

  1139
  point is not partisan—the arrangements for dealing with such threats have been unclear. During the cold war and while we were threatened by attack from the Soviet Union, clear arrangements were in place governing what people should do in the event of such an attack. However, in the 1990s, those arrangements were run down to save money. The incoming Labour Government continued that process of running down, to the point where who would do what in a crisis became very unclear. All experience shows that in situations in which, for obvious reasons but particularly given the type of media that we have today, the civilian population might panic, it is vital that when time is short and people are under tremendous pressure, those with responsibility know precisely who has to do to what. Unfortunately, the Bill does little to help in that respect.
  Let me illustrate my point. Five or six weeks ago, a chilling "Panorama" programme envisaged a co-ordinated terrorist attack on London, with several bombs placed at major stations on the underground going off in swift succession during the morning rush hour, followed later in the morning by the explosion in the financial district of the City of London of a chemical tanker containing chlorine. Experts were invited to work through how they, sitting as a Cabinet Committee or its advisers, would respond to the attack. One of the participants pointed out that, whereas in the 1980s, every household had a "Protect and Survive" booklet to tell them what to do in the event of an attack, no such guidance is currently issued. People are advised to stay indoors and to turn on their radio, but families do not have information to hand that they can study and use to prepare themselves. I admit that not everyone would want to discuss such a gruesome subject over Sunday lunch, but if people had such material at home, they could read it. I wonder whether the Health Protection Agency could have a role in providing such information—in giving people non-alarmist, factual guidance on what to do in the event of an attack.
  Dr. Murrison: One particular problem is the distribution of iodine in naval ports, where a great deal of confusion has grabbed the headlines. Does my hon. Friend agree that in such cases the HPA could make an early intervention to clarify the position for people living in the area?
  Mr. Francois: That practical paint helps to amplify the argument that I am seeking to make. We cannot afford grey areas in such cases, and we must be clear about who is responsible and what they are responsible for. The HPA may play a role in clearing up those anomalies, providing a valuable service for the public, who need non-alarmist, clear, simple advice about what to do in terrible situations.
  Before concluding, I should like briefly to amplify the point about liaison that I made in an intervention. Evidence from unfortunate events around the world, including the sarin attack on the Tokyo underground network, show that it is critical to identify the agent used as early as possible. In the event, it was a non-persistent nerve agent, which can cause death, but dissipates relatively quickly. It is important in such scenarios that experts reach the scene urgently, analyse exactly what the agent is and report that information to a higher command so that appropriate counter-measures can be
  1140
  deployed in what emergency planning specialists call "the golden hour". The resources available in that first hour can have an exponential effect on the number of lives saved, so I suggest that there is merit in having liaison officers from the HPA attached to police units, fire and rescue service units—in many cases they would be the first to respond to such incidents—the regular Army battalion trained for a CBRN role, and the regional civil contingency reaction forces, comprising regular, but mainly Territorial, reservists deployed around the country, who would seek to respond within a matter of hours.
  HPA specialists should be attached in peacetime to those units, exercise with them and get to know their senior commanders so that if the grisly day ever came and we had to conduct such an exercise for real—please God that we never do, but we cannot discount the possibility—they would be embedded in those units, and could liaise with them, with the result that everyone would be likely to respond much more quickly and efficiently. The HPA would learn quickly exactly which agents were used, helping it to plan countermeasures that might subsequently save a large number of innocent lives. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), is prepared to consider that practical suggestion.
  This is an important subject, and it is worrying that the Bill is vague about it. The Bill will go into Committee next week, and I hope that in our detailed scrutiny of it we can examine those questions in greater depth. In a non-partisan way, we put the Minister on notice that we intend to raise the matter. We would like him to do some homework and liaise with other Departments so that in Committee he can provide us and the people whom we represent with adequate reassurances.
  7.33 pm
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: We have had a good debate, although I am a little disappointed. I arrived thinking that I would learn how the Health Protection Agency would help us to provide better public health for the population. Our constituents clearly want such provision, but there have been serious shortcomings over the past few years. However, at the close of our debate, I am none the wiser.
  We want to know, as a number of Members have said, precisely how the HPA, under its new constitution, will make a difference to public health. We have been gravely disappointed, as has been said in our debate, by the Government's record on a number of issues. We accept, of course, that the reconstitution of the agency is a step in the right direction, and accept entirely the Government's good intentions. However, in Committee we need to know chapter and verse why they think that the new agency will help.
  As with any Government intervention, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that it may do some harm. The National Radiological Protection Board is concerned about that, and a few red flags have been raised in our debate, particularly by Conservative Members. The NRPB is intimately involved in plans to deal with disasters involving nuclear plants, and I share its concern that it is possible that some of its expertise and esprit de corps will be watered down in the new

  1141
  arrangements. I am not saying for a moment that that will happen, but we have to be alive to the possibility that it might. We should not assume that those changes are necessarily all for the good, although I accept on balance that most of them are. I hope that in Committee Ministers can give us examples of the way in which public health will improve as a result of the changes that they envisage.
  I do not intend to rehearse the public health issues that are to the fore and where things have not been done terribly well. They are a matter of public record, and hon. Members have mentioned tuberculosis, sexually transmitted disease, teenage pregnancy, and—a minor issue, but an important one for those affected—the debacle over disposable instruments for tonsillectomy. In its new guise, the HPA may wish to look at that ongoing issue, as I have found it difficult to get any agency to assume responsibility for the problem. Other recent issues that we have heard about include MRSA and the scandal of hospital-acquired infections.
  "Getting Ahead of the Curve" says that the agency was initially to be called the national infection control and health protection agency. Of course, we do not want to be long-winded, but it would he interesting to know the thinking behind the deletion of the first part of that descriptor and whether it has any significance other than a laudable desire to be brief. We have rightly heard a great deal about the need for cross-cutting, interdepartmental solutions. We remain confused about exactly how the HPA will work. Will its role be advisory or investigative? Will it conduct surveillance, or will it have to do the job of protecting public health itself? I suspect that the latter does not apply, because to get the job done it would need the co-operation of a large number of agencies. Who will have responsibility for turning recommendations into action, and how will that work? I wonder, perhaps mischievously, whether the Minister has examined the Public Health Act 1848, which established the General Board of Health. That model was recently dug up and commended by the Nuffield Trust as a way of getting to grips with public health. The board took charge of public health and achieved improvements. It did not just study things, but delivered results. Our constituents want action on the various things that I mentioned, including TB, hospital-acquired infection, MRSA, teenage pregnancy and so on.
  I am not entirely certain about the direction that Ministers intend the HPA to take. Will it deal chiefly with crisis events such as the terrorist threats that we face in the 21st century and novel threats arising from infections, or it will be more of an elective body? Under the powers that Ministers might give to it, will the HPA look at factors that affect the health of the population in a more elective way? I am thinking particularly of the challenges of obesity, for example. In what way do Ministers see the HPA developing in the years ahead?
  We need to look at public health in the round. We cannot simply consider the HPA in a debate such as this, because everything links together. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) was worried about fragmentation in public health, and he is right to be, although I am a little unclear as to his party's intentions in that regard. My understanding was that the Liberal
  1142
  Democrats were keen to alloy public health to local government, but it is difficult to determine whether he would rusticate parts of public health in that way. How would he avoid the charge of fragmenting the public health function? No doubt that will be explained in due course, but he is right to worry about the possibility of fragmentation.
  I must point out, however, that we now have things called clinical networks, which are a far more sophisticated way of linking expertise within health institutions. Perhaps that is a model that needs to be commended. We should not imagine that health professionals act in isolation; clearly they do not. They talk to each other. Indeed, they probably talk to each other far more than they talk to their managers, for example. That is how these things tend to work. So let us not assume that, just because there is not a wiring diagram somewhere, people do not talk to each other. Of course they do.
  Ministers need to decide where the public health function should lie. Should it lie at primary care trust level, or is that too low? Is a small PCT serving a population of 100,000 the right place to invest our public health resources? Arguably not. It is arguable that this should be done at a more strategic level. All these matters need to be considered by Ministers if we are to improve public health delivery, because delivery, rather than structures is the important thing at the end of the day.
  I have to mention tuberculosis: we need an action plan for TB. I hope that the Minister will give us a clue—an updated clue, perhaps, because I first asked for one in March—as to where the action plan is. Without one, it is difficult to know what to do with this escalating problem. A number of professionals have written to me about TB; it is clearly a matter that taxes the profession as well as the poor people who are affected by the condition. In a letter published in The Sunday Times on 30 May this year, Dr. Peter Davies, a consultant respiratory physician, wrote:
  "Dr. Reid is selective in his letter on NHS improvements. In the past decade tuberculosis cases have increased by 40 per cent. across the UK and have doubled in London yet the government has still not published its action plan on tuberculosis and, as a result, no extra resources are available."
  That is deeply worrying. This is not for want of asking on our part, and I hope that the Minister will give us an updated idea of when we can get the TB action plan. Presumably, the HPA will be looking out for that plan just as much as we are.
  We would also like to know, please, when the action plan on hepatitis C will see the light of day. We have rightly heard a great deal about the disease; in many ways, it is a covert disease, and a condition that many of us know very little about. We need an action plan to address this problem as well.
  Several right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned hospital-acquired infections. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made an eloquent exposition on the subject, and I was also interested to hear his thoughts on iatrogenic illnesses—those conditions that people acquire as a result of being treated. He was right to point out that most of us do not want to think about the possibility that our doctors and nurses might actually co us harm. Sadly, though, that is

  1143
  sometimes the case, and we need to address that issue as a matter of urgency. I hope that the HPA will take an early view on that.
  Most of this is not rocket science. We have heard about directors of infection control and a new working group being introduced as the Government's response to this crisis, but really it is to do with basic practices such as hand washing. Thinking back to my time as a medical student and a doctor, I remember wandering round in a white coat that was rarely changed from one month to the next, and I know that I was not unique in that, although I hear the Minister tut-tutting from a sedentary position. I was also probably as guilty as anyone else of wearing a tie which, tad it been swabbed microbiologically, would have shown some remarkable results. We have seen a lot of material in the recent published literature about such issues.
  Perhaps the HPA will consider advising doctors not to wear ties, or to wear bow ties. Perhaps the more outrageous of them might wish to adopt the wearing of a cravat. The problem of hospital-acquired infection has clearly been identified, and some of the clothes that doctors wear are a possible source. One solution would be to change doctors' habits, yet we have not seen a concerted effort to do that. So we need action on that, and I hope that the HPA will provide at least some of it.
  I was interested in hon. Members' descriptions of hand washing. I recently served in Iraq as a regimental medical officer, and I became accustomed to washing my hands all the time using alcohol washes of some kind. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden expressed concern about the risks involved in the repeated use of alcohol rubs, but the modern ones do not cause too much of a problem in that respect, and it becomes second nature to use them. If I can be persuaded constantly to wash my hands in that way, I am sure that most health professionals can. It really is not that difficult. Of course, in Iraq, it is absolutely imperative. There, even more than in this country, hygiene is essential in preventing cross-infection.
  Probably the most damning remark that I have heard in this regard came from Professor Hugh Pennington of Aberdeen university, who is on record as saying that he has investigated slaughterhouses that have been cleaner than some hospitals. That is rather graphic, but sometimes graphic is what is needed. If we are to address this problem, perhaps more words like that are needed, and if respected physicians such as Dr. Pennington are making such remarks, we certainly need to listen.
  I am uncertain about the remit of the HPA, and I am concerned as to where Ministers might be leading it. Indeed, I think that they might h the only a vague idea of where they would like it to go I am mystified as to whether it will do crisis management, focusing more or less exclusively on infectious disease, or whether it will look at broader health-related problems, such as obesity and smoking. Perhaps the Minister will give us some idea about that when he responds to the debate. If he is unable to do so in the limited time available, perhaps we can flush that information out of him in Committee.
  I was interested to hear hon. Members' remarks about the National Radiological Protection Board, and I have written on my notes: "Wax lyrical about the NRPB". Unfortunately, time will not allow me to do that, so I
  1144
  must abbreviate my comments. I was going to wax lyrical about the board because, in a previous incarnation, I worked fairly closely with it and developed a healthy respect for the organisation. It is worried about its access to Ministers. I know that it treasures that access, and feels that direct access to Ministers by a body of that sort is necessary. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that his door will always be open to the director of the NRPB, or whoever heads up the board.
  The advice that the NRPB gave in the aftermath of Chernobyl is an example of how well it is regarded internationally, and it would be a great pity if that regard were to be watered down. It would be a particular pity if the ethos of the NRPB were to be diluted in any way, or if its personnel were to find their morale or expertise being degraded as a result of any of these changes.
  I am sure the Minister would join me and say that he would want to do nothing that might jeopardise the high reputation that the NRPB rightly enjoys.
  I am worried about co-operation with other bodies. Several hon. Members mentioned that today, including my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and the hon. Members for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). All of them, in one way or another, touched on concerns that stem from clause 5. The chief problem is that the Bill is vague almost to the point of being meaningless on the interaction of the HPA with other bodies. We do not know which they are or what form the interaction will take. The Bill is also opaque as regards their duty to interact with the HPA.
  That is cause for particular concern in the context of civil contingencies. We need clarification of lines of responsibility in the event of the disasters that my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) mentioned. That is lacking from the Bill, and I hope that in Committee it will be clarified to our satisfaction.
  The reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh to liaison with military units is crucial. Again, I have some experience of that. Although there will always be interaction on an individual level—arguably that is the most profitable way in which organisations interact—nevertheless that needs to be formalised. I should have thought that the Bill was exactly the place for that to be set out, but sadly that seems not to be the case.
  Clause 7, which deals with the publication of information, exercised noble Lords in another place. We shall have to bring Ministers back to the matter in Committee. The clause uses the rather sinister phrase,
  "not in the public interest"
  as a reason for non-disclosure of information. That is a worrying turn of phrase. My noble Friend Lord Fowler said that the alarm bells started ringing whenever he heard that kind of language used. Many of us see red when we read it in the Bill. We need to know what will be in the public interest. Ministers should tell us the circumstances they envisage when publication of information will not be in the public interest. Obviously,

  1145
  they cannot specify each eventuality, but a description of the sort of situations that would make Ministers consider the publication of information not to be in the public interest would be extremely useful.
  It is important that we focus on the national programme for IT in the NHS in the context of information gathering. We heard nothing today about how the national programme for IT in the NHS might fit into the plans laid out in the Bill. We hear stories that the programme is behind schedule. If it is, we clearly have cause for concern. I hope the Minister will tell us that that is not the case. The Prime Minister has said that he thinks an attack on this country by somebody with ill intent is almost inevitable. The HPA will be heavily involved if that occurs. If there is an attack using biological weapons, IT will be essential in providing an early warning. I hope any plans for IT in the NHS will give priority to the HPA.
  We have not dealt a great deal with devolution and how it impacts on the Bill. Clause 3 contains plans for the National Radiological Protection Board, which appears to be a UK-wide body under the new arrangements, yet clause 2 dealing with infectious diseases seems to set up barriers between the nations of the United Kingdom. It is not entirely clear why that should be. I intervened on the Minister to try to get an answer to that. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), will give us some idea why there is that difference between clauses 2 and 3. The hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) mentioned the HPA in the context of devolution. My memory is a little hazy about the exact point that she was trying to make, but no doubt she would appreciate an answer as well.
  I am slightly concerned about the cost of the HPA, who will pay and where the money will come from. That is dealt with briefly in paragraph 19 of schedule 1, where we learn that the devolved Parliament and Assemblies will contribute, or chip in, at a level that they will determine. That is confusing, especially as regards giving the HPA tasks that it considers appropriate and which are agreed with the Secretary of State in England. I am worried about the devolved bodies chipping in, as that is not prescriptive. I am also worried about the projections for future earnings by the HPA, which will earn quite a lot of money, particularly as the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research develops its virus facility in Porton Down.
  We need to know how much money the HPA will be operating with. There appear to be two unknowns: first, how much the devolved Assemblies will contribute, and secondly, how much will be earned by the HPA from outside bodies. It is important, because we need to know from year to year how much the HPA will have. We also need to be reassured that there will not be a ratcheting effect, whereby the more the HPA earns, the less the Government are prepared to commit on a yearly basis to its important work. We all know, especially in view of the kind of work that the HPA will be doing, that outside earnings can be unpredictable. The agency needs to be able to predict fairly closely how much money it will have for its functions.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has read the Bill carefully and will know
  1146
  that paragraph 20 of schedule 1 states that the devolved authorities may make loans to the agency—that is, the HPA. Sub-paragraph (3) goes on to say:
  "A loan may be made on such terms (including terms as to repayment and interest) as the person making the loan decides."
  Would my hon. Friend like to take out a loan from his bank manager on those terms, without any negotiations taking place?
  Dr. Murrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would certainly like to take out a loan from my bank manager if I were able to dictate the terms. That ties in with the issue of the devolved Assemblies deciding what they will contribute to the budget of the HPA. That needs to be more clearly laid out.
  We have had a far-ranging debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you have been extremely patient in allowing a broad debate on public health issues. It is a shame that in her remarks the Minister did not touch on the public health concerns of our constituents. I hope that the Minister might deal with subjects such as tuberculosis, hospital-acquired infection, teenage pregnancy and chlamydia. We want to know not just about the structure of delivery of public health, but precisely how Ministers plan to address the important public health issues that face us.
  7.58 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I join the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) in his paean of praise for the National Radiological Protection Board. In a previous incarnation I, too, worked closely with the NRPB. I worked in the building next door. When the building that the NRPB occupied was used for filming an episode of "Dr. Who". it was one of the few occasions that I can recollect when one could see a cyber man eating his sandwiches on the lawn in the sunshine. The standard of science in the NRPB was always of the highest quality, and I congratulate the board on the work it has done in the past.
  As the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) said when she opened today's debate, the establishment of the HPA was first proposed in "Getting Ahead of the Curve", the chief medical officer's strategy for infectious disease and other aspects of health protection. She also explained why it was decided to create the agency through a two-stage process, and that the Bill is the second stage of that process.
  The HPA special health authority came into existence on 1 April 2003, and the Bill will complete that process by establishing the agency in UK-wide legislation as a non-departmental public body and by giving it the full range of functions that were envisaged for it in "Getting Ahead of the Curve" which highlighted the diversity and constantly changing nature of the threats to public health that we face.
  The rationale for creating the agency was the recognition that the existing structure for health protection in this country needed strengthening in order to manage those threats. In particular, the specialist support for health protection on which the NHS and local authorities rely was fragmented among a number of different bodies and individuals. Those included the

  1147
  Public Health Laboratory Service, the national focus for chemical incidents, regional service providers, the National Radiological Protection Board, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, as well as local consultants in communicable disease control and regional health emergency planning advisers.
  That fragmentation was a concern, and the Government concluded that the delivery of health protection services at both local and national levels could be improved by combining the functions of those bodies and individuals in a single organisation. That will allow the agency to function as a one-stop shop, capable of providing the expertise for dealing with any scenario. It should also enable a greater degree of cross-fertilisation of good ideas and good practice between the different fields of health protection
  As the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield and I have already said, the agency was first created as a special health authority and already provides the UK Government with stronger and more integrated arrangements for health protection. The HPA has also strengthened our ability to respond to threats from chemical and biological terrorism. In particular, it has co-ordinated a number of training exercises and has recently issued a set of clinical action cards for GPs that contain advice on identifying and treating victims of chemical or biological attack.
  I shall deal with some of the points raised by hon. Members in the debate. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was somewhat churlish in his comments about the Government's review of arm's length bodies. He might have mentioned that one of that review's objectives is to save £500 million by 2007–08, but that seemed to slip his memory.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) pointed out that the agency will have the scope to raise standards. It will have the powers and the independence to publish what it likes, when it likes. [Interruption.] I realise that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire spoke for a very long time, but he did not say an awful lot that is worth responding to, although I shall return to one or two of his points.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash asked about the types of bodies that must co-operate under the Bill. It would not be practical to list all such bodies in the Bill, but we do not envisage that they will find it difficult to recognise themselves. Such bodies will include NHS bodies, local health authorities, the national public health service for Wales, the Scottish centre for infection and environmental health and international bodies such as the World Health Organisation. We regard co-operation between such bodies as essential.
  Dr. Murrison: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Ladyman: No. The hon. Gentleman spoke for a very long time. Although well-paid hon. Members are present tonight, I am sure that less well-paid members of Palace staff want to get away to do other things this evening, and we should have shown them a little more respect.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) pointed out that the Bill should be about more than administration. Creating the agency is about
  1148
  more than administration, and its work will be much more important than just administration. However, the Bill itself is about the creation of a new body and the relevant structures; it is not about the public health agenda in its wider aspects. The Bill is a Bill; it is not an action plan or the public health plan that Conservative Members have gone on about all day. It is only the generosity of the Deputy Speakers during the day that has allowed them to wax lyrical on many pet subjects, some of which are important, but are not necessarily pertinent to the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) rightly pointed out that the agency will have a strategic planning role for national health. He pointed out that by its nature the NHS is reactive, and that the HPA can have a proactive role. He also highlighted the important principle of partnership working.
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire and others raised the subject of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden has discussed MRSA on previous occasions. I know that he takes a great deal of interest in that subject, and I congratulate him on that, and on the thoughtful way in which he put his points. However, he also made a lot of party political points, before saying that we should not make party political points and going into the thoughtful section of his speech.
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire highlighted the success of countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark and asked why they do not have the same problem with MRSA as us. One reason is that those countries did not suffer the misfortune of 18 years of Tory Government, and as a consequence they did not lose the culture that is necessary to ensure cleanliness and action against infection, and the building fabric of their health services did not fail.
  Dealing with MRSA is not only a matter of cleanliness, although that is clearly part of the equation. The matter also concerns the built environment and the availability of single rooms. We must create hospitals where such infections can be resisted and a culture of behaviour to prevent the spread of infection. None of those things happen overnight. We have implemented measures on all of them, and I am confident that we will see great improvements in the control of MRSA as a consequence of those changes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) raised a constituency case. I encourage him to write to me with more details and I shall ensure that it is examined. He asked whether the Environment Agency was a health and safety body under the Bill. The answer is no. Health and safety bodies under the Bill are defined in clause 3(7). My hon. Friend also asked whether the agency could co-operate with the Environment Agency under clause 5 and the answer to that is yes. We shall look into the matter that he raised.
  The hon. Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Rayleigh Mr. Francois) raised defence issues that are important and fascinating but, for the most part, frankly irrelevant to today's debate.

  1149
  We live in a dangerous world where we are at war with terrorists. That war has gone on for many years and will continue for many years. Tragically, in this country, we know the consequences of terrorist attacks and we can expect terrorists to try—and they may succeed—to acquire biological, chemical and radiological weapons in the future. That is why it is essential to have a health protection agency that is capable of building up a body of expertise and helping us to manage the potential threats.
  We hope that such attacks will never come to pass—we must hope for the best and prepare for the worst. That is what the agency will do. We should not forget that mother nature can bowl the odd googly, as we have seen with recent outbreaks of SARS and the tragedy of HIV. We need an agency that is capable of focusing expertise and giving us genuine independent advice. The Bill creates exactly that in the new Health Protection Agency. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]:

  HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
    Committal
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    Proceedings in Standing Committee
    2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 1st July 2004.
    3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

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

    Programming of other proceedings
    7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Ainger.]
    The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 36.

    Division No. 198]

    [8:09 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Baird, Vera

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Barnes, Harry

    Alexander, Douglas

    Bayley, Hugh

    Allen, Graham

    Beard, Nigel

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Berry, Roger

    1150

    Best, Harold

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Blackman, Liz

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Healey, John

    Blizzard, Bob

    Hendrick, Mark

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Brennan, Kevin

    Heyes, David

    Bryant, Chris

    Hinchliffe, David

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Hodge, Margaret

    Burden, Richard

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Burnham, Andy

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Burstow, Paul

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cairns, David

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Casale, Roger

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Challen, Colin

    Chidgey, David

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Clapham, Michael

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hutton, rh John

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Irranca Davies, Huw

    Clelland, David

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Coaker, Vernon

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Coffey Ms Ann

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Cohen, Harry

    Colman, Tony

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Kemp, Fraser

    Corston, Jean

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Cotter, Brian

    Kidney, David

    Cousins, Jim

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Cummings, John

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Dawson, Hilton

    Lepper, David

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Leslie, Christopher

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Linton, Martin

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Doughty, Sue

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    McDonnell, John

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Farrelly, Paul

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Fisher, Mark

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    McNulty, Tony

    Flint, Caroline

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Foster, rh Derek

    McWalter, Tony

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Merron, Gillian

    Gerrard, Neil

    Michael, rh Alun

    Gilroy, Linda

    Miliband, David

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Miller, Andrew

    Grogan, John

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mole, Chris

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Moore, Michael

    Hanson, David

    Moran, Margaret

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Mountford, Kali

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    1151

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Olner, Bill

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

    O'Neill, Martin

    Öpik, Lembit

    Soley, Clive

    Organ, Diana

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Perham, Linda

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Stringer, Graham

    Plaskitt, James

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pound, Stephen

    Stunell, Andrew

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Prescott, rh John

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Teather, Sarah

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Purnell, James

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Trickett, Jon

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

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

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Rendel, David

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Robinson, Georffrey (Conventry NW)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Rooney, Terry

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Ruane, Chris

    Ward, Claire

    Ruane, Chris

    White, Brian

    Ruddock, Joan

    Winnick, David

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Salmond, Alex

    Woodward, Shaun

    Salter, Martin

    Woolas, Phil

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Worthington, Tony

    Sawford, Phil

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Sheridan, Jim

    Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Derek Twigg and

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. John Heppell

    NOES

    Bacon, Richard

    Maclean, rh David

    Bercow, John

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Boswell, Tim

    O'Brien Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Cameron, David

    Paice, James

    Collins, Tim

    Robathan, Andrew

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Selous, Andrew

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Flight, Howard

    Swayne, Desmond

    Flook, Adrian

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Hammond, Philip

    Syms, Robert

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Watkinson, Angela

    Lansley, Andrew

    Wilshire, David

    Leigh, Edward

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Lidington, David

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Loughton, Tim

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Mr. Mark Francois and

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
  (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act;
  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  REGISTRATION, EVALUATION AND AUTHORISATION OF CHEMICALS (REACH)
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No.15409/03, draft Regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency and amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Regulation (EC) [on Persistent Organic Pollutants]; and draft Directive amending Council Directive 67/548/EEC to adapt it to the proposed Regulation; and supports the Government's objectives of developing a fast, efficient and workable process to test and screen chemicals and tackle those of most concern first, whilst minimising animal testing and maintaining or enhancing the competitiveness of the chemicals industry and downstream users.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  Question agreed to.

  ESTIMATES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
  That this House agrees with the Report [16th June] of the Liaison Committee.—.[Mr. Ainger.]
  Question agreed to.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
  That this House, at its rising on Thursday 22nd July, do adjourn till Tuesday 7th September 2004.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  Question agreed to.

  DRAFT GAMBLING BILL: REGIONAL CASINOS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Ordered,
  That the Lords message of 16th June relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on the Government's response to recommendations 79, 80, 81, 83, 84 and 85 of the report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill (Cm6253), which focus upon the definition, location and economic and other implications of the largest casinos, and on the further statement of Government policy on casinos published with Cm6253, be now considered.
  That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution relating to the said Joint Committee.
  That a Select Committee of eight honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords for this purpose.
  That the Committee shall have power:

  (i) to send for persons, papers and records;

  (ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

  (iii) to report from time to time;

  (iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

  (v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

  That the Committee shall report by 22nd July 2004.
  That Janet Anderson, Mr Tony Banks, Jeff Ennis, Mr John Greenway, Mr Alan Meale, Mr Richard Page, Dr John Pugh, and Mr Anthony D. Wright be members of the Committee.
  And that the Committee do meet with the Committee appointed by the Lords on Wednesday 23rd June at half past Nine o'clock in Committee Room 8.—.[Mr. Ainger.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  Compulsory Voting
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  8.22 pm
  Huw Irranca-Davies: May I say how glad I am to be in the House this evening with my colleagues, particularly following my recent travels? I would have liked to come to the Chamber this evening in the knowledge that fellow Members would hang on my every word. However, as I understand it, there is a game of football on tonight somewhere that colleagues feel an urgent desire to watch. As a Welshman, I am still dismayed that the Welsh team were scandalously deprived of their rightful place in the Euro tournament, but I will not detain the House overlong for fear of reprisals from some of the English fans lurking in these Corridors. I wish the England team good luck tonight.
  I do not hold out false hopes this evening of changing Government policy, yet it would be a triumph if I could return to Ogmore to tell my constituents that their MP had effected a sea change in domestic politics and democratic government in the United Kingdom; that the Minister and I had reinvented civic society, fit for the 21st century; and that, together, we had re-established the direct and vital connection between those who govern and the governed. However, that will not happen tonight, unless I am mistaken, nor do I expect it to. I hope for a humbler victory than that. I hope this puts the Minister at ease.
  Sometimes, it seems that being a supporter of compulsory voting has something in common with how Columbus would have felt when he returned home from the Americas and tried to persuade doubters that the world was indeed round, or as Galileo felt when arguing that our planet did orbit around the sun, and not the other way round. These were seminal arguments, based on challenging a whole way of thinking—challenging accepted and entrenched ways of thinking. The proponents of those ideas were branded mad, bad and dangerous to know—heretics, fools, blasphemers—but they were right.
  The arguments on compulsory voting are no less revolutionary, and also no less valid. Columbus and Galileo argued that our understanding of the physical and celestial universe was wrong-headed. I, a number of Back Benchers and a growing number of Government revolutionaries argue that our understanding of the political universe is simply wrong-headed. With the former, considering even the scale of the misunderstanding of the earth or the universe, there would be no real danger of falling off the edge of the planet, or of the earth catapulting into the path of the sun, even if the fools had failed to persuade the wise men of the time. With the latter—with democracy—the dangers of misunderstanding our political universe are alarming as we look at declining turnout and despair.
  All that I ask this evening—all that I hope for—is that the Minister opens his mind to the unthinkable and listens to the voice of those blasphemers on these Benches. We should not say, "We can't do that." At the risk of making a very tenuous link, I draw attention

  1155
  to another "Kant"—the philosopher—who said, quite wisely, "You cannot stop an idea whose time has come."
  Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said so far. Does he agree that during the last elections many people applauded the turnout, which averaged about 45 per cent., as though it were some great achievement? However, 55 per cent. of people did not take part in those elections. Is that not an important point? We cannot consider the last elections as in some way totally changing a problem that has been ongoing for a number of years.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed, and I applaud my hon. Friend for his commitment to this cause of the blasphemers and heretics. He is certainly right. I strongly support the Government in what are quite splendid moves to increase turnout and I urge people not go to with those who have cast doubt on the experiments with, for example, postal voting. Despite problems with it, it has increased turnout. However, applauding the fact that less than one person out of every two turned out to vote is indeed testament to the scandal going on in our democracy.
  The time has come to talk of compelling people to vote, but in the nicest possible way. We often and too easily talk of the right to vote, which we regard as a sacred part of this country's hard-earned democratic tradition. In various Reform Acts, we have rolled out the principle of suffrage and extended the right to vote so that it is no longer the exclusive preserve of the ruling classes. It has been extended to property owners, working men over 21, progressively to women and to all those over 18. Now we even talk about extending the right to vote to those who are 16 years and more.
  Universal suffrage has been hard won over the centuries on democratic battlefields. Also, however, our commitment to preserving that right by destroying the threat of tyranny abroad has been shown on real battlefields and paid for with real lives. Indeed, we have recently paid tribute to those who participated in the D-day landings and did just that. The right to vote we all agree is sacrosanct, but what about the duty to vote, to engage and to give meaning to that which has been so hard won.
  The right of universal suffrage is as nothing unless those rights are exercised. Democracy is only a word unless it is made real by the very act of voting.
  When our predecessors deliberated over Reform Acts in this Chamber and in the other place, did they envisage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) has pointed out, that we would be celebrating a turnout of 45 per cent. in recent elections, or extolling the fact that less than one in two people have exercised their right to vote? Did they envisage that as we sought to hand power to all those who were entitled to vote, they would, in effect, hand it back to us, and that as we sought to progress from this country being governed and elected by a ruling minority class, a new ruling class would emerge, elected by a new self-selecting minority of the population?
  Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend also agree that there is a crucial point in relation to those registered to
  1156
  vote? A very large group of people are not even registered to vote, and cannot even get involved in the political process. We have all seen gaps on registers—we know that there are people there, but they are not on the register. Is it not strange that we are required to register, but we seem to do nothing about it if people do not, yet we are not required to vote?
  Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know that the Minister has paid great attention to this issue. The greatest technical challenge to compulsory voting is that the integrity of our electoral registers can be questioned so severely. Before we move to compulsory voting, it is a great challenge to make sure that everybody is on the register, and that registers are accurately recorded and up to date.
  Increasingly, there is a pattern whereby fewer people vote at a variety of elections, at all levels, which means that we are rolling back universal suffrage by stealth, or at least accepting the de facto rolling back of that suffrage. People who were once excluded from voting, and from taking part in the governance of their community, their council and their country, by class, age or sex, are now excluded because of new factors, not one of which relates to apathy. People want to vote—I know that but we must equip them with the tools to do so: understanding of the importance of democratic engagements and of politics; reducing the fear of voting; making the process easier; showing people that politics really matters and not being afraid in the House or elsewhere to say that it matters; and working in schools with new generations of voters to increase the probability of their engagement. I applaud the Government for their excellent work on all those issues. The Government have been serious about turning round voter engagement. The recent election's increase in turnout is testament to this innovative work.
  In taking a technocratic approach to increasing turnout, however, we are missing the fundamental point. We are missing Galileo's moment of madness and genius—the point is not the right to vote but the duty. What makes a democracy work is not the word but the action.
  Let me put it in terms of the flat-earthers who doubted Columbus. As with those maps of the 14th and 15th century, we are advancing our skills of cartography, and painting ever more elaborate images of beasts that inhabit the oceans at the edge of the world, but in doing so we are failing to see that just beyond the horizon are whole new continents. The prize is great—full electoral engagement. That is a fine aspiration, and it is an even finer one for the Government who aim for full employment.
  Having expounded the politico-philosophical basis for compulsory voting, let me tackle some of the myths that are often lined up as objections, so that the Minister and I can go home tonight with the feeling of a job well done. The first mythical beast is this: people must have the right to deny their vote to any and every candidate. That is because people think one of the following: "They are all the same anyway", "They are corrupt, venal and self-serving", "We never see them at elections", "I don't even want to see them at elections or at any other time", "Politics does not affect me, and I keep myself to myself", or "Any combination of the above or even more." How do we slay this mythical beast that says,

  1157
  "They are all a waste of space." It is quite straightforward. We put a box on the ballot paper, which says, "None of the above." Not voting, and not taking part, does not send the same message at all.
  In imitation of my previous point, not voting, like 55 per cent. of the population, could mean any of the following: "I've genuinely studied the candidates and the parties and none of them is worth my vote", "I don't know how to vote and I'd be scared of making a fool of myself", "I've never learnt enough about politics and democracy to understand what a difference a vote can make", "I disagree so much with the Government's policy on this and that that I cannot bring myself to vote for the progressive policies", or "There was a match on television, and I couldn't be bothered."
  Therefore, what message does the absence of a vote send? It is a mixed one.
  It cannot be taken lightly, but it is often completely misunderstood. It is always better to vote, and even to put a cross in a box that says, "None of the above." The Minister knows that in the countries where that is done, they do not have six out of 10 people putting a cross against the box saying, "None of the above". The figure is not five, four, three or two out of 10. On average, the evidence shows that one in 20 or one in 25 will do so.
  Why? Because the act of compelling people to vote adds meaning to the whole process. It is taken seriously; politics is taken seriously; and democracy is taken seriously.
  Suddenly, the differences between the parties and the candidates emerge as each voter realises the power of their vote. They can no longer opt out. They have the power to put bread in the mouth of a child in Africa by supporting a party with progressive policies on debt relief and fair trade. They have the power, if misused, to put in place a Government who will tolerate tyrants, or give succour to monsters. They have the power to give winter fuel payments, so no pensioner should die of cold in winter, or the power to take them away. They have the power to put people into work or into poverty.
  The power of democracy is made real only by the act of voting. It is no longer a paper exercise carried out by "other people" while someone sits at home and pours scorn on the lot of them. Suddenly, every voter has real power, can make or break Governments, can help or harm their neighbour. That is why, when forced to vote in other countries, so few people will choose to abuse that duty by ticking, "None of the above". They treat their duty to vote with due gravity and intelligence, whereas, in this country, we treat our right to vote carelessly, not realising that, as we do so, we betray ourselves and our neighbours in this country and in the next. In effect, we walk on by on the other side.
  In response to a debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), stated:
  "I do not think that compulsory voting would necessarily force everyone to engage with the political process."—[Official Report, 24 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1034.]
  I know that that view is commonly held but I contend that the absolute opposite is true, as is shown in some of the biggest, if you will excuse the phrase, Madam
  1158
  Deputy Speaker, pilot projects of compulsory voting. One could not get bigger pilot projects of compulsory voting than Australia, Greece and Belgium, and there are many others.
  Mythical beast number two is that there is no evidence to show that compulsory voting would drive up turnout. What if, on the day of the next election, perhaps a general election, we were to see a total vote throughout the country of 86 per cent. of the electorate, as they do in Luxembourg, where compulsory voting is the norm? Would we cheer? I think we would. Would we throw a party for a vote of, say, 91 per cent., which is achieved in Belgium, another home of compulsory voting? We would do somersaults across the Floor of the House if we achieved a turnout of 95 per cent., as they do in Australia.
  Mythical beast number three is that it is all our fault, because we do not speak the language that voters want to hear. Myth number four is that the media are dripping with cynicism and are turning people off voting: yes, yes, yes! We must as parliamentarians try harder to communicate our message to the electorate, and convince them that we are worth voting for. The media must try harder. I argue strongly that it is not my job simply to persuade voters to vote per se, although I have a key role in that However, it is my job to persuade them to vote Labour. It is the job of Opposition Members to persuade them to vote Conservative or Liberal Democrat. It is not my job to persuade them to vote alone.
  Andrew Mackinlay: Has my hon. Friend experienced what I think all 659 of us have? A high proportion of the people who come to our surgeries and expect us to work miracles on their behalf have not voted. They are unaware that hon. Members have access to the marked register. We are generous souls, so we are often forgiving. We often work as hard, if not harder, for those folk, but there comes a point when we have to say to them that they are abusing the system. They are often the greatest complainants but the people who give least back in terms of commitment.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend is right. At the recent election, I had many instances of that. In Maesteg, I knocked on a door and a young lady answered with her baby in her arms. She said very politely, "I am not really interested in all this. I keep myself to myself. My family do not get involved with politics." My response was, "Okay, I am not going to persuade you on the door step. You never get involved and that is why we are here this evening, but when the street light has gone out and the council will not fix it, when you have a problem with the drains, or when you disagree with Government policy, come to my surgery on Commercial street and I will help you sort it out."
  That is what we are failing to get across to people. We must return to the idea of a duty to vote, so that people understand how important their votes are, and that we represent every man and woman who votes—and all those who do not, as well.
  There are many other myths surrounding compulsory voting, all of which can be roundly put to death by the Government's superb commitment to extending the franchise by educational and managerial means, combined with an acceptance that in a democracy such as ours it is not only a right to vote, but a duty.

  1159
  If the Minister wanted a concluding argument, I would seriously wager with him, for powerful odds, that the majority of those who currently vote would support compulsory voting, because they see the value of a vote, and recognise the difference that their vote will make in so many ways. If the Minister announced a change in Government policy tonight and called a national referendum tomorrow, in a referendum based on the present "turn up if you want" system, the proportion of the electorate who already vote would vote for compulsory voting. I can give him a personal guarantee that he would win the referendum and cast himself as the hero of democracy.
  I began by acknowledging that we were unlikely to effect a change in Government policy tonight. However, I ask the Minister at least to recognise that there is growing support for a fuller debate on compulsory voting among Back Benchers, and some Ministers. I, and many others, continue to raise the issue, write articles and make speeches, in the hope that Ministers will recognise that this growing band of men and women, this merry few, have some arguments to deploy. If he recognises that our arguments have some currency, I, and the many colleagues who have sustained such arguments over the years, can return to our lonely apartments tonight with the feeling of a job well done. I thank the Minister and other Members for their indulgence, and I hope for a sympathetic response.
  8.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) can return to his apartment feeling that this is a job well done—the job of raising this important topic. Although we may feel—indeed I am sure that we will—during the course of my comments that there is some distance between us on the policy, I believe that he has made a thoughtful and detailed contribution on this exceptionally important subject.
  There is no doubt—the Government certainly believe it—that participation in our electoral process is a matter of central concern in our democracy. Democracy needs active citizenship if those who are elected are to be able to speak with the authority of the public whom we represent.
  However, I am afraid that unsurprisingly, as my hon. Friend suggests, I shall have to disappoint him and say that the Government do not now favour the introduction of compulsory voting. There are obvious attractions to removing any worries about electoral turnout at a stroke, but although I sympathise with the laudable intentions expressed by my hon. Friend, we are not convinced that compulsory voting is the answer, or that its advantages would outweigh some of the possible disadvantages.
  Of course it would be legally possible to require people to attend a polling station or to vote in some other way, such as by post. However, there can be no guarantee that they would mark their ballot papers properly, or make a reasonable choice between candidates. Ultimately, voting is a matter for the free will of the elector, and rightly so. Democratic engagement is a right, and perhaps a duty—but in a free society, it should be open to citizens not to take part if they do not wish to do so.
  1160
  There is also the issue of enforcement. Criminalisation of non-attendance at a polling station would be a very big step to take in British civil society. The immediate reaction to an introduction of compulsory voting here might be that considerable numbers of electors would mark their ballot papers at random, deliberately spoil them, or actively refuse either to vote or to pay any imposed fine for non-attendance. Enforcement would be a mammoth task, perhaps disproportionate to the nature of the offence.
  Quite apart from the burden that that could place on the courts and the prison system, such protests could cast doubt on the fairness and validity of elections and the electoral process. What would it say about the mandate if more people spoiled their votes than voted for a candidate?
  I hear my hon. Friend's comment that one possible solution would be to have an abstention box added at the bottom of the ballot paper, but I am afraid that there are also problems with the "none of the above" option that he advocates. Democracy is about choosing a direction of travel for society, not about descending into a void of indecision. What if the number of votes in that abstention box were greater than that in any of the others? Would we re-run the election, and how many times could an election be re-run? Would we elect the next best candidate, who obviously had little support? Those questions are not easy to answer, so we remain unconvinced about that idea.
  It remains the Government's view that persuasion, in terms of engaging people in the act of voting, is better than coercion. It is difficult to see how, in this day and age, compulsory voting could be practical or enforceable. Nor is it by any means clear that it would be desirable to compel the electorate in that way. By way of analogy, schoolchildren can be forced to read Shakespeare or Dickens, or to go cross-country running, but they certainly cannot be made to enjoy those things. The long-term answer lies in persuading the unconvinced of the merits of those activities, to engage their interest and perhaps even their enthusiasm.
  Compulsory voting could not solve the problem that faces us: a lack of engagement in conventional politics. We should not be forcing people to vote but making them want to vote because they see it as good and important. Political parties and politicians from all sides have a key role to play in that. If we engage with voters, inform them, interest them and show them that their views really count, they will turn out and participate.
  My hon. Friend rightly raised the experience of other countries, and I understand that the independent Electoral Commission plans to review the literature on the international use of compulsory voting. We will be interested to see the results of that work, but there are a few obvious lessons to be learned from practice elsewhere.
  First, compulsory voting is by no means widespread. In South America, three countries—Peru, Uruguay and Chile—have compulsory voting. Of course, Australia has famously had compulsory voting since the 1920s. In addition, three of our European neighbours use compulsory voting: Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece. Most commentators agree that although compulsory voting works well in Australia and regularly produces high turnouts, it would not be possible to introduce it

  1161
  there now had its people been voting voluntarily. There would be considerable public and political opposition. As for our European colleagues, turnout in Belgium and Luxembourg is, as my hon. Friend said, consistently high at around the 90 per cent. mark, including for the recent European elections. However, in those countries, as in Australia, the population tends to regard it as a civic duty to vote and is willing to be coerced. Conversely, however, in Greece, the recent election turnout was 62.8 per cent., despite compulsory voting, which is hardly a resounding endorsement of that system.
  That helps to demonstrate that compulsory voting is possible where the population is willing to be coerced and where enforcement is effective, but the experience in Greece suggests that simply having a law in place is not enough. However, it will be interesting in due course to see the international facts and figures collated and marshalled by the Electoral Commission. I gather that it is due to report on that next spring.
  There are other, preferable and better means by which we can raise turnout and encourage participation, such as working with schools, including in the citizenship education component of the national curriculum, to widen awareness of how decisions are made and who takes them. Reforming our electoral mechanisms could also help, for example, registration for those without conventional addresses, postal voting on demand and piloting of innovative voting methods, including all-postal voting.
  The recent local and European elections on 10 June were always going to be of concern, given that the turnout in the 1999 European elections was 24 per cent. The Government were keen, therefore, to pilot new voting mechanisms on a wider scale, to test out whether all-postal voting would make an appreciable difference.
  Judging by the turnout levels this time—though not, I admit, reaching the 90 per cent. mark—it is clear that the policy choices that we made did contribute to a
  1162
  substantially higher turnout than before, doubling that which occurred in the four pilot regions from the 1999 European elections and increasing turnout substantially, albeit to a lesser degree, in the non-pilot regions. It was a deliberate policy choice to combine the local and the European elections on the same day. While that did bring with it accusations of complexity from some quarters, in fact, it is clear that voters preferred to exercise their vote on the one occasion, rather than on separate occasions. They found it easier and more convenient, and it is clear that there are lessons there for the future.
  The all-postal voting pilots are, of course, subject to a full evaluation by the Electoral Commission, and the Government will also be studying the lessons learned there too. But for the turnout levels to have more than doubled in the pilot regions compared with the 1999 European elections, does prove that these were worthwhile trials, and puts paid to many of those who said that the public would not engage with postal voting.
  In my view, we must continue to focus on engagement, on making people want to vote, and on making it easy for them to vote. Turnout is not just about attendance at a polling station: political disengagement is the deeper problem, and failure to turn up to vote is merely a symptom of it. Nevertheless, we should not be too disheartened. It is surely encouraging that turnout on 10 June indicated that if sufficient information is available to help electors consider relevant issues and if voting is made easier for them—for example, by combination or postal voting—people will be more likely to vote. The recent elections are an indication that there may be other solutions available to raise participation levels, and the Government believe that we should continue to test those out. In the meantime, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing yet another opportunity to debate his preferred alternative.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Nine o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were in the Territorial Army on 1 January(a) 1997 and (b) 2004. [179379]

  Mr. Caplin
  The strength of the Territorial Army (TA) on 1 January 2004 was 38,900. This includes 3,320 Mobilised Reservists.

  The hon. Member will recall from my reply to him on 26 January that I am unable to provide comparable figures for 1 January 1997.

  Defence GII Agency
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department's study of the future of the Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency's estate will be completed. [179380]

  Mr. Ingram
  Initial conclusions are expected to be reached late in 2004. However, these will be subject to further consideration within the Department, within the context of other on-going estate studies. No announcement is likely before early 2005.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the US Administration regarding the introduction of the joint strike fighter. [179382]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ministers and officials regularly discuss the progress of the Joint Strike Fighter programme with our US partners.

  Nimrod Project
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the Nimrod project. [179383]

  Mr. Ingram
  The agreement reached with BAE Systems in February 2003, embodied in a formal contract amendment on 23 February this year, has put the Nimrod MRA4 programme on a much sounder footing for the future. Under the restructured contract, design and development and production have been separated as far as possible, to ensure that technology is adequately de-risked before making further commitment to production price and schedule. The MOD, however, has been approving low risk production activities when it makes sense to do so, where these help maintain essential skills and product knowledge as well as preserve schedule.
  1178W
  While risks and challenges remain, the development and manufacture of the first three Nimrod MRA4 aircraft to be used in the flight trials programme is well under way and we are making good joint progress towards first flight this summer with the first trial aircraft having successfully undertaken low speed taxy trials at Woodford on 12 June 2004.

  Armed Forces Deployment
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which countries members of the UK armed forces are deployed; how many individuals are deployed in each area; on what dates the deployment(a) began and (b) is expected to end; for what purpose the forces were deployed; whether each deployment was at the request of (i) the UN and (ii) another body; and what organisations are in command of UK forces in each area. [177897]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom armed forces are deployed overseas on peace-keeping and conflict prevention/resolution operations in the following countries:

  Approx personnel numbers

  Year current ops started

  UN mission or other

  Middle East (Inc Iraq)

  9,500

  2003

  Coalition

  Bosnia

  800

  1996

  NATO/UK

  Afghanistan area

  600

  2002

  Multinational

  Cyprus

  410

  1964

  UN

  Kosovo

  190

  1999

  NATO/UK

  Georgia

  7

  1993

  UN

  Sierra Leone

  20

  1999

  UN

  Dem Rep of Congo

  5

  1999

  UN

  Ethiopia/ Eritrea

  4

  2000

  UN

  Liberia

  3

  2003

  UN

  The UK's participation in all of these operations is kept under regular review. Information on other overseas deployments are provided in the Ministry of Defence's Annual Report and Accounts 2000–2003, and copies are available in the House of Commons Library (ref: HC1125)

  UK personnel remain under the ultimate command of the UK at all times. Varying degrees of local command and control are delegated to deployed commanders—including commanders from other UN, Alliance or Coalition members—in order to allow them to complete assigned tasks. In such circumstances, the UK retains a veto over specific missions and tasks given to UK personnel or formations.

  Army Medal Office
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis, and with what external advice, the site of the Army Medal Office in Droitwich was(a) assessed as being suitable for residential development and (b) valued. [178996]

  Mr. Caplin
  The land was assessed as suitable for housing based on earlier informal contacts with the Local Planning Authority and a series of inquiries received from, or on behalf of national housebuilders. In the four years preceding the valuation date, five
  1179W
  enquiries or re-enquiries were received of this nature. These continued approaches indicated a local demand for building land.

  The valuation was prepared by Defence Estates 1 own in-house Chartered Surveyors. In making the valuation, due regard was given to knowledge gained from open market residential land transactions, while taking into account the nature of the site at Droitwich.

  British Indian Ocean Territories
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which UK armed forces are deployed in the British Indian Ocean territories; and what use they make of the US facilities on Diego Garcia. [179697]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is a small Royal Navy, Royal Marine and Army detachment deployed on Diego Garcia within the British Forces British Indian Ocean territory. Their use of US facilities extends to accommodation, the recreation facilities and some logistic support.

  Dentists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dentists there were for every 3,000 members of the armed forces in(a) 1987, (b) 1997 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available. [179227]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of dentists for every 3,000 members of the UK regular forces is as follows:

  Number of dentists

  1 April 1987

  4.16

  1 April 1997

  4.12

  1 April 2004

  3.65

  All figures are rounded to two decimal places.

  Flight ZD576
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the wreckage of flight ZD576 is located. [179587]

  Mr. Caplin
  The wreckage of light ZD576 is held in secure storage at the Defence Aviation Repair Agency Fleetlands in Hampshire.

  Iraq
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes are planned in the nature of the deployment of British troops in Iraq after 30 June. [179370]

  Mr. Hoon
  On 30 June, the UK will no longer be an Occupying Power under the terms of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq. The Iraqi Government will increasingly take direct responsibility for security. Prime Minister-designate Dr. Iyad Allawi explained in his letter to the Security Council that he intends to establish appropriate security structures that will allow his Government and Iraqi security forces to progressively assume security responsibility. These structures will include the Prime Minister's Ministerial Committee for National Security which will set a broad framework 1180W
  for security policy and to which he will invite representatives from the multinational force as appropriate.

  In Multinational Division South-East, British forces will fully support this process. Iraqi local authorities and security forces will take responsibility for local security wherever possible on 30 June, with multinational forces in support.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current situation in Iraq. [179377]

  Mr. Hoon
  An Interim Iraqi Government has been chosen and stands ready to assume full sovereignty and authority on 30 June. This marks the end of occupation governed by the Geneva Convention. Details of the political process have been set out in UN Security Council Resolution 1546, which acknowledges the continued role of the multinational force in supporting the Iraqi Government. The UN Electoral Commission is preparing for full elections to the Transitional Assembly before the end of January 2005.

  In my visit to Iraq last week, I was able to see for myself the contribution personnel from the United Kingdom are making to Iraq's future. For example, they have trained some 8,000 police in the south. In Baghdad a United Kingdom Ministry of Defence team is helping the Iraqi Minister for Defence set up and develop his department, and officers from the New Iraqi Army are due shortly to begin training at Sandhurst. After 30 June, responsibility for security will pass to the Iraqi Government. The United Kingdom is fully committed to this process and the transition has already started—for example, control of the Iraqi Coastal Defence Forces, which were trained by UK personnel, was passed to the Iraqis on 12 June.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance British forces have provided to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission regarding military cemeteries and memorials in Iraq. [178605]

  Mr. Caplin
  British forces have provided security, general clearance and maintenance assistance at cemeteries and memorials in southern Iraq.

  The present climate is not conducive to the commencement of any major CWGC projects in Iraq. However, the situation will be re-assessed after the new interim Government of Iraq has assumed its responsibilities.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the names are of those individuals reported to have been killed or injured as a result of action by Armed Forces personnel in Iraq in whose cases the commanding officer of the regiment concerned decided there was no case to answer. [179011]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding the names of alleged Iraqi victims of abuse at the hands of UK soldiers, where these individuals are still living, in accordance with Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Information on the numbers of cases where the commanding officer decided there was no case to answer is currently being collated from unit records.
  1181W
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of(a) dysentery and (b) similar conditions were reported by British Forces serving in Iraq in the year ending 31 March. [176374]

  Mr. Ingram
  For the year ending 31 March 2004, 50 suspected cases of dysentery were reported. Central records of similar disorders are not held, and it would not be possible to calculate these except at disproportionate cost.

  Official Vehicles
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of official vehicles used by his Department are run on(a) petrol, (b) diesel, (c) liquid petroleum gas and (d) compressed natural gas. [172769]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 25 May 2004,Official Report, column 1538W. The Government have signed up to various targets for improving the performance of its own vehicle fleet, details of which, together with reports on each Department's progress towards these targets, are available at www.sustainable-development.gov.uk.

  The Ministry of Defence's Ministerial vehicles are provided by the Government Car Service (GCS). Detailed information on the breakdown of the GCS vehicle fleet is being provided separately.

  The MOD's non-operational fleet, which might be regarded as the official vehicle fleet, is supplied under the terms of contracts for service provision and is not owned by the Department. It is not therefore possible to provide a breakdown of vehicles used by fuel type.

  The MOD also operates a large range of operational vehicle fleets. When procuring new operational vehicles MOD ensures compliance with current domestic and EU legislation and the current NATO Single Fuel Policy. Since the acceptance and implementation of this policy by the UK in 1991, all operational vehicles procured will run on diesel or kerosene type fuels. For older vehicles, conversion programmes have been undertaken where this represents a cost-effective option for the remaining life of the fleet.

  Procurement
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to improve the procurement process for equipment for the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [179369]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following a comprehensive review of the Defence Procurement Agency's performance a package of measures have been put in place to re-invigorate the Smart Acquisition measures introduced from 1998.

  This work includes strengthening the Corporate Governance within the DPA, improving key acquisition processes—including greater early investment in projects to reduce risk, making better use of available skills, knowledge and experience and building on the Department's relationship with key suppliers.

  This work complements changes to transform the acquisition processes of the Defence Logistics Organisation.
  1182W

  Remembrance Events
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the support given by the armed forces to remembrance and other events at Commonwealth War Graves Commission and similar sites in(a) France and (b) Belgium; and what such events have taken place in the last year. [178589]

  Mr. Caplin
  There were just over 1,900 UK Armed Forces personnel in Normandy for the commemorative events that took place between Saturday 5 and Monday 7 June.

  Support for other events is routinely arranged by our Defence Attaches, including the Anniversary of the Battle of the Somme and the 75th Anniversary of the dedication of the Menin Gate. Unit Commanders are also able to authorise attendance at various remembrance and other events at Commonwealth War Graves Commission and former battle sites in France and Belgium throughout the year, consistent with their regimental histories.

  Attendance reports for these events are not held centrally and it is not possible to provide a report covering every event that has taken place in the last year.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) soldiers and (b) ex-soldiers of the Royal Irish Regiment have been (i) investigated and (ii) prosecuted in regard to fraudulent claims for payment associated with resettlement in each year since 2000. [175724]

  Mr. Caplin
  Information relating to fraudulent resettlement claims since 2000 by serving soldiers will take further time to collate. I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House. The investigation of ex-soldiers is a matter for the appropriate civil police authority.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers belonging to the Royal Irish Regiment received payments as part of their resettlement on leaving the Army in 2003; and what the average amount was. [175725]

  Mr. Ingram
  A total of 74 soldiers from the Royal Irish Regiment received payments of Individual Resettlement Training Cost grants on leaving the Army in 2003. The average amount paid was £454.29.

  There are associated travel and subsistence costs but this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Suez Medals
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of how many General Service medals with Canal Zone clasps have been issued to date. [179378]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at last Friday 18 June the four single Service medal offices had between them cleared 9,709 cases out of the 39,666 applications so far received.
  1183W
  A total of 489 Naval General Service Medals 1915–62 and 7,884 General Service Medals 1918–62 had been issued with the new clasp Canal Zone, plus another 961 clasps on their own, where recipients had previously received the medal with another clasp for other qualifying service.

  UK Sites (US Use)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place with the US on using UK sites for anti-ballistic missile interceptor sites. [179206]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 17 June 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 25 May 2004, Official Report, column 1616W to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson).

  UN Convention Against Torture
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance he has issued to UK service personnel on whether the use of hoods on detainees constitutes inhuman treatment for the purposes of the UN Convention Against Torture. [173019]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: The directive issued by the Chief of Joint Operations to the Commander of British Forces in Iraq covers methods that may be used when obscuring vision, and circumstances in which these methods may be applied. Hoods will not be used when apprehending or detaining Iraqi citizens in Iraq.

  Although the armed forces do not generally hood detainees, the MOD does not believe that the use of hoods on apprehended persons amounts to torture or inhuman treatment for the purposes of the UN Convention in all circumstances. There are occasions on which we believe its use to be appropriate, for example, the temporary obscuring of vision by hooding or other methods to prevent persons who have been apprehended from recognising their locations or other apprehended persons. We do not believe that the use of hoods is acceptable during questioning.

  Veterans
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in producing a comprehensive document outlining his Department's support for armed forces veterans. [179381]

  Mr. Caplin
  In March 2003 the Ministry of Defence launched the 'Strategy for Veterans'. This was the result of work which aimed to establish a structured relationship between key deliverers of services to veterans across government and the voluntary and corporate sectors. It also established a strategic framework to assist all areas of Government to develop policies and activities affecting United Kingdom veterans. The document outlines three principal areas of activity: optimising arrangements for transition from Service to civilian life; ensuring that appropriate help is given to those veterans who need it; and increasing the recognition of veterans and their achievements by the wider society.
  1184W

PRIME MINISTER

  Chief Adviser on Delivery
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the(a) powers and (b) duties of his Chief Adviser on Delivery. [179819]

  The Prime Minister
  As Chief Adviser on Delivery, Professor Michael Barber advises me on delivery of the Government's public service priorities, including the joint Cabinet Office/Treasury Public Service Agreement target:'Improve public services by working with departments to help them meet their PSA targets, consistently with the fiscal rules.'

  Iraq
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister when Saddam Hussein is to be handed over to the Iraqi authorities. [178252]

  The Prime Minister
  Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi has confirmed that criminal proceedings will be brought against Saddam Hussein and President Bush has confirmed the intention of the US to pass Saddam Hussein to the Iraqi authorities to face criminal prosecution. The Iraqi authorities and the US are in discussions about the transfer.

  Lord Lieutenants
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister how many lord lieutenants and deputy lieutenants in(a) England, (b) the North West and (c) Lancashire were (i) Masons and (ii) members of political parties in the last 10 years. [179286]

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally. Lord lieutenants and deputy lieutenants are of course aware that their role is essentially non-political and impartial.

  Minister Without Portfolio
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work of the Minister without Portfolio. [179817]

  The Prime Minister
  Details of the responsibilities for the Minister without Portfolio can be found in the List of Ministerial Responsibilities, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  US Military Activities
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions took place in his recent meetings with the US President concerning US military activities on Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands; and if he will make a statement. [179699]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly discuss a wide range of issues with President Bush. As with previous administrations, it is not the practice of this Government to make public all the details of discussions with foreign Governments.
  1185W

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  D-day Commemorations
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many D-Day veterans benifited from Lottery and Government money to revisit the beaches. [179515]

  Estelle Morris
  The National Lottery Veterans Reunited initiative includes the Heroes Return scheme, which provides Lottery funding to help Second World War veterans arrange commemorative visits to the overseas areas where British Armed Forces served in the Second World War. Through Heroes Return, over £1.9 million has already been awarded to veterans, their wives and husbands, widows and widowers and, where required, their present day carers, to return to the overseas areas where the veterans saw active service. Of the funding awarded so far, £1.2 million has been awarded for visits to Normandy. The funding has enabled over 4,200 people, including over 2,100 veterans, to travel to Normandy this month.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance her Department provided to the D-day 60th Anniversary events and commemorations. [179183]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department did not assist directly in the commemorations, but funding has been made available through the National Lottery Veterans Reunited initiative to ensure that all generations of UK residents can commemorate the momentous events that led to the end of the Second World War. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State first announced our intention to provide Lottery support in this area last October.

  The Veterans Reunited initiative has three strands: Their Past, Your Future, focusing on activities for schools and young people; Heroes Return, focusing on overseas visits for veterans and their carers; and Home Front Recall, providing funding for events and activities in the UK. The initiative has an overall budget of over £25 million and will continue making awards until the end of 2005.

  Through Heroes Return, over. £1.9 million has already been awarded to veterans, their wives and husbands, widows and widowers and, where required, their present day carers, to return to the overseas areas where the veterans saw active service. Of the funding awarded so far, £1.2 million has been awarded for visits to Normandy. The funding has enabled over 4,200 people, including over 2,100 veterans, to travel to Normandy this month.

  One of the elements of Their Past, Your Future was a competition with opportunities for schools to win visits to the D-Day commemorations. The first prize winners were Abbey Grange School in Leeds and a party of pupils and teachers joined the official 60th anniversary cruise and commemorations. Further visits are planned for schools later in the year to commemorate other major events such as Arnhem.
  1186W
  Home Front Recall was the most recent element of the Veterans Reunited programme to be launched. One of the first awards to be made was to allow the Rotherham branch of Normandy veterans to travel to Portsmouth for the official D-Day commemorations.

  Greyhounds
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the turnover was for bookmakers on greyhound racing in 2003. [179234]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not collected by the Department; but I understand that the British Greyhound Racing Board estimate that the total turnover of on and off-course betting in 2003 was about £3 billion.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many journeys were made by helicopter by each Minister in her Department and its predecessors in each of the last 10 years; and what the journey length was in each case. [175742]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have been unable to recover information about helicopter trips taken by Ministers in this Department before the General Election in 2001. Since then there has been one helicopter journey made by me on 20 September 2003. The journey was from Tirana to Butrint in Albania and back again. The approximate distance was 99 miles each way, so 198 miles in total.

  None of the other Ministers have made journeys by helicopter.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many abandoned vehicles were removed by local authorities in Greater London in each year since 1997, broken down by borough. [176708]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: Statistics for abandoned vehicles removed and destroyed were first compiled in the Defra Municipal Waste Management Survey for 2000–01. Results for authorities in London are available for 2000–01 and 2001–02. Results for 2002–03 are supplemented by results from the Defra Abandoned Vehicle Survey 2002–03.

  Numbers of abandoned vehicles removed and destroyed by each London borough and Waste Collection Authority are listed as follows:

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,761

  n/a

  3,201

  Barnet

  3,287

  4,431

  3,940

  Bexley

  1,356

  1,776

  2,391

  Brent

  3,471

  4,115

  4,184

  Bromley

  3,895

  4,215

  3,129

  Camden

  1,629

  1,897

  1,676

  City of London

  n/a

  n/a

  158

  Croydon

  2,878

  4,376

  4,200

  1187W

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Ealing

  3,754

  4,916

  3,975

  Enfield

  4,711

  6,347

  4,973

  Greenwich

  3,120

  4,200

  4,429

  Hackney

  2,700

  4,066

  3,609

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,430

  1,473

  2,188

  Haringey

  6,500

  14,560

  5,900

  Harrow

  1,914

  12,249

  2,650

  Havering

  1,250

  3,126

  2,086

  Hillingdon

  2,286

  3,128

  3,741

  Hounslow

  2,247

  3,118

  3,125

  Islington

  2,619

  3,643

  2,748

  Kensington and Chelsea

  195

  232

  265

  Kingston upon Thames

  739

  2,159

  3,053

  Lambeth

  3,308

  3,775

  3,577

  Lewisham

  5,000

  4,671

  3,554

  Merton

  1,683

  2140

  2,165

  Newham

  6,704

  8,117

  3,105

  Redbridge

  1,562

  2,219

  2,005

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,201

  1,201

  970

  Southwark

  1,934

  2,848

  2,245

  Sutton

  1,651

  2,166

  2,055

  Tower Hamlets

  n/a

  n/a

  2,781

  Waltham Forest

  2,716

  3,466

  3,351

  Wandsworth

  2,571

  2,794

  2,753

  Westminster

  496

  333

  336

  London total

  83,900

  104,500

  94,500

  n/a=results not available.

  1 for 2001–02=GLA estimate.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the percentage change in the number of abandoned vehicles in England and Wales was in each year since 1997–98. [177057]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures for numbers of abandoned vehicles removed and destroyed in England were first collected in the Defra Municipal Waste Management Survey for 2000–01. Results for 2002–03 are supplemented by the Defra Abandoned Vehicle Survey for 2002–03.

  Figures for 2001–02 showed an increase of 28 per cent. from 2000–01.

  Figures for 2002–03 showed an increase of 8 per cent. from 2001–02.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish, by payment area, the compensation paid to farmers for each bovine TB breakdown for each of the last three years. [178785]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  TB compensation paid to farmers in relation to cattle for England, Scotland and Wales for the period 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 is detailed in the following table. A more detailed breakdown is available only at disproportionate cost.

  £

  Payment area

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  England

  6,933,629

  23,576,532

  24,093,542

  Scotland

  45,788

  226,570

  538,449

  Wales

  2,264,024

  8,137,810

  9,782,904

  Total compensation paid to farmers in Great Britain

  9,243,441

  31,940,912

  34,414,895

  Fisheries
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with British trawlermen who are fishing or who aim to fish off the disputed waters of Western Sahara. [179297]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK Government has had no discussions with British trawlermen about fishing in the waters of Western Sahara and is not aware of any existing or anticipated fishing activities in that area.

  Galapagos Islands
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has had with the Government of Ecuador to ensure that the Charles Darwin Research Station in the Galapagos Islands is not adversely affected by activities of fishermen protesting against quotas. [179171]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Our Ambassador in Quito has made clear our concerns for the safety of foreign scientists to the Ecuadorean authorities, including the Minister of the Environment. The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, through its Darwin Initiative is funding two UK organisations to carry out biodiversity conservation research projects on the Galapagos Islands and is in close communication with them regarding any security concerns. At present, neither project personnel or project work have been adversely affected by the protests.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) location and (b) capacity is of each site presently licensed for (i) hazardous and (ii) contaminated waste, broken down by region; which sites will continue to be licensed for such waste after the implementation of the EU Landfill Directive; and which sites (A) are and (B) will be licensed to take contaminated soil. [176384]

  Mr. Morley
  The location of each site presently licensed for hazardous waste is set out in a table which I have placed in the library (table 1). These are the sites for which operators submitted a conditioning plan to the Environment Agency on 16 July 2002, outlining their proposals for meeting the requirements of the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. From 16 July 2004, when the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste ends, the majority of these sites will revert to a non-hazardous classification.

  Sites whose operators have applied for permits for their respective sites to receive hazardous waste after the implementation of the EU Landfill Directive are set out in two further tables which I have placed in the Library (tables 2 and 3).

  The 22 applications listed in table 2 are for permits to become merchant or in-house landfills for hazardous waste. The identity of two of the in-house landfills in table 2 cannot be revealed for reasons of national security.
  1189W
  The 35 applications listed in table 3 are for permits for sites to contain single cells for the disposal of stable, non-reactive hazardous wastes.

  Data on capacity of individual hazardous waste sites is not held centrally. Most types of waste are 'contaminated'. Approximately 1,000 landfills are licensed and permitted to take waste for disposal in England and Wales.

  The Environment Agency has no centrally stored information on which sites are presently licensed to take contaminated soil.

  One merchant landfill site has been granted a permit to take contaminated soil after the implementation of the EU Landfill Directive: at Purton Brickworks (table 2, number 1). The operators of two merchant landfill sites have applications still under consideration for permits to take contaminated soils after the implementation of the EU Landfill Directive: at Eardswick Hall (table 2, number 6); and at Whitemoss (table 2, number 7).

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Environment Agency has to encourage the cement and lime industry to become major operators of hazardous waste incinerators; and whether the Agency has considered plans to locate an incinerator at Lostock Gralam in Cheshire. [176824]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency takes no part in the commercial decisions of industry to undertake specific activities and is not aware of any applications from the cement and lime industry to operate hazardous waste incinerators. Several cement and lime operators are permitted to incinerate hazardous wastes as substitutes for conventional fuels used in the cement-making process, such as coal and petroleum coke. This is only permitted where the operator can demonstrate to the Agency's satisfaction that no net detriment to the environment results in comparison with the use of conventional fuels alone.

  The Agency has not received an application for an incinerator at Lostock Gralam in Cheshire.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contingency plans she has put in place to deal with hazardous waste following the forthcoming ban on co-disposal, with particular reference to warehousing and other storage facilities. [177496]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government and the Environment Agency are monitoring closely waste industry plans for the provision of treatment and disposal capacity, and the response of waste producers. For example, a recent survey of the chemical industry, as reported to the Hazardous Waste Forum, shows that waste producers in that sector do not envisage difficulty in meeting the Landfill Directive requirements. Waste producers should ensure that they are meeting in full the requirements of their duty of care and avoid the need for warehousing or storage of waste over and above that which normally occurs.
  1190W

  Heat Pumps
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department is taking to encourage the development of(a) ground source and (b) air source heat pumps. [176760]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Timms) on 10 June 2004,Official Report, column 564W.

  Landfill Sites
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which body is responsible for(a) decontamination and (b) preventing the leachate if a closed landfill site begins to leak contaminants into the water supply or environment. [174587]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the provisions of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000, enacted in January 2004, the quality of a public, potable water supply to a consumer's premises (up to the tap) is the responsibility of the relevant water undertaker for that location. This includes responsibility for decontamination.

  If a closed landfill site begins to leak contaminants into the water supply in England and Wales, responsibility for the overall process of preventing the leachate is divided. The Environment Agency is responsible for 'investigating' the incident. The body (or person) who causes or knowingly permits the pollution of controlled waters is responsible for 'remedying' the pollution. The Environment Agency in turn is responsible for 'ensuring' that the body (or person) who caused or knowingly permitted the pollution takes remedial action. The Agency has powers to prosecute the perpetrator of the pollution in these circumstances.

  The Drinking Water Inspectorate investigates incidents affecting drinking water quality. Local authorities are required to monitor the quality of private water supplies, namely those not provided by a water undertaker.

  Responsibility for the aftercare and maintenance of closed landfill sites, including the prevention of environmental pollution, will depend on the legislation that was in force at the time the landfill site ceased operations. Sites that closed before the implementation of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 were subject to a different regime to the one currently in place.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Castle Point, of 24 May 2004,Official Report, column 1292W, on landfill sites, how many offences were identified for each year from 2000 to 2003; and what the (a) highest, (b) average and (c) lowest fine was in each year. [178703]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency's data in the following table on landfill pollution charges relates
  1191W
  to events which were categorised having a major (category 1), significant (category 2) or minor (category 3) environmental impact. No environmental

  Landfill pollution charges

  Total charges

  Enforcement notices

  Cautions

  Prosecutions

  Total fines (£)

  Highest fine (£)

  Lowest fine (£)

  Average fine (£)

  2000

  5

  0

  0

  15

  36,000

  20,000

  2,000

  9,000

  2001

  19

  0

  4

  215

  15,500

  8,000

  7,500

  7,750

  2002

  20

  1

  5

  315

  103,250

  15,000

  6,000

  10,325

  2003

  29

  0

  10

  419

  30,000

  10,000

  1,000

  3,333

  1 Five convictions (four fines, one conditional discharge).

  2 Two convictions (both with fines), 13 acquittals.

  3 10 convictions (all with fines), five acquittals.

  4 15 convictions (nine fines, three absolute discharges, three no evidence offered), four acquittals.

  Pesticides Tax
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on a pesticides tax. [179595]

  Alun Michael
  A Voluntary Initiative to reduce the environmental damage caused by the agricultural use of pesticides has been in place since April 2001. In Budget 2004 the Government confirmed the view that the initiative will be effective in reducing the environmental pollution associated with pesticides provided that it is fully implemented. However, to cover the possibility that the initiative might not deliver the required environmental benefits within a reasonable time scale, the Government have kept the options for a tax or economic instrument under review.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Decisions (Judicial Review)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which decisions by his Department were challenged by judicial review in session(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; and in how many cases the (i) Department's decision was upheld by the court, (ii) court found for the applicant, (iii) Department submitted to the judgment and (iv) Department appealed successfully against the decision; [158466]

  (2) which decisions by his Department were challenged by judicial review in the session 2002–03; and in how many cases the (a) Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) court found for the applicant, (c) Department submitted to the judgment and (d) Department appealed successfully against the decision. [161158]

  Paul Goggins
  There are no central records containing the information sought. This could be obtained only by consulting individual case files and would involve disproportionate cost. There are no central records containing the information sought. This could be obtained only by consulting individual case files and would involve disproportionate cost. The Administrative Court's records are organised by reference to the subject matter of judicial review claims, not the government department concerned. They contain the following information for immigration and 1192W
  impact (category 4) incidents included in the previous answer have not beet included, as the offences did not involve the release of pollutants.

  asylum claims, which make up more than 90 per cent. of the judicial review cases brought against the Home Office.

  Asylum, October 2002 to November 2003

  Number

  Claims received

  2,693

  Claims allowed

  36

  Non-Asylum Immigration Cases, October 2002 to November 2003

  Number

  Claims received

  272

  Claims allowed

  2

  Asylum, October 1997 to September 2000

  Number

  Claims received

  5,748

  Claims allowed

  1685

  1which is 11.9 per cent. of the total

  Non-Asylum, Immigration Cases, October 1997 to September 2000

  Number

  Claims received

  1,117

  Claims allowed

  150

  1which is 4.5 per cent. of the total

  These figures show that in the period in question of the immigration judicial review cases brought against the Home Office only 10.7 per cent. were successful.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland have been given a drug treatment and testing order in each year for which figures are available who otherwise would have received a prison sentence of over six months. [174852]

  Paul Goggins
  Information about how many offenders in England and Wales and Scotland given a drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) who would otherwise have received a prison sentence of over six months is not available.
  1193W
  It is impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy what the outcome of cases where a DTTO was made would have been if the DTTO had not been available as a sentencing option. However, the DTTO is targeted at offenders with entrenched patterns of drug misuse who have generally committed a considerable amount of crime to fund their drug habit. While the vast majority of DTTO cases are likely to be heard in the magistrates courts, a significant number (perhaps as many as a quarter) of offenders on DTTOs are sentenced at Crown court. In view of the frequency and seriousness of offences committed by offenders in the target group, we anticipate that a significant proportion of those who are sentenced to DTTOs would otherwise have been sent to prison.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders were made in Crosby in 2003–04. [177937]

  Paul Goggins
  According to data from the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, 60 drug treatment and testing orders (DTTOs) were commenced within the area covered by Sefton Drug Action Team in 2003–04, of which five related to residents of Crosby.

  Electoral Fraud
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the sentencing guidelines for electoral fraud to strengthen their deterrent effect. [179222]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department does not issue or review sentencing guidelines. That is a matter for the Sentencing Guidelines Council. However, I will keep this matter under review and if it appears that guidelines are necessary I may ask the Sentencing Guidelines Council to consider the issue.

  ICT
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his targets are for improving the information and communication technology (ICT) skills base of staff within(a) his Department and (b) its agencies; and what method he uses to certify the competence levels achieved by stall receiving training in ICT. [173713]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Through the formal performance and development reporting process line managers would normally assess the competencies of staff in using information and communication technology (ICT) to carry out their work.

  The target for the Home Office and its agencies (excluding non-departmental public bodies) is for all staff to obtain the standard competency level in the computer systems that they use regularly (e.g. Word processing).

  The Home Office has developed a strategy that identifies the skills required and creates opportunities for staff to develop and make best use of the technology available to them. Across the Home Office and its agencies we have defined IT competencies that are aligned with European standards, such as the European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL). This is the
  1194W
  internationally recognised qualification used in over 125 European countries, which enables people to demonstrate their competence in computer skills.

  As part of the rollout of new PC software across the Home Office and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate the Home Office intends to provide access to electronic learning tools for all core computer systems.

  Furthermore the Home Office will also provide opportunities for staff to gain advanced level competencies and qualification through the British Computer Society and the internationally recognised Microsoft Office Specialist (MOS) certification.

  National Criminal Intelligence Service
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total funding of the National Criminal Intelligence Service has been in each year since its inception; and how many(a) directly employed staff, (b) contracted in staff and (c) seconded officers it had in each year. [177469]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 9 June 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr. Brady) on 6 May 2004, Official Report, column 1699W.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 15 June 2004, Official report, column 863 W.

  Probation Hostels
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation hostels are operational in England and Wales; how many places were available in probation hostels in England and Wales on the latest date for which figures are available; and how many of those places were occupied by(a) bailees and (b) convicted sex offenders. [172267]

  Paul Goggins
  There are 100 approved premises in England and Wales. During March 2004 2,198 places were available. No central data are available on the number of places occupied by bailees or those convicted of sexual offences.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost per square metre of providing office and storage space for the National Probation Service in Central London was in 2003. [177734]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The cost of providing office and storage space in 2002–03 for the London Probation Area was £11,726,000, equivalent to £223 per square metre.

  With effect from 2003–04, all costs across the whole of the National Probation Estate were paid centrally and pooled. The national average cost per square metre was set at £180.

  The London Probation Area had their grant reduced by £1,734,000 in recognition of the fact that their costs have been reduced as a consequence of the national pooling arrangement.
  1195W

  Secure Training Centres
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the police have been called to secure training centres in each of the last five years; and for what reasons. [176780]

  Paul Goggins
  Police attendance's at secure training centres (STCs) are not individually recorded.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of residents in probation hostels are convicted sex offenders. [172395]

  Paul Goggins
  We do not maintain a central record of the number of residents in approved premises who have been convicted of sexual offences.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were on the sex offenders' register on 1 May. [177815]

  Paul Goggins
  The 2003–04 Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements annual reports, which will provide statistics on the number of registered sex offenders living in the community on 31 March 2004, will be published later this year.

  Victim Care Charities
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will change his policy of charging victim care charities market rents for office space created for agencies working closely with the criminal justice system in new magistrates courts. [179008]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Magistrates courts are expected to provide office space at no cost for 'Support Care Staff' for the use of referring to papers and conducting occasional interviews while at the courthouse. Agreement on the provision of accommodation is reached on this basis. Should the requirement of victim care charities exceed this agreement, negotiations are made locally. However, the launch of Her Majesty's Courts Service (HMCS) in April 2005 will provide an opportunity to assess all current estates, contracts and maintenance arrangements and

  Crown Prosecution Service case outcomes

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Magistrates courts

  Finalised of which

  1,373,426

  —

  1,411,903

  —

  1,485,408

  —

  Pre-charge advice

  45,580

  —

  57,505

  —

  117,172

  —

  Non-criminal proceedings

  11,063

  —

  9,221

  —

  15,337

  —

  Case outcomes

  Discontinuances (including bind overs)

  198,908

  16.2

  197,940

  15.7

  181,423

  14.3

  Warrants etc.

  73,790

  6.0

  78,758

  6.3

  73,432

  5.8

  Committals discharged

  766

  0.1

  931

  0.1

  1,693

  0.1

  Dismissals no case to answer

  1,632

  0.1

  1,722

  0.1

  2,575

  0.2

  Dismissals after trial

  14,645

  1.2

  15,458

  1.2

  15,852

  1.3

  Total unsuccessful outcomes

  289,741

  23.5

  294,809

  23.4

  274,975

  21.7

  Guilty pleas

  786,380

  63.9

  803,859

  63.9

  799,354

  63.2

  Proofs in absence

  117,882

  9.6

  119,659

  9.5

  144,521

  11.4

  1196W
  deliver seamless integration of the Court Service and magistrates courts estates to improve and provide efficient services.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service. [168311]

  The Solicitor-General
  I would refer the hon. Member to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Annual Report.

  The CPS is the principal public prosecuting authority for England and Wales, handling criminal cases investigated by the police.

  The following table provides some key figures on the volume of cases handled by the service in 2003 and in the two preceding years; and the outcome of those cases.

  While these figures support the view that the CPS makes a valuable contribution to the delivery of justice, the Service has set itself further challenging targets for 2004–05. In this year, it will seek to build on its success and reduce the proportion of unsuccessful outcomes by 11 per cent. as compared with the levels seen in 2001–02. This will contribute to the achievement of the wider criminal justice system target of bringing 1.2 million offences to justice in 2005–06. The CPS will also contribute to the reduction in the numbers of ineffective trials to 18.5 per cent. in the Crown court and 24.5 per cent. in the magistrates court.

  To achieve these targets, the main priority for the CPS in 2004–05 is to introduce the statutory charging scheme, where prosecutors will determine the charges to be preferred in the more serious cases. This follows the success of pilots in 2002–03 and of the shadow charging scheme in 2003–04. The CPS will also take a leading role in introducing the "no witness, no justice" arrangements to provide much better information and support to witnesses throughout their involvement in the criminal justice system.

  These activities are designed to move the CPS towards achieving its vision of being a world-class, independent prosecuting authority that delivers a valued public service.
  1197W

  Crown Prosecution Service case outcomes

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Convictions after trial

  37,167

  3.0

  39,516

  3.1

  46,933

  3.7

  Total convictions

  941,429

  76.5

  963,034

  76.6

  990,808

  78.3

  Committals to the Crown court

  89,603

  —

  92,114

  —

  96,382

  —

  Crown court

  Finalised

  112,438

  —

  123,754

  —

  126,949

  —

  Committals for sentence

  18,460

  —

  19,940

  —

  19,615

  —

  Appeals

  11,568

  —

  11,763

  —

  11,384

  —

  Case outcomes

  Judge ordered acquittals (including bind overs)

  12,744

  15.2

  14,340

  15.3

  14,751

  15.1

  Warrants etc.

  1,445

  1.7

  1,739

  1.9

  1,914

  2.0

  Judge directed acquittals

  1,495

  1.8

  1,442

  1.5

  1,565

  1.6

  Jury acquittals

  6,630

  7.9

  6,402

  6.8

  6,874

  7.0

  Total unsuccessful outcomes

  22,314

  26.7

  23,922

  25.6

  25,104

  25.6

  Guilty pleas

  50,597

  60.4

  57,024

  60.9

  59,701

  61.0

  Convictions after trial

  10,803

  12.9

  12,677

  13.5

  13,076

  13.4

  Total convictions

  61,400

  73.3

  69,701

  74.4

  72,777

  74.4

  Figures for 2003 are provisional, and may be subject to revision

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps she is taking to increase the number of lawyers in Merseyside Crown Prosecution Service. [170340]

  The Solicitor-General
  CPS Merseyside currently has the equivalent of 82.74 full-time lawyers. The figures for 2001 to 2003 are 71.3, 78.3 and 79.6 respectively.

  CPS Merseyside is actively recruiting prosecutors and, in addition to national advertising campaigns, advertisements have been placed in the regional and local press in the north west and in legal and minority ethnic publications. CPS Merseyside also uses continuous online recruitment via the internet. Candidates can apply at any time and, if they meet the minimum standards, can be called for interview very quickly.

  Through the CPS Law Scholarship Scheme, CPS Merseyside has three former caseworkers who are now legal trainees, two of whom will qualify as lawyers before the end of the year and will be eligible to apply for posts as crown prosecutors.

  Criminal Justice (Bexley)
  John Austin
  To ask the Solicitor-General (1) if she will list members of the Bexley Criminal Justice Board; if she will list the(a) dates and (b) attendees of meetings held in the past 12 months; and if she will make a statement; [179564]

  (2) what representations she has received for the transfer of responsibility for Bexley from the Croydon Prosecution Service Office to the City Office; and if she will make a statement; [179565]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the discharge committals, discontinuance and ineffective trial rates in (a) Bexley and (b) London; and if she will make a statement; [179566]

  (4) if she will visit Bexley magistrates court and Bexley division of the Metropolitan police to discuss the role and performance of the Crown Prosecution Service. [179567]
  1198W
  The Solicitor-General
  I understand that the hon. Member has now received my letter which answers these points. For the benefit of Members, I will place a copy of that letter in the Library.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Solicitor-General how much the production of the Law Officers' Department's latest annual report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [171148]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Law Officers' Departmental Report 2004 was presented to Parliament on 30 April 2004.

  The Stationery Office (TSO) provided the Law Officers' Departments with 240 copies of the Report, at a cost of £5,160. Other costs of printing further copies are met directly by TSO as the publisher, and do not fall to the Government.

  The Law Officers' Departments will send a small number of copies free of charge to other Government Departments and to members of the public on request.

  The Departmental Report is being made available on the Law Officers' Departmental websites and is on sale at TSO at a cover price of £12.25.

  There has been insufficient time since publication for TSO to provide any meaningful information on the number of reports sold at cover price.

  The Crown Prosecution Service also published an Annual Report from the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Attorney-General. The 2002–03 Annual Report from the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Attorney-General cost the Crown Prosecution Service £35740.80 to produce 4,000 copies. Copies of the Annual Report were distributed throughout the Crown Prosecution Service's 42 geographical Areas in England and Wales. In addition, copies of the Annual Report were sent by the Director, the Chief Executive and others at

  1199W
  CPS Headquarters, to other Government Departments and criminal justice system partners. Free copies of the Annual Report will also have been distributed to key members of the community in local Areas, visitors to Crown Prosecution Service offices and as part of publicity or careers campaigns in our Areas.

  The most recent report published by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate covered the period 1 October 2001 to 30 September 2002. It was published on 5 February 2003. Publication of the report was handled by TSO who met the costs of printing and publication. Information about those costs is not available to HMCPSI. The company used its commercial judgment as to the total number of copies printed.

  TSO supplied 650 copies to HMCPSI at a cost of £11,580.40—a small number remain in stock. The rest were distributed free of charge. The majority were distributed within the Crown Prosecution Service, Government Departments, other organisations and individuals associated with the criminal justice system such as the judiciary and Chief Constables. Copies were also sent to national media organisations, several academic institutions and other individuals with an interest in the CPS. Additionally, the report is available for download free of charge from the HMCPSI website. HMCPSI does not record how many times or by whom the report has been downloaded.

  It is estimated that 260 copies were sold at cover price (£15.70) by TSO. None were sold by HMCPSI.

  The cost of producing the Serious Fraud Office Annual Report 2002–03 was £31,243: 2,200 copies were printed. Of these 350 were retained by The Stationery Office limited for sale mostly to a subscription list, at a cover price of £13.60: 186 were sold. The remaining 1,850 copies were used by the SFO throughout the year.

  Complementary copies were sent by the SFO on the publication date to police organisations and selected Government authorities and judicial bodies in the UK and overseas and to appropriate educational establishments and members of the press.

  Sufficient copies are held in stock for distribution throughout the year.

  Genocide
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Solicitor-General what definition the Government use of the crime of genocide. [179539]

  The Solicitor-General
  By virtue of section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 it is an offence under the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide. "Genocide" is defined in section 50(1) of the 2001 Act by reference to the definition of genocide in Article 6 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, done at Rome on 17 July 1998. Article 6 of the ICC Statute, which is set out in Schedule 8 to the 2001 Act, states that "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in 1200W
  part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
  (a) killing members of the group;
  (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

  Equivalent provision is made in relation to Northern Ireland by section 58 of the 2001 Act and in relation to Scotland by section 1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001.

TREASURY

  Rochdale Constituency
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the level of unemployment was in each year since 1997 in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale, broken down by(a) age, (b) gender and (c) ethnicity; [178550]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the levels of long-term (a) adult and (b) youth employment in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale over the last seven years; and what percentage of long-term (i) adult and (ii) youth employed are (A) women and (B) of Asian origin; [178540]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the levels of long-term (a) adult and (b) youth employment of people of ethnic minorities in the parliamentary constituency of Rochdale over the last seven years. [178541]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Ms Lorna Fitzsimons, dated 21 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about unemployment in the Parliamentary Constituency of Rochdale. (178550, 178540 and 178541).

  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 the available information for levels of unemployment by gender in the Rochdale Parliamentary Constituency covering the 12 months ending February of 1997 and of each year from 2000 to 2003.

  Estimates are taken from the Office for National Statistics' Labour Force Survey (LFS). As with any statistical sample survey, estimates for the LFS are subject to sampling variability.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (ISA) for local areas including Parliamentary Constituencies. Table 2 overleaf gives the annual average number of ISA claimants, and the average number claiming for over 12 months by gender and age group in the Rochdale Constituency for each year since 1997 to 2003.
  1201W

  Table 1: Unemployment levels in the Rochdale parliamentary constituency, 12 months ending February of the years 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 (not seasonally adjusted)

  thousands

  Total

  Male

  Female

  1997

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2000

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2001

  3

  2

  1—

  2002

  3

  2

  1—

  2003

  4

  2

  1—

  1Estimates not shown owing to the small sample size.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Table 2: Annual average number of JSA claimants, and those claiming for over 12 months, by gender and age group Rochdale parliamentary constituency, 1997–2003

  Male

  All ages

  18 to 24 years

  25 to 49 years

  50 plus years

  All claimants

  1997

  2,448

  678

  1,451

  294

  1998

  2,297

  651

  1,344

  281

  1999

  2,128

  560

  1,278

  268

  2000

  1,782

  491

  1,052

  217

  2001

  1,598

  445

  963

  177

  2002

  1,672

  451

  1,006

  198

  2003

  1,685

  483

  960

  215

  People claiming for over 12 months (computerised claims only)

  1997

  669

  107

  462

  100

  1998

  571

  82

  391

  99

  1999

  474

  23

  343

  108

  2000

  338

  7

  263

  69

  2001

  237

  1—

  185

  49

  2002

  218

  1—

  164

  51

  2003

  223

  1—

  156

  65

  Female

  All ages

  18 to 24 years

  25 to 49 years

  50 plus years

  All claimants

  1997

  597

  288

  216

  77

  1998

  583

  267

  225

  75

  1999

  536

  230

  221

  69

  2000

  464

  207

  191

  53

  2001

  409

  179

  165

  47

  2002

  442

  195

  183

  52

  2003

  470

  207

  186

  57

  People claiming for over 12 months (computerised claims only)

  1997

  103

  37

  42

  23

  1998

  90

  36

  38

  17

  1999

  67

  8

  41

  19

  2000

  51

  1—

  34

  15

  2001

  35

  1—

  24

  10

  2002

  25

  1—

  15

  8

  2003

  33

  1—

  21

  11

  All

  All ages

  18 to 24 years

  25 to 49 years

  50 plus years

  All claimants

  1997

  3,045

  966

  1,667

  371

  1998

  2,880

  918

  1,568

  355

  1999

  2,663

  789

  1,498

  337

  2000

  2,246

  697

  1,244

  270

  1202W

  All

  All ages

  18 to 24 years

  25 to 49 years

  50 plus years

  2001

  2,007

  625

  1,128

  224

  2002

  2,114

  646

  1,189

  250

  2003

  2,155

  690

  1,146

  272

  People claiming for over 12 months (computerised claims only)

  1997

  772

  145

  504

  123

  1998

  661

  117

  428

  115

  1999

  541

  30

  384

  127

  2000

  389

  9

  296

  84

  2001

  272

  5

  209

  58

  2002

  242

  1—

  179

  59

  2003

  256

  1—

  177

  75

  1These figures are not shown to protect the confidentiality of individuals.

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus administrative system.

  Counterfeit Notes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of the number of counterfeit notes in circulation; and that steps he is taking to make counterfeiting more difficult. [179221]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Bank of England, which produces and issues most UK banknotes, records the number of counterfeit notes discovered in circulation. In recent
  years, this number has remained at a very small fraction of 1 per cent. of the total number of notes in circulation.

  The Bank ensures that its notes are designed to discourage counterfeiters. The current series of notes in circulation have certain security features, which not only make it difficult to counterfeit notes, but also make it easy to determine whether or not a note is genuine.

  To assist the public with identifying counterfeit notes, a leaflet entitled "Know your Banknotes" is available upon request or downloadable from the Bank's website. This describes the identity and security features of current notes, and provides advice on how to check for counterfeits.

  When notes are introduced or withdrawn from circulation, this is advertised prominently in the national and local press and via posters and leaflets. This also minimises the risk of counterfeits of old series notes being passed and accepted.

  Death Certificates
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether death certificates issued in other EU countries are admissible in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [179571]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Robertson dated 21 June 2004.

  As Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking whether death certificates issued in other EU countries are admissible in the UK. (179571)
  1203W
  Certificates issued by doctors certifying the cause of death in other EU countries can't be accepted by a registrar in England or Wales for the purposes of formally registering a death. Registrars may register only those deaths which have taken place in their district and which have been certified by a registered medical practitioner who looked after the deceased during their last illness, or by a coroner.

  Certificates of deaths registered in other EU countries may be admissible in the UK for more general purposes. It is for the organisation requesting the death certificate to be satisfied that it meets their requirements.

  Employment (North-west)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new jobs have been created in(a) St Helens South, (b) St Helens, (c) Merseyside and (d) the North West in each year since 2001. [178113]

  Total number of employees1, and annual change in number—Areas as shown, 2000, 2001 and 2002

  Number of employees

  Change

  Change

  Workplace location

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2000–012

  2001–022

  St Helen's South

  34,900

  42,000

  44,700

  7,100

  2,800

  St Helen's unitary authority

  56,100

  63,400

  67,200

  7,300

  3,800

  Merseyside

  503,100

  526,800

  550,300

  23,700

  23,500

  North West

  2,846,000

  2,894,700

  2,974,100

  48,700

  79,400

  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:

  Annual Business Inquiry (ABI)

  Environmentally Sustainable Purchasing
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of progress by Government departments in implementing recommendations of the Office of Government Commerce paper Quick Wins in Greening Government Purchasing and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/Office of Government Commerce Joint Note on Environmental issues in Purchasing; and if he will make a statement. [179706]

  Mr. Boateng
  Ministers in all departments have signed up to the approach outlined in the Office of Government Commerce paper Quick Wins in Greening Government Purchasing and the DEFRA/OGC Joint Note on Environmental issues in Purchasing. DEFRA will be collecting information on implementation from all departments for inclusion in the Sustainable Development in Government Report, which will be published in the autumn.

  Pensioner Concessions
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will fund(a) free old age pensioner travel and (b) free television licences for all old age pensioners at the next budget. [179525]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer receives many proposals for measures to include in his Budget.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that older and disabled people have full opportunities to maintain their independence and utilise our public transport network while improving local transport for all.
  1204W
  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. Shaun Woodward dated 21 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about jobs created in the North West. (178113)

  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 St Helen's South Parliamentary Constituency, St Helen's unitary authority, the Merseyside Government office region and the North West Government office region for 2000 to 2002.

  The majority of the increase in jobs in St Helen's South seen between 2000 and 2002 occurred in the real estate, renting and business activities sector. At least one major business site in this sector was opened in the area during the period.

  The Transport Act 2000 brought in the statutory minimum requirement for local authority concessionary fares to ensure that older and disabled people are entitled to half fares or better on their local bus services, with no additional charge being levied for the pass.

  Anything provided above the statutory minimum is a matter for local authorities.

  We believe that in England the current system offers the best combination of ensuring that pensioners receive a full opportunity to benefit from public transport, while also allowing decisions to be made that fully reflect local circumstances.

  The Chancellor announced the introduction of free TV licences for those aged over 75, in his pre-Budget report in November 2000. Over 3.5 million pensioner households benefit from access to free TV licences, at a cost of some £380 million a year.

  Road Fuel Duty
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of defraying for a year a one pence per litre increase in duty on petrol and diesel. [179147]

  John Healey
  Estimates of the revenue yield from an increase in road fuel duty rates were published in table 6 of the "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" alongside the 2003 pre-Budget report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.
  1205W
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much additional tax revenue accrues to the Treasury from each one pence rise in(a) the market price of crude oil and (b) the pump price of (i) petrol and (ii) diesel. [179148]

  John Healey
  The overall impact of higher oil and road fuel prices on tax revenues and the public finances is complex as they will increase some tax revenues and Government expenditures while decreasing others, depending on their wider impact on the economy in general. Reliable estimates of the impact of changes in prices are not available.

  Suicide
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides of(a) under 18s and (b) those aged 14 to 18 were recorded in the UK in each year since 1997. [178941]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Phil Willis, dated 21 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning how many suicides of (a) under 18s and (b) those aged 14 to 18 were recorded in the UK in each year since 1997. (178941)

  The most recent available data are for the calendar year 2002. Figures for each year from 1997 to 2002 are given in the attached table.

  Number of deaths at ages under 18 from intentional self harm1 and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted2, United Kingdom, 1997 to 20023

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Intentional self harm at ages under 18

  (a) All

  48

  64

  55

  75

  50

  64

  (b) 14 and over

  47

  60

  52

  70

  47

  59

  Injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted4 at ages under 18

  (a) All

  68

  59

  56

  63

  46

  49

  (b) 14 and over

  47

  41

  40

  47

  35

  36

  1 The cause of death for intentional self harm was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, (ICD-9) codes E950–E959 and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes X60–X84. ICD-JO was introduced in Scotland in 2000 and in Northern Ireland, and England and Wales in 2001.

  2 The cause of death for injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes E980–E989 for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and E980–E989 excluding E988.8 for England and Wales, and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes Y10–Y34 for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and Y10–Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending for England and Wales.

  3 Figures are for deaths registered in each calendar year for Scotland and Northern Ireland and for deaths occurring in each calendar year for England and Wales.

  4 In routine statistics, ONS defines suicides as deaths from suicide and deaths from 'injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted'. Past research has shown that the majority of deaths in which the intent could not be determined (Coroner's open verdicts in England and Wales) in adults are cases where the harm is self-inflicted but there was insufficient evidence to prove
  1206W
  that the deceased deliberately intended to kill themselves. The proportion among children is unknown although it is unlikely that any very young children deliberately intended to kill themselves.

CABINET OFFICE

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the budget was in each of the last three years for each local authority in the South West responsible for emergency planning; and what the budget is in each case for 2004–05. [177193]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Budget estimates of expenditure on emergency planning as reported by each authority in the South West region are tabled as follows.

  Budget estimates of net current expenditure on emergency planning

  £000

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Bath and North East Somerset UA

  82

  123

  255

  251

  Bournemouth UA

  70

  70

  70

  79

  Bristol UA

  118

  120

  252

  197

  Caradon

  14

  15

  12

  5

  Carrick

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cheltenham

  3

  0

  13

  19

  Christchurch

  22

  23

  18

  16

  Cornwall

  277

  276

  356

  369

  Cotswold

  13

  18

  13

  15

  Devon

  259

  268

  339

  460

  Dorset

  240

  285

  290

  290

  East Devon

  32

  54

  44

  50

  East Dorset

  8

  9

  8

  9

  Exeter

  23

  29

  28

  26

  Forest of Dean

  0

  15

  8

  16

  Gloucester

  15

  15

  11

  11

  Gloucestershire

  307

  341

  392

  236

  Isles of Scilly

  55

  59

  65

  56

  Kennet

  61

  58

  27

  70

  Kerrier

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mendip

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mid Devon

  25

  21

  27

  26

  North Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Devon

  22

  50

  38

  42

  North Dorset

  30

  11

  5

  7

  North Somerset UA

  53

  70

  122

  78

  North Wiltshire

  18

  21

  7

  22

  Penwith

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Plymouth UA

  157

  152

  156

  185

  Poole UA

  21

  22

  23

  92

  Purbeck

  17

  16

  15

  15

  Restormel

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Salisbury

  7

  7

  6

  6

  Sedgemoor

  13

  36

  36

  33

  Somerset

  180

  230

  229

  259

  South Gloucestershire UA

  89

  91

  100

  88

  South Hams

  37

  39

  42

  43

  South Somerset

  20

  17

  5

  3

  Stroud

  10

  12

  15

  23

  Swindon UA

  88

  92

  92

  4

  Taunton Deane

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Teignbridge

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Tewkesbury

  14

  25

  22

  12

  Torbay UA

  163

  129

  126

  147

  Torridge

  17

  10

  9

  14

  West Devon

  0

  0

  0

  8

  West Dorset

  33

  23

  23

  25

  West Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Wiltshire

  2

  4

  7

  6

  Weymouth and Portland

  14

  13

  9

  16

  Wiltshire

  183

  224

  257

  252

  Note:

  The data are taken from the RA (budget) form; these forms are completed each year by individual local authorities.

  1207W

  Regulation
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the current members of the Panel for Regulatory Accountability. [178834]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on 27 May 2004,Official Report, column 1731W.

  The full list of Cabinet Committees and their membership can also be found on the Cabinet Office website at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/cabinet/index.asp

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether tax matters considered by the Chancellor in the course of normal Budget processes may in any circumstances require clearance from the Panel for Regulatory Accountability. [178838]

  Mr. Alexander
  As announced in Budget 2004, the new requirements of the Panel for Regulatory Accountability will not change the long-standing arrangements through which tax matters are considered by the Chancellor in the course of normal Budget processes.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many employees in his Department have(a) signed a formal opt out from and (b) are exempt from the Working Time Directive; and how many employees in his 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. [178362]

  Mr. Alexander
  338 staff, including 267 staff in the Cabinet Office's Executive Agencies, have signed a formal opt out form. No staff have been declared as exempt from the provisions of the Working Time Regulations. Local managers are responsible for monitoring and managing hours worked. However, this information is not collected centrally.

  The Department is committed to reducing the number of staff who are required to work in excess of 48 hours per week (by adjusting working hours or redesigning jobs) to an absolute minimum commensurate with meeting our operational needs.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Asthma
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action his Department is taking(a) to ensure awareness of asthma issues in educational establishments and (b) to encourage them to develop appropriate policies. [178049]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department, with the Department of Health, has produced 'Supporting pupils with medical needs–a good practice guide' to help schools draw up policies to support pupils with their medical needs, including asthma. We have reminded schools of the importance of following the good practice 1208W
  guide. Charles Clarke has recently written an introductory letter to Asthma UK's 'School Pack', and we have informed schools where they can get hold of copies of this pack. The Department is in discussion with Asthma UK and other organisations on how we can work together to raise awareness in schools of common childhood conditions.

  Child Abuse
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will update the guidance in DfES Circular 10/95, 'Protecting Children from Abuse'; and if he will make a statement. [178810]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Department consulted widely about new guidance to replace that contained in its Circular 10/95 earlier this year. The consultation attracted a large response and the draft guidance is being rewritten to reflect those comments. We will publish revised guidance as soon as possible.

  Child Care
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent progress has been made in establishing(a) children's trusts, (b) children's centres and (c) neighbourhood nurseries. [176523]

  Margaret Hodge
  35 Children's Trusts Pathfinders have been established to develop the best ways to join up children's services. Pathfinders have all created their governance arrangements and boards and have begun to integrate planning and commissioning of services in their local area. Several Pathfinders have also developed pooled budgets using Section 31 of the Health Act 1999. The Pathfinders are helping us to further the objectives set out in the Green Paper to develop services around the needs of children by integrating the planning and commissioning of services and delivering them through joint budgets.

  Other non-Pathfinder local authorities and their partners have also begun to develop Children's Trusts as part of their movement towards the Green Paper "Every Child Matters" agenda.

  67 children's centres have been designated so far. Further announcements will be made from early July onwards as we work towards our target of establishing 800 centres by 2006.

  We were committed to opening 900 neighbourhood nurseries by April 2004. In fact, 1,139 neighbourhood nurseries are now open offering 39,235 new day care places in disadvantaged areas for children under 4. By March 2005 we expect to have created around 48,000 places under this initiative—exceeding the original target of 45,000 places.

  By April 2004 we had created over 1 million new child care places providing child care for 1.8 million children as well as ensuring, six months ahead of schedule, that every 3 and 4-year-old can access a high quality part-time free nursery education place in the first term following their third birthday.
  1209W
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what role he plans for co-operatives in providing child care. [178907]

  Margaret Hodge
  Day care in England is provided by private, voluntary and public sector organisations. Some of these may be co-operatives. Both social and economic enterprise should be encouraged and I would encourage any group of people considering a co-operative approach to child care provision to seek early discussions with their local authority about how such child care might fit with the local strategic plan.

  Children's Green Paper
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what response he has made to the consultation on the Children's Green Paper, "Every Child Matters". [176525]

  Margaret Hodge
  I published "Every Child Matters: next steps" on 4 March 2004, alongside the publication of the Children Bill. This included the Government response to the Green Paper consultation.

  There were over 4,500 responses to "Every Child Matters", many from children and young people. The vast majority were strongly supportive of the Government's vision.

  We considered the responses carefully and set out the Government response in "Every Child Matters: Next Steps", published on 4 March alongside the Children Bill. The Children Bill creates the legislative spine for developing more effective and accessible services focussed around the needs of children, young people and families. Progress since March has included consultation on an integrated inspection framework for children's services and the announcement of the Children and Young People's Sector Skills Council.

  Children's Services
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the training requirements which will result from(a) local authorities bringing all their children's services under the direction of one accountable officer and (b) the setting up of Children's Trusts; and what provision he has made in his departmental budget to meet such costs. [179243]

  Margaret Hodge
  In 2004–05 the £20 million Change Fund, announced in the "Every Child Matters: Next Steps" document, will be used in part to develop cross-sector leadership programmes to support directors of children's services and their key local partners, and to support the next generation of directors. It will also be used to assist local authorities, primary care trusts and others in developing Children's Trusts, including through joint workforce training.

  We are also providing up to £100,000 per year until 2005–06 to the 35 Children's Trusts Pathfinders to support activities such as joint training.
  1210W
  Local authorities will continue to fund their own programmes of workforce development, but we would expect to see more programmes of joint training as the authorities and their partners move towards integrated working through Children's Trusts. We are also currently considering our plans for the next spending review period from 2005–08.

  Departmental Staff
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many officials in his Department have received early release packages in each year since 1997; what the cost of each package was; and what the average amount received is. [179002]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: From the 1997–98 financial year to the end of the 2003–04 financial year, the total number of early releases, the total costs, and the average cost to my Department arising from the provisions of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, were as follows:

  £

  Financial year

  Number of releases

  Total cost of DfES (£ million)

  Average cost (£000)

  1997–98

  101

  5.145

  50.94

  1998–99

  51

  2.73

  53.53

  1999–2000

  50

  4.237

  84.74

  2000–01

  61

  4.06

  66.56

  2001–02

  84

  6.142

  73.12

  2002–03

  57

  5.57

  97.72

  2003–04

  28

  2.54

  90.71

  Total

  432

  30.424

  70.43

  Records are not held centrally about the amount each person received, which is not always the same as the costs to the Department, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Early Years Learning
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) free nursery and (b) pre-school places were available for (i) three and (ii) four-year-olds in Stoke-on-Trent North in each of the last seven years. [177642]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Figures on the number of free nursery education places taken up by three and four-year-olds in Stoke-on-Trent local education authority area are shown in the table.

  The latest figures on provision for three and four-year-olds in England were published in a Statistical Bulletin "Provision for children under five years of age in England—January 2003" which is available on the Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/.

  From April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all three-year-olds in England whose parents want one, are eligible for a free, part-time early education place.
  1211W

  Number of free nursery education places 1,2 taken up by three and four-year-old children in maintained nursery and primary schools and private, voluntary and independent providers, Stoke-on-Trent local education authority area, 1997 to 2003

  Position in January each year

  Three-year-olds

  Four-year-olds

  1997

  1,200

  3,100

  1998

  2,000

  3,000

  1999

  2,000

  2,900

  2000

  2,300

  2,800

  2001

  2,200

  2,800

  2002

  2,000

  2,900

  2003

  2,200

  2,700

  1Part-time equivalent number of free nursery education places taken up by three and four-year-old children.

  2 A free nursery education place comprises five two and a half hour sessions of early years education per week, for 33 weeks of the year, usually three terms of 11 weeks.

  Identity Card Scheme
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how he expects the introduction of an identity card scheme will help ensure that all children get into education. [177791]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We see identity cards having a major contribution to the work of my Department and its agencies. We have identified four key areas: our proposals for a Children's Service Passport; the Connexions Card issued to 16 to 19-year-olds; access to post-16 education and training; and our proposed Unique Learner Number Infrastructure. However, all of our proposals for the use of identity cards relate to the post-16 provision of education and training. In respect of pre-16 education, we have a legal obligation to educate all children of the appropriate age within our education system.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what uses his Department has for an identity card scheme; and what information would be required through the national identity database to enable the scheme to be put to those uses. [177839]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The identity cards scheme has potential to realise administrative savings for training providers and funding bodies in post-16 education and skills training; reduce financial and identity fraud in gaining entry to and working in education and training; and by simplifying the application process for individuals accessing services.

  The information required of the card itself or of the National Identity Register would depend on the context.

  Pre-School Provision (Greater London)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding has been given by his Department during the last 12 months to pre-school provision within the Greater London area. [179049]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department funds a range of provision in London, such as children's centres, Neighbourhood Nurseries and Sure Start Local Programmes, concentrated in the more disadvantaged areas. In all local authorities the Department meets the 1212W
  cost of part-time early education places and a Sure Start General Grant is paid, most of which supports preschool provision.

  From April 2003, funding to support the delivery of early years education was consolidated within the under fives sub-block of each local authority's Education Formula Spending Share (EFSS)—the main source of education funding. The under fives sub-block for Greater London total amount is £499.45 million for 2004–05.

  The amount of Sure Start General Grant paid to London authorities was £48.3 million in 2003–04.

  The main children's centre programme will begin this financial year. However, for the period 2003–04, £2.05 million was provided to London local authorities in advance of this to encourage early development of the programme. There are 96 Sure Start local programmes in London who received £61.98 million revenue and claimed £21.1 million in capital grants in 2003–04. Grants of £4.3 million were made to Early Excellence Centres in London 2003–04. There are 153 neighbourhood nurseries currently open in London delivering nearly 5,000 day care places. We are making available a total of £24 million in revenue funding to enable these nurseries to establish themselves. Funding is via the local authority and each individual nursery is eligible for grant for the first three years of operation.

  Special Educational Needs and Disability (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent in Crosby from measures within the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. [178895]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on total spending to support the duties introduced as a result of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 is not collected centrally. Funding to local authorities in England for education in the school sector has risen from £26.4 billion in 2001–02 to £28.3 billion in 2003–04. Children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, including those in the Crosby area, have benefited from these significant additional resources, in the school sector alone local authorities planned to spend nearly £3.5 billion in 2003–04 on SEN, of which about £1.5 billion was spent on special education in special schools, £1.7 billion on provision in mainstream schools and about £2.4 million on local authority responsibilities including educational psychologists and carrying out statutory assessments.

  Some £220 million was made available between 2001–02 and 2003–04 specifically to support improvements in access to schools for disabled pupils and students, including those in the Crosby area. This is part of overall capital funds of £9 billion for education made available to local authorities during the same period.

  Standard and Effectiveness Unit
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the closure of the Standards and Effectiveness Unit. [179419]
  1213W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Schools Directorate is about to undergo a reorganisation which will see the advent of a new 'Primary, Secondary and Delivery Group' in place of the existing Standards and Effectiveness Unit, Secondary Group and Primary and E-Learning Group. It will be responsible for strategy, policy development and programme management for primary and secondary education and for a range of delivery programmes in support of the strategies for each phase.

  These changes flow from the Prime Minister's radical reform agenda for the delivery of better quality public services and will reinforce and increase our focus on standards. Raising school standards remains a key priority for the Government and this reorganisation will ensure that this continues.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Ballot Papers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the powers political parties and individual candidates have to put slogans on the ballot paper; and whether each of these is agreed in advance by(a) the Electoral Commission and (b) the returning officer. [179304]

  Mr. Leslie
  A registered political party can describe itself on a ballot paper using up to six words. The description can be either the party name registered with the Electoral Commission or a variation of it, providing that this is properly authorised by the party's nominating officer and approved by the returning officer. The returning officer can refuse to allow a nomination using a variation of a party's registered name if in his or her view it would lead voters to associate the candidate with another registered party.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs 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. [175675]

  Mr. Lammy
  My Department has no central record of the reasons for staff leaving the Department broken down by these categories. When staff leave on medical grounds, the reasons are recorded on their individual personal files. However, the Civil Service Pensions Division of the Cabinet Office has provided figures on the number of medical retirement certificates issued for reasons of mental health as follows:

  2000–01: 13

  2001–02: 13

  These may not all have resulted in retirements. Figures for 2002 onwards cannot be provided for reasons of confidentiality as there are fewer than five cases in each year. Figures for the years prior to 2000 are not available due to a change of medical advice contractor (this information was not a requirement of the contract before April 2000).
  1214W
  My Department is committed to ensuring the health, safety and welfare of its employees while at work. Initiatives include an in-house Welfare Service and a Stress Toolkit due to be launched in early July. In addition the Department won the Opportunity Now National Public Sector award last year for its work-life balance policies.

  Electoral Malpractice
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what mechanisms exist to identify in which elections an individual has participated when multiple elections are held. [179044]

  Mr. Leslie
  Under current electoral law, the electoral register is marked to indicate that a ballot paper has been issued to an elector. Where elections are combined, a different mark is made to indicate for which election a ballot paper has been issued. The marked copies of the register are available for public inspection after the election.

  Electoral Roll (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many electors were on the electoral roll in Chorley in each year since 1997. [179287]

  Mr. Leslie
  Based on figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in respect of the annual register of electors this information is as follows:

  Electors

  1997

  75,251

  1998

  76,047

  1999

  76,468

  2000

  77,204

  2001

  78,526

  2002

  78,510

  2003

  79,243

  High Sheriffs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many high sheriffs in(a) England, (b) the North West and (c) Lancashire have been (i) Masons and (ii) members of political parties in the last 10 years. [179288]

  Mr. Leslie
  High sheriffs are not required to disclose this information. The shrievalty is, however, a non-political office, and any high sheriff who has been politically active is required to refrain from local or national political activity during his or her year as Sheriff.

  Magistrates
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many lay magistrates there are in the Greater London area; and how many vacancies for lay magistrates there are. [178685]
  1215W
  Mr. Leslie
  On 14 June 2004 there were 3,109 lay magistrates in the Greater London area. During the course of the year Advisory Committees determine the number of vacancies they are seeking to fill as part of their annual recruitment exercise. Figures are not yet available for 2004–05. However, in the 12 months leading up to April this year Committees reported that they were seeking to fill 194 vacancies in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what information is requested from those appointed as magistrates concerning their(a) religion and (b) membership of organisations. [179348]

  Mr. Leslie
  The application form for potential recruits to the magistracy does not contain any question about the religion of candidates. Applicants are asked to specify what organisations and clubs they belong to and what time commitment each requires. They are also asked, for monitoring purposes, whether or not they are freemasons.

  Mental Incapacity Bill
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2004,Official Report, columns 382–83W, on the Mental Incapacity Bill, what legal protection there is for those aged 16 or under if they lack mental capacity and are not covered by the draft Mental Incapacity Bill. [174333]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  The legal protection of children under 16 is primarily the responsibility of their parents. Section 3 of the Children Act 1989 gives the meaning of parental responsibility. Children under 16 are presumed to lack mental capacity, as defined legally in some respect, which is why parents can largely make decisions on behalf of their children. The threshold at which local authorities can apply to the courts for a care order which confers parental responsibility on the applicant authority is given in Section 31 of the Children Act 1989.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Actis/CDC
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps were taken by(a) his and (b) other departments to secure a fully independent valuation for Actis. [179186]

  Hilary Benn
  The directors of the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) Group plc had a duty to ensure that the company received full value for the transfer of assets and the sale of Actis LLP to management, staff and DFID. The Independent Committee of the CDC board (comprising the independent non-executive directors) instructed KPMG to carry out an independent valuation and to report to them.

  DFID and HM Treasury were consulted about this and concurred with the process used to arrive at the valuation. The Shareholder Executive has also endorsed it.
  1216W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations his Department received from other companies regarding the formation of Actis as a limited liability partnership. [179187]

  Hilary Benn
  No representation have been received from other companies about the formation of Actis as a limited liability partnership.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what advice he received from the National Audit Office about the separation of CDC into two corporate entities and a family of funds. [179184]

  Hilary Benn
  It is not the function of the National Audit Office (NAO) to provide advice to Ministers on policy matters. The role of the NAO is to audit the accounts of all government departments and agencies as well as a wide range of other public bodies, and report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which government bodies have used public money.

  DFID has kept the NAO informed about the proposals for the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) and will be passing a full set of documentation to them upon completion of the restructuring.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations he received from(a) current and (b) former CDC employees about alternative bids for Actis. [179185]

  Hilary Benn
  No alternative bids have been received from either former or current employees of CDC.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which companies not related to the Government were involved in the reorganisation of CDC; and how they were involved. [179188]

  Hilary Benn
  A variety of companies assisted in the reorganisation in an advisory capacity as follows:Clifford Chance, Alien and Overy and Field Fisher Waterhouse (legal advisers)
  PricewaterhouseCoopers (tax adviser)
  KPMG (due diligence)
  Rothschilds (financial advisers)
  Credit Suisse First Boston and Campbell Lutyens (private equity advisers)
  Towers Perrin (remuneration adviser)
  Whitehead Mann (recruitment adviser)
  Acanchi (branding adviser)
  McKinseys (business strategy and incentive scheme adviser)
  Financial Dynamics, LLM Communications (communications advisers)
  Watson Wyatt (employment and pension advisers)

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 8 January 2004,Official Report, column 15WS, on reorganisation of CDC, what the responsible business principles are that Actis will be following. [179189]

  Hilary Benn
  The Responsible Business Principles that Actis will follow are set out in exact detail in Schedule 11 to the Member's Agreement, which I signed
  1217W
  on 2 April. A copy of the full document will be placed in the Library once the completion date for the reorganisation is reached.

  The Principles are unchanged from those that the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) has been applying since 1999. Briefly, they set standards for Actis in the areas of business integrity, social and human rights, environment and health and safety. They also prohibit investments in military equipment, illegal drugs, gambling, pornography or tobacco. It sets out the procedures to be followed to comply with these and requires Actis to obtain an undertaking to comply with similar principles from each potential investee company.

  Extractive Industries
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to implement the recommendations in the World Bank's Extractive Industries Review. [179578]

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

  Iraq
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the delivery of humanitarian aid in Iraq. [179178]

  Hilary Benn
  In spite of difficulties resulting from the security situation in Iraq, there is no humanitarian crisis in the country and significant progress has been made since April 2003 in restoring essential services, maintaining the Public Distribution System for food rations, reopening hospitals and schools, and beginning the process of longer term reconstruction. Where localised emergency humanitarian assistance has been required, for example to support people temporarily displaced by fighting in Fallujah in April this year, it has been provided by Iraqi Ministries, United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, NGOs and Iraqi citizens. Preparations have also been made for the provision of humanitarian assistance, if required, in other parts of Iraq. An Emergency Coordination Group has been established to ensure the effective coordination of emergency assistance in Iraq. Its membership includes UN agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and NGOs.

  US$32 billion in grants and soft loans was pledged for the reconstruction of Iraq at the Madrid Donors' Conference in October, including over US$18 billion from the USA. DFID has committed £287 million towards humanitarian and reconstruction work in Iraq since the beginning of 2003.

  Sudan
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department is taking to promote social and economic development in Sudan. [179429]
  1218W
  Hilary Benn
  The UK, through the joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office—Department for International Development Sudan Unit, is supporting the peace process between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Movement under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development. This process provides the key to peace and poverty reduction in Sudan. A framework agreement was signed on 5 June and I encourage the parties to reach a comprehensive agreement in the coming months.

  In anticipation of this agreement, and an end to the crisis in Darfur, the Department for International Development is planning for a full development programme for Sudan. I have allocated £35 million this financial year for humanitarian, and eventually development, activities across Sudan. In addition I have set aside £25 million this year in humanitarian assistance for the region of Darfur, Western Sudan.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to encourage internally displaced people to return to their homes in Darfur; and what discussions he has had with the UN to this effect. [179702]

  Hilary Benn
  It is important that the internally displaced people in Darfur do return to their homes. However, our position is that this must only take place on a voluntary basis and once the security of those people can be guaranteed. The UN does not consider that there is sufficient security and protection for internally displaced people in Darfur to encourage return at the moment. DFID is working to improve the security situation in Darfur through the full deployment of the African Union Monitoring Team, and by calling on all parties to the conflict to observe the ceasefire.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will intervene to influence the Government of the Sudan to extend the issuing of visas within 48 hours for aid agencies attempting to gain access to the displaced people in the Shilluk Kingdom, Sudan. [179704]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is in touch with the Government of Sudan on the issue of travel permits for humanitarian workers going to Shilluk Kingdom through our Embassy in Khartoum. Our latest information is that a list of staff for the planned inter-agency mission was submitted to the Humanitarian Affairs Commission on 7 June.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his latest assessment is of the numbers of people suffering serious food shortages in Darfur. [179705]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Food Programme estimates that some 1.2 million people are currently in need of food assistance in Darfur. However, it is probable that this number will increase as more areas are accessed and assessed by humanitarian agencies.

  Zambia
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department is giving to the Eastern Province of Zambia; and what future funding plans are. [179696]
  1219W
  Hilary Benn
  The Province benefits from DFID's support to national Health and Education programmes. This assistance is substantial, including £20 million to the Education Ministry (2003–07) and £20 million to the Health Ministry (2001–05). DFID is ensuring access to quality services in every province through to the district and community levels.

  Targeted assistance to Eastern Province includes sexual and reproductive health programmes. For example, DFID is currently funding a £20,000 information campaign on reproductive health and HIV/AIDs mainly targeted at young people.

  In the coming year, the UK Small Grants Scheme will focus on Eastern Province. With a budget of £160,000, the Scheme will support proposals working with vulnerable groups including women, orphans and children. Priority will be given to activities that will promote HIV/AIDs prevention and coping activities.

  I recently approved a new Country Assistance Plan for Zambia giving more details of DFID's future funding priorities. This will be available shortly.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Asylum
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government have had with African countries to strengthen protection of individuals who seek asylum from key refugee-producing regions; and what the outcome of these discussions was. [178892]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK Government have an obligation under the 1951 refugee convention to protect those with "a well founded fear of persecution". We continue to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and in bilateral discussions with African countries to strengthen the protection of individuals who come from regions with particularly high refugee caseloads. Our objective is to draw on the full-range of protection tools where appropriate, including resettlement, assisting African countries with immigration service training, and effectively incorporating refugee aspects into development assistance programmes.

  British Indian Ocean Territories
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the latest annual income is from fishing licences in the British Indian Ocean Territories. [179698]

  Mr. Rammell
  Income from fishing licences in the financial year 2003–04 was £564,431.

  Burma
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps the Government plan to take to reduce the incidence of British companies trading with Burma. [179161]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have a long standing policy to discourage trade with, or investment in, Burma. We offer no support to companies wishing to 1220W
  trade with Burma or for those who want to invest there. We welcomed the announcement by British American Tobacco, the largest remaining UK investor in Burma, that it is withdrawing its investment from that country in response to my request of 2 July 2003. British companies who enquire about trade with Burma are informed of the grave political situation, the regime's atrocious record on human rights and the country's dire economic prospects As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 25 June 2003, Official Report, column 1042, "trade with Burma is not appropriate when the regime continues to suppress the basic human rights of its people".

  In practical terms, the regime's economic mismanagement and the attitude of the international community means there is virtually no new inward investment into Burma and established companies are pulling out.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make further representations to Orient Express concerning its proposed new investment in Burma. [179218]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government do not encourage tourism to, or investment in, Burma. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 1042, "trade with Burma is not appropriate when the regime continues to suppress the basic human rights of its people." Orient Express is aware of our views.

  Colombia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the accessibility for humanitarian groups of the more remote areas of Colombia; what discussions he has had on this with his Colombian counterpart; what assurances(a) he has requested and (b) he has received with regard to the Colombian Government's efforts to facilitate access to all parts of Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [173435]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are currently no legal restrictions in place in Colombia preventing access to any part of their country for international organisations and their agencies or for Colombian or foreign NGOs working there. However, the continuing armed conflict and the country's geography mean that access to the remotest parts of the country can be difficult. In addition paramilitary or guerrilla groups do attempt to block access by outsiders to some parts of the country, particularly remote rural locations. International organisations and NGOs are also conscious of the potential risk to their staff of attempting to gain access to areas in which the armed conflict is ongoing. Through its democratic security policy the Government of Colombia is trying to bring security and accessibility to all regions in the country. We constantly urge the Colombian Government to ensure that the implementation of this policy is in accordance with international law. We also monitor developments closely to inform our own travel advice.
  1221W

  Darfur
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the timetable for the introduction of monitors for the purpose of peace-keeping in Darfur. [179701]

  Mr. Mullin
  We welcome the readiness with which the African Union (AU) volunteered to take on the leadership of the monitoring mission in Darfur. The AU have already begun deployment of the monitors and expect this to be completed by the end of next month. This compares favourably with the time taken to deploy previous monitoring missions in Sudan.

  Diego Garcia/Chagos Islands
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from the US concerning the depopulation of the civilian population of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands that lie within the British Indian Ocean Territories. [179700]

  Mr. Rammell
  The US authorities have in the past made clear their concerns about the presence of a settled civilian population in the British Indian Ocean Territory. However, I have received no recent representations from them on the subject.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities exist on Diego Garcia for holding human beings against their will; and if he will make a statement. [178580]

  Mr. Straw
  In exercise of powers conferred on him by the Prisons Ordinance 1981 of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Commissioner for the Territory has declared certain specified premises in Diego Garcia to be a prison. This was done by orders made in February 1986 (which replaced an earlier order made in July 1982), July 1993 and December 2001. Under various provisions of the law of the Territory, persons may be arrested in execution of a warrant of arrest issued by a Court or a Magistrate, or in certain circumstances without such a warrant, and any person so arrested may then be detained in such a prison until he is brought before a Court or a Magistrate. Persons who are ordered by a Court or a Magistrate to be remanded in custody or committed to prison are detained in such a prison as also, of course, are persons who are sentenced by a Court to imprisonment following their conviction of a criminal offence.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many detainees, and how many shipments of detainees, have passed through Diego Garcia, or the territorial waters off it, while in transit between other destinations; whether any detainees have been disembarked at Diego Garcia, and for how long; and if he will make a statement. [178581]

  Mr. Straw
  The United States authorities have repeatedly assured us that no detainees have at any time passed in transit through Diego Garcia or its territorial waters or have disembarked there and that the allegations to that effect are totally without foundation. The Government are satisfied that their assurances are correct.
  1222W

  Iraq
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to whom the Coalition Provisional Authority is accountable; and what responsibilities this places upon the United Kingdom. [178852]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 15 June 2004,Official Report, column 798W. The UK and the US set out their views of their responsibilities in their joint letter to the President of the Security Council of 8 May 2003, which the Security Council noted in resolution 1483(2003). I will place UNDoc. S/2003/538 in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 26 May,Official Report, column 1637W, on Iraq, to whose private offices the telegram concerned was distributed; and when the telegram was shown by officials in those private offices to Ministers. [179121]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer of 17 June 2004]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 26 May Official Report, column 1637W.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current security situation in the Shilluk Kingdom, Sudan. [179703]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are very concerned by reports that civilians have been targeted and that thousands of people have been displaced. We are following the situation closely and are in contact with all parties in the area, including the Verification and Monitoring Team (VMT) which is responsible for investigating and reporting on breaches of the cessation of hostilities. We raised the matter with the Sudanese Foreign Minister during his visit to London on 11 May and EU Heads of Mission, including our Ambassador in Khartoum, visited on 27 May. EU Heads of Mission intend to make representations to the Government of Sudan over the reports of attacks on civilians by Government of Sudan-allied forces.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that African and international peacekeepers operating in the Western Darfur area of Sudan extend their activities to southern Sudan. [179164]

  Mr. Mullin
  The mission of the African Union-led Ceasefire Commission operating in Darfur is to monitor compliance with the 8 April humanitarian ceasefire agreement between the Government of Sudan, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army and the Justice and Equality Movement. The Commission's mandate does not extend to southern Sudan. A separate Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on a cessation of hostilities was signed on 15 October 2002 between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army. An addendum to the MOU was signed on 4 February 2003. This cessation of hostilities is being monitored by the IGAD-led Verification and Monitoring Team.
  1223W
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the international community will be committing troops to monitor the peace process in Sudan. [179165]

  Mr. Mullin
  We expect the Sudanese parties to conclude a peace agreement this year. The United Nations are planning to support the implementation of the eventual peace agreement and that the international community will contribute personnel to the mission.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the international community is taking to ensure the peace process in Sudan is monitored. [179166]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Sudan peace talks in Kenya are being held under the auspices of the regional organisation the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. In addition to the Sudanese parties and the countries of the region, these talks are attended by the United Kingdom, the United States, Norway, Italy, the United Nations and the African Union. We expect the eventual peace agreement to be monitored by a mission led by the United Nations.

  Turkey
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Turkey over(a) the jailing of journalist Hakan Albayrak of Milli Gazete and (b) the fining of Vakit newspaper; and if he will make a statement. [170813]

  Mr. MacShane
  I am very concerned to learn about the jailing of journalist Hakan Albayrak of Milli Gazete and the fining of Vakit newspaper. But we should not let these decisions detract from the considerable progress Turkey has made on freedom of expression, including the release of Leyla Zana, the first broadcasting in minority languages in Turkey, and the passing of a new press law during this last week which contains further measures to increase freedom of the press. I am convinced that these significant developments and proposals for a new Turkish Penal Code will lead to further improvements in Turkey.

  I take every opportunity to urge the Turkish Government to make rapid and demonstrable progress in the practical implementation of the reforms they have passed to safeguard human rights and freedom of expression, and to remove remaining constraints on freedom of expression. We will raise the case of Hakan Albayrak and the fining of Vakit newspaper at the next round of the UK's bilateral dialogue with Turkey on human rights this July.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Fraud
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been received by the Office of Fair Trading in relation to(a) business to business and (b) business to consumer scams in each of the last five years. [179261]
  1224W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The information requested is not readily available. I have asked the Chairman of the Office of Fair Trading to write to the hon. Member to give a fuller answer.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department has taken against rogue businesses that are operating business to business frauds. [179262]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 17 June 2004]: As a consumer protection enforcement body, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has investigated certain business to business scams operating in the UK and, with overseas counterparts in the International Consumer Protection Enforcement Network (ICPEN), scams targeting UK business from overseas. Examples include the Spanish European City Guide and bogus requests to register under the Data Protection Act. It is currently working with the Health and Safety Executive on bogus requests to register under the Health and Safety Act.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Stop Now orders can be used against rogue companies that are operating frauds specifically aimed at other businesses. [179264]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 17 June 2004]: An Enforcement Order under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 can only be sought against a business that harms the collective interest of consumers.

  An Order cannot be sought where there is detriment from business to another business.

  Electricity Generation/Supply
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the average cost, including commissioning and decommissioning costs, in pence per kilowatt hour, of electricity generated from(a) coal, (b) natural gas, (c) nuclear power, (a) on shore wind, (e) offshore wind, (f) photovoltaic and (g) biomass sources. [R][178315]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department published estimates of the cost of electricity generation from a variety of low carbon technologies, including commissioning and decommissioning, in a report by the Interdepartmental Analysts' Group (IAG) made in February 2002 available at: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/greenhousegas/index.shtml. The IAG's estimates for 2020 are shown in the following table.

  Technology

  p/k Wh

  Onshore wind

  2.0–2.5

  Offshore wind

  2.0–3.0

  Nuclear

  2.6–4.0

  Gas

  2.3–2.9

  The Performance and Innovation Unit at the Cabinet Office also published similar estimates in its 2001 Energy Review. These are available at: www.number10.gov.uk/su/energy/1.html. The following table shows the PIU estimates for new plant in 2020 for nuclear, onshore and offshore wind and gas-fired generation.
  1225W

  Technology

  p/k Wh

  Onshore wind

  1.5–2.5

  Offshore wind

  2.0–3.0

  Nuclear

  2.5–4.0

  Gas

  2.0–2.3

  For the energy White Paper the Department also commissioned additional external modelling work, which produced the following estimates, including estimated costs of both gas-and coal-fired generation (with and without carbon capture and storage).

  Technology

  p/k Wh

  Gas 20001

  2.2–2.4

  Gas 2020

  2.1–2.2

  Coal 2000

  3.6–3.9

  Gas (capture and storage) 2000

  3.5–3.7

  Gas (capture and storage) 2020

  3.0–3.2

  Coal (capture and storage) 2000

  5.7–6.1

  Coal (capture and storage) 2020

  4.5–4.9

  Nuclear 2010

  3.4–3.7

  Nuclear 2020

  2.7–3.0

  1In this table, "2000" means plants built in the decade 2000–10, and so on.

  Work undertaken for the Renewables Innovation Review covering wind generation costs is also available at: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewablcs/policy/oxeraresults.pdf. Their estimates for 2010 and 2020 are shown in the following table. This modelling work includes cost estimates for additional investment in the transmission system to handle an increased share of offshore wind generation as well as the cost of providing back-up capacity for intermittent sources of generation such as wind.

  2010

  2020

  Onshore wind

  2.7–3.6

  2.5–3.2

  Offshore wind

  4.4–5.5

  3.0–4.6

  The Renewables Innovation Review also includes a comparison of cost competitiveness of renewable versus conventional energy generation technologies in 2003, estimating current cost of solar photovoltaic electricity under UK conditions for integrated systems at around 37 p per kWh, and current costs of biomass generation in the 5–7 p per kWh range. Costs of individual projects will vary depending on specific circumstances.

  Flexible Working
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the effect on women's employment of(a) more flexible hours and (b) better child care; and if she will make a statement. [178117]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Female employment in the three months ending March 2004 was 13.043 million having risen by just over a 1 million since spring 1997 and by around 250,000 since spring 2002

  It is extremely difficult to evaluate the effect of more flexible hours and better child care on women's employment, as there are many factors that influence the decisions that women make. We would generally expect
  1226W
  that increased availability of flexible working and child care would increase women's participation in the labour market.

  Both the DTI and the Department for Work and Pensions are conducting ongoing work in this area. The DTI is running a series of roundtables across the country so it can hear directly from parents, carers and employers, about their experiences and needs. A Citizens' Jury is also running which will bring a new perspective to the programme of work.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the proportion of fuel poor households in(a) the UK and (b) England that contain an older person. [179343]

  Mr. Timms
  It was estimated that, in 2002, there were two and a quarter million fuel poor households in the UK: of those it is estimated that one and three quarter million households were in the vulnerable category, defined as those households containing older people, children, or householders with a long term illness or disability.

  In England in 2002, estimates suggest that 1.4 million households were in fuel poverty, and that 1.2 million of those were in the vulnerable category. The number of households containing an older person specifically is not available for 2002.

  Estimates are available for 2001 for England, however, 52 per cent. of the 1.7 million households in fuel poverty in that year contained an older person. A detailed breakdown of information for England will be available for 2003, and will be published in spring 2005.

  Graduate Businesses
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what specific financial assistance is available to help recent graduates to set up their own business. [179251]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Business Link network in England, and the equivalent organisations operating in other parts of the UK, can provide advice and information on any specific financial assistance available to recent graduates wishing to start up their own businesses. The exact assistance available will depend on a number of factors. These include the individual circumstances of the graduate, the proposed location and type of business they want to start.

  Military Equipment (ECGD)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outstanding amounts of Export Credits Guarantee Department guarantees in respect of military equipment were in financial years(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [176443]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The following table lists amounts at risk as at the end of each of the last three financial years in respect of ECGD guarantees for exports of defence related equipment. These figures are made up of future maturities (amounts that have not yet to fall due for payment) and claims outstanding for recovery
  1227W
  (claims paid that ECGD has yet to recover). Claims outstanding are in respect of business underwritten from 1991 onwards as ECGD does not hold claims information on cases supported before this date broken down by industry sector:

  £ million

  At 31 March

  Future maturities

  Claims outstanding

  Total

  2002

  3,166

  489

  3,655

  2003

  3,779

  556

  4,335

  2004

  3,496

  568

  4,064

  Moor Road Post Office
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will discuss with Royal Mail the closure of Moor Road Post Office, Chorley, and the extent to which(a) guidelines on closure were followed and(b) evidence against closure was considered. [179279]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not have a role in the process to determine the closure of individual offices. This is an operational matter for POL. The process is carried out in accordance with the Code of Practice agreed with Postwatch.

  New Businesses (Essex)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new business start-ups there were in 2003 in(a) Essex and (b) Southend. [179333]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays Bank's latest survey of business creation includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in the last quarter of 2003, including 500 business start-ups in Southend-on-Sea Unitary Authority and 3,000 within the County of Essex. 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. Included in these figures are 2,000 business start-ups in Southend-on-Sea Unitary Authority and 12,300 in the County of Essex.

  Barclays data for counties and local authorities are not available before 2003.

  DTI figures based solely on VAT registrations for Southend-on-Sea Unitary Authority and the County of Essex are shown as follows for the period 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in autumn 2004.

  VAT registrations: 2002

  Number

  Southend-on-Sea UA

  525

  Essex

  4,375

  Source:

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

  VAT registrations do not capture all start-up activity. Businesses are unlikely to be registered if they fall below the compulsory VAT threshold, which has risen in each year since 1997. Similarly, businesses that de-register
  1228W
  will not necessarily have closed. Only 1.8 million out of 3.8 million enterprises were registered for VAT at the start of 2002.

  Oil and Gas
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to stimulate gas companies to create greater capacity to store gas within the UK. [179766]

  Mr. Timms
  The main stimulant for new gas storage projects will be the market opportunity, including the widening seasonal (summer-winter) spread of wholesale gas prices. The Department and Ofgem seek to provide an appropriate light -touch regulatory environment, and ensure that the market is aware of the opportunities through the regular reports of the DTI-Ofgem "Joint Energy Security of Supply Working Group". In addition my Department informs relevant local planning authorities, considering planning applications, of the energy policy background.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to maximise the untapped oil and gas reserves in the UK continental shelf. [179765]

  Mr. Timms
  Government are committed to maximising economic recovery of UK oil and gas resources and there are substantial quantities of hydrocarbons yet to he produced. We are working on a number of initiatives aimed at maximising continued North Sea activity, investment and exploration. In particular we:have enhanced the licensing system to make available "promote" licences to encourage new companies to get involved in the North Sea, and new "frontier" licences to the West of Shetland to bring exploration to this area;
  continue to ensure current licensees release fallow acreage so that others can develop it;
  have introduced a new Exploration Expenditure Supplement to reduce barriers to entry for new companies that do not receive the full benefit of current 100 per cent. exploration and appraisal capital allowances; and
  with PILOT, the Government/industry forum, established "brownfield" workgroups which aim to ensure maximum recovery from existing fields, and have improved the access to offshore infrastructure.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the possible implications of a rise in the price of world oil on the competitiveness of UK manufacturing firms. [178666]

  Jacqui Smith
  As oil is an internationally traded commodity, the price rise has affected all world manufacturers. Moreover, as the rise has been accompanied by a fall in the US dollar against sterling, the rise in the sterling price of oil has been less pronounced.

  The pick-up in business investment, allied with improving prospects for world trade, are in fact expected to underpin a strengthening of manufacturing output this year, building on recent signs of a turnaround in the sector.
  1229W

  Regulation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library a copy of the list of priority areas for regulatory simplification submitted to the European Commission in March this year. [176350]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  A letter was sent from John Grant, UK Permanent Representative to the EU, to David O'Sullivan, Secretary General, European Commission, on 17 March 2004, highlighting the areas of Community legislation that the UK Government consider to be particular priorities for simplification. I have placed copies of the letter in the Library.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the electricity used in Lancashire was provided by renewable energy in the latest month for which figures are available. [179280]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on renewable generation is available only for the North West region as a whole. In 2002, the latest year for which data are available, generation from renewables in the North West amounted to 662 GWh whereas the amount of electricity distributed to consumers in North West England in 2002 is estimated to have been 39,611 GWh. There is no guarantee that electricity generated in a region will all be consumed in that region

  Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council held on 10 June 2004; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [179038]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Deputy Permanent Representative, Anne Lambert, represented the UK at the Telecommunications and Energy Councils in Luxembourg on 10 June 2004.

  On telecommunications, there was political agreement on eContent plus, a four-year continuation of a programme to support the availability of public sector information, especially location-based information on the internet. All member states agreed to the Presidency compromise budget of 135 million Euros, a reduction in the Commission's original proposal of 163 million Euros, requested by the UK and other member states. There was agreement on the general approach of Safer Internet Plus, a four-year continuation of another existing programme, to improve the co-ordination of member states' and third countries' fight against on-line content harmful to minors. All member states accepted the Presidency compromise budget of 45 million Euros. Member states also endorsed the Council Conclusions on updating the eEurope 2005 Action Plan and on National Broadband Strategies, as a basis for contributing to the Lisbon Mid-Term Review at next Spring's Economic Summit. The eEurope 2005 Action
  1230W
  Plan was previously fine-tuned in the eEurope Mid-Term Review to strengthen implementation mechanisms and speed up progress in five key areas (broadband, on-line public services, e-business, e-inclusion and benchmarking). The Presidency tabled for information a paper on the forthcoming Tunis World Summit on Information Society, and the Commission drew attention to its forthcoming communication on mobile services which would cover R&D, interoperability, the legal environment (including intellectual property rights) and spectrum.

  On energy, political agreement was reached on a Directive establishing a framework for the setting of Eco-Design requirements for Energy-Using Products. This sets out the arrangements by which the Commission may set mandatory energy efficiency and other environmental product design requirements on manufacturers and incorporates existing legislation on boilers, household refrigeration and lighting ballasts. Political agreement was also reached on a Gas Regulation setting conditions for access to the gas transmission networks, on the basis of an implementation date of 1 July 2006. Though some member states (MS) wanted a longer implementation date, the UK argued that early implementation was essential to develop the single market in gas.

  A general approach was agreed on a Council Decision laying down guidelines for Trans-European Energy Networks. Facing MS unanimity, the Commission accepted deletion of Articles 8–10, covering projects of European interest and the appointment of a European co-ordinator, from its original proposal. There was a progress report on proposals for Directives on Energy Services and on Electricity Security of Supply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport represented the UK at the Transport Council and will reply separately.

  VAT-registered Enterprises
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of VAT-registered enterprises registered in(a) 1987, (b) 1992, (c) 1997 and (d) 2001 were still trading after (i) 12 months, (ii) 24 months and (iii) 36 months, broken down by region. [177064]

  Nigel Griffiths
  VAT registrations do not capture all business 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 deregister will not necessary cease trading. Only 1.8 million out of 3.8 million enterprises were registered for VAT at the start of 2002.

  The percentages of UK VAT registered enterprises still registered after 12 months are not available for enterprises registered before 1993. The answers for 1997 and 2001 are as follows:

  12 months

  The percentages of UK enterprises registered for Value Added Tax (VAT) in 1997 and 2001 that were still registered for VAT after 12 months, in each country and Government Office Region (GOR), are as follows.
  1231W

  Percentage

  Country

  Enterprises registered in 1997 still registered after 12 months

  Enterprises registered in 2001 still registered after 12 months

  United Kingdom

  89

  92

  England

  90

  92

  Scotland

  88

  92

  Wales

  89

  92

  Northern Ireland

  91

  94

  Source:

  Small Business Service (SBS) Business Survival Rates, http:// www.sbs.gov.uk/analytical/statistics/statisticssurvivalrates.php

  Percentage of UK enterprises still registered after 12 months

  Government Office Region

  Enterprises registered in 1997 still registered after 12 months

  Enterprises registered in 2001 still registered after 12 months

  North East

  90

  91

  North West

  87

  91

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  89

  91

  East Midlands

  89

  92

  West Midlands

  88

  92

  East

  91

  92

  London

  89

  91

  South East

  91

  93

  South West

  91

  93

  24 months

  The percentages of UK VAT registered enterprises, in each Government Office Region, still registered after 24 months, are only available for enterprises registered in 1999 and 2000. They are as follows:

  Percentage

  Country

  Enterprises registered in 1999 still registered after 24 months

  Enterprises registered in 2000 still registered after 24 months

  United Kingdom

  77

  79

  England

  77

  79

  Scotland

  76

  79

  Wales

  77

  78

  Northern Ireland

  80

  83

  Percentage

  Government Office Region

  Enterprises registered in 1999 still registered after 24 months

  Enterprises registered in 2000 still registered after 24 months

  North East

  76

  77

  North West

  75

  78

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  77

  77

  East Midlands

  78

  79

  West Midlands

  77

  79

  East

  79

  79

  London

  75

  77

  South East

  80

  81

  South West

  78

  80

  36 months

  The percentages of UK VAT registered enterprises still registered after 36 months are only available for enterprise registered 1993 to 1999 inclusive. Data for enterprises registered in 2001 are expected in winter 2005–06
  1232W
  Data for 1997 and the latest year (1999) are as follows:

  Percentage

  Country

  Enterprises registered in 1997 still registered after 36 months

  Enterprises registered in 1999 still registered after 36 months

  United Kingdom

  67

  66

  England

  67

  66

  Scotland

  66

  65

  Wales

  68

  68

  Northern Ireland

  75

  72

  Percentage

  Government Office Region

  Enterprises registered in 1997 still registered after 36 months

  Enterprises registered in 1999 still registered after 36 months

  North East

  66

  66

  North West

  64

  65

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  67

  66

  East Midlands

  67

  68

  West Midlands

  66

  67

  East

  70

  68

  London

  64

  63

  South East

  71

  70

  South West

  70

  68

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Brownfield Sites
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what split he recommends for industry and housing on brownfield sites. [179511]

  Keith Hill
  The Government does not set the proportion of brownfield sites which should be developed for industry and housing, nor would it wish to. Local planning authorities, through the development plan process, should decide for themselves what sites to allocate for housing and industrial land.

  In preparing development plans, local authorities must have regard to national planning policies. Planning Policy Guidance note 3: Housing sets a national target for 60 per cent. of additional housing, including conversions, to be built on previously -developed land. The latest figure achieved is 66 per cent. in 2002, a figure which has increased every year since 1997. There is no target for industrial uses.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently producing good practice guidance for the review of local authority employment land allocations, which will be published later this year. The guidance will provide a methodology that can be applied to the circumstances of each local authority area, rather than recommending a proportional split between the development of housing and industrial uses at a national level.

  Greenbelt Land
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Department's guidelines for the use of green
  1233W
  belt land allows its use for low cost or rent housing in order for local people in villages to remain in the area under section 106 agreements. [179776]

  Keith Hill
  Current policy on providing for rural exception housing is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing, Annex B. The policy allows local planning authorities to consider including a 'rural exception policy' in their plans where there remains a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs. An exception policy enables a local planning authority to grant planning permission for small sites for affordable housing to meet local needs in perpetuity, within or adjoining existing villages, which may be subject to policies of restrains such as Green Belt.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's consultation document "Influencing the size, type and affordability of housing" proposes that the 'rural exception policy' is replaced by a 100 per cent. affordable housing allocation policy, which would deliver exactly the same objective except through the plan making process.

  Housing (Manchester)
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effects of the(a) Starter Home Initiative and (b) Market Renewal Pathfinders programme on the residents of Manchester Central. [179214]

  Keith Hill
  Between September 2001 and 31 March 2004, the Starter Home Initiative (SHI) helped key workers into home ownership in areas where the high cost of housing serves undermined recruitment and retention of skilled staff in key public services. The SHI was available in London and the South East region and in some housing hotspots in the East, South West and West Midlands regions. It was not available to key workers in Manchester.

  The Manchester Salford market renewal pathfinder programme is intended to benefit the residents of the whole of Manchester and Salford, including central Manchester, by creating sustainable communities through housing market renewal.

  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of how the change in the level of council funding for housing has affected the residents of Manchester Central. [179215]

  Keith Hill
  Since 1997 allocations of capital funding to local authorities for housing purposes have risen consistently by about 15 per cent. per annum on average. This includes the Major Repairs Allowance we introduced in 200102 specifically for the improvement of local authority stock alongside the Decent Homes standard which sets out minimum standards to be met by 2010. Manchester's allocation for 2003–04 was £69.671 million and has been supplemented by the announcement of £125 million to be made available to the Manchester/Salford Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder between 2003–04 and 2005–06.
  1234W

  Industrial Land
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much land is designated for industry in the county plans. [179510]

  Keith Hill
  There are no statistics held centrally for how much land has been allocated for certain land uses, such as industry, in development plans, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently producing good practice guidance for the review of local authority employment land allocations, which will be published later this year. The guidance will provide a methodology through which local planning authorities will be able to review their allocations of employment land, retaining sites which are needed, viable and sustainable, and making others available for reallocation to other land uses. In the process, individual local authorities will have a much better data source on land allocated for industrial use.

  Lone Parents (Accommodation)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new places in semi-independent housing have been provided for lone parents under the age of 18 years in each year since May 1997. [177543]

  Yvette Cooper
  Set out as follows is the number of Housing Corporation sponsored completions for supported housing for lone teenage parents in each year since 1997:

  Number

  1997–98

  113

  1998–99

  136

  1999–2000

  81

  2000–01

  53

  2001–02

  132

  2002–03

  321

  2003–04

  355

  A further 309 have already been approved under the Approved Development Programme.

  New Homes (London)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new homes in London were(a) built by or for registered social landlords and (b) granted planning consent by London planning authorities between April 2000 and April 2004. [179201]

  Keith Hill
  The number of new homes built by or for registered social landlords in London between April 2000 and March 2004 is as follows:

  Number

  2000–01

  4,162

  2001–02

  3,512

  2002–03

  4,258

  2003–04

  4,100

  Source:

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. These are new build only.

  1235W
  Information on the number of new homes granted planning consent by London planning authorities between April 2000 and March 2004 is not readily available. The following information is available (calendar years):

  Number

  2000

  30,576

  2001

  24,908

  Source:

  Housing Provision Survey 2001, Greater London Authority. These are net approvals.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Pan Government Agreement for Central Government to use Ordnance Survey data was open to fair and transparent competition. [153758]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Pan Government Agreement (PGA) is a non-binding internal arrangement between two Crown bodies, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Ordnance Survey (OS). Accordingly, the PGA is not a contract necessitating competition through prior advertisement in accordance with the EC public procurement directives.

  The success of an initial one-year pilot of the PGA led the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee in their tenth report to state:
  "The Committee recommends that the Government provides funding for a long-term Pan Government Service Level Agreement to ensure widespread use of Ordnance Survey data across Government, so as to ensure the Government gets the best value for money. This should be done by the start of the 2003–04 financial year."

  In comparison to the cost of previous agreements and the much more limited use of geographic information they provided, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister believes that the PGA offers very good value for money for government.

  Scout Moor
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received on the application by United Utilities and Peel Holdings to erect a windfarm on Scout Moor, between Edenfield and Rochdale, Lancashire; and when he expects to reach a decision on the application. [179528]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  No representations have been made. The current position is that the application has to go to a public inquiry and arrangements are currently being made and will be formally announced as soon as it is practicable to do so. It will be for the inspector to report his/her findings and it will be on that report which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will base her decision.

  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received on the application by Marshalls plc to extend the workings at Scout Moor Quarry, between Edenfield and Rochdale, Lancashire; and when he expects to reach a decision on the application. [179529]
  1236W
  Keith Hill
  The application to extend the workings at Scout Moor Quarry is now being dealt with by the First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on appeal. This is one of five linked appeals. Two of the other four appeals relate to separate applications, made respectively by Marshalls plc and the other joint operator of the existing Scout Moor Quarry, for a review of the conditions applying to existing operations on that quarry. The remaining two appeals, also made separately by each of the joint operators, are against the terms of the Working Rights Notices issued by Lancashire County Council, declaring that restrictions imposed by the conditions determined would not prejudice adversely the working rights of the operators.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has received 94 pre-inquiry and three post-inquiry representations on these applications from local residents. Since receipt of the Inspector's report to the public inquiry, my Rt. Hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has also received a number of representations from Marshalls plc, the most recent being a letter dated 7 April 2004.

  As will be evident, this multiple application is a complex one and has raised a number of issues that have needed investigation. While no guarantee can be given, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister hopes that these can be resolved and that a decision can be issued within two months.

  Small Business Rates Relief Scheme
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which hon. Members have made representations to his Department regarding the concerns of businesses in their constituencies about the low rateable value eligibility threshold of the proposed small business rates relief scheme. [179252]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received letters from nearly sixty hon. Members on the rate relief scheme since the enabling provisions were enacted in the Local Government Act 2003 last September. As stated during the passage of the Bill we will be reviewing the thresholds for the scheme in the light of any general increase of rateable values arising from the general revaluation which, like the rate relief scheme, will take effect from 1 April 2005.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Child Psychiatrists
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many consultant child psychiatrists are employed by each of the health boards in Northern Ireland; and how many vacancies there are in each case. [179045]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The information requested is as follows.
  1237W

  Table 1: Number of consultant child psychiatrists employed in each health board as at 31 March 2004 excluding vacancies

  Health board area

  Headcount

  Whole-time equivalent

  Eastern

  11

  7.65

  Western

  2

  2.00

  Northern

  2

  2.00

  Southern

  3

  3.00

  Total

  18

  14.65

  Table 2: Number of consultant child psychiatrist vacancies (including long-term vacancies) by health board as at 31 March 2004

  Health board area

  Headcount

  Whole-time equivalent

  Eastern

  7

  6.30

  Western

  0

  0.00

  Northern

  0

  0.00

  Southern

  0

  0.00

  Total

  7

  6.30

  Table 3: Number of long-term (vacant more than three months) consultant child psychiatrist vacancies by health board as at 31 March 2004

  Health board area

  Headcount

  Whole-time equivalent

  Eastern

  5

  5.00

  Western

  0

  0.00

  Northern

  0

  0.00

  Southern

  0

  0.00

  Total

  5

  5.00

  Family Planning Association
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funds have been provided by his Department to the Family Planning Association in each of the last five years. [179084]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The information requested is as follows:

  Amount (£)

  2003–04

  82,019

  2002–03

  78,895

  2001–02

  63,800

  2000–01

  52,606

  1999–2000

  51,323

  Foreign Nationals (Support)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support arrangements Government Departments provide for foreign nationals coming to Northern Ireland to work. [178764]

  Mr. Spellar
  Under current EU rules, EU nationals, who come to work in Northern Ireland, are covered for social security purposes, by EC Regulation 1408/71. The aim of the rules is to ensure that employed and self-employed people who exercise their right to free movement are not adversely affected by the application of different national legislation. In addition, there are a number of UK reciprocal bilateral agreements with 1238W
  countries outside the EU. These agreements protect the social security position of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives.

  The Allocation of Housing Regulations (NI) 2004 provide that a person who is not habitually resident in the Common Travel Area comprising the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland, or whose right to reside in that area derives solely from certain European directives, is not eligible to be allocated housing accommodation by the Housing Executive. However, an exception is made for certain classes of persons including "workers" for the purposes of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 or (EEC) No. 1251/70 and persons from new EU accession states who are treated as workers for the purpose of the definition of "qualified person" in regulation 5(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000 pursuant to regulation 5 of the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004. The Homelessness Regulations (NI) 2004 make similar provision in respect of access to housing assistance under the homelessness legislation.

  The Department for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) is working to promote race equality for foreign nationals both as service users and as staff in the Health and Personal Social Services. East year DHSSPS published a Guide to Race Equality in Health and Social Services and also issued guidance on access to information, handling complaints, user involvement and promoting positive staff attitudes to diversity to all HSS boards, trusts and agencies.

  DHSSPS and the HSS trusts, boards and agencies are working together to ensure that people belonging to minority ethnic groups enjoy the access to services that they are entitled to have. This work includes the establishment of a Regional Interpreting Service for health and social services, which is due to come into operation at the end of this month, and initiatives by HPSS organisations including events, websites and information in translation, to improve access to services and to promote diversity.

  DHSSPS recently organised an anti-racism workshop involving trusts, staff side organisations, some overseas staff, and the NI Council for Ethnic Minorities, to help trusts to share good practice and it is currently drafting guidance for employers in the health sector on how best to support their minority ethnic staff including those from overseas.

  Health Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the(a) average and (b) current longest waiting times are for a (i) emergency, (ii) urgent and (iii) routine dermatology assessment in each health trust area. [179071]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The information on waiting lists and waiting times that is collected centrally is on the basis of time bands.
  1239W
  (a) It is not possible to derive an average from this information.
  (b) The longest wait occurs in the 24+ months time band,
  (i)—(iii) Information requested is not collected centrally.

  Table 1: Number of patients awaiting a first out-patient appointment in the dermatology specialty

  Time waiting (months)

  Provider Trust

  0–2

  3–11

  12–17

  18–23

  24+

  Total

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  974

  321

  10

  0

  1

  1,306

  Down and Lisburn HSS Trust

  258

  314

  124

  63

  15

  774

  Mater Infirmorum HSS Trust

  105

  142

  55

  66

  9

  377

  The Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  646

  614

  110

  31

  65

  1,466

  Ulster Community and Hospitals HSS Trust

  941

  1,449

  207

  245

  361

  3,203

  Causeway HSS Trust

  357

  579

  192

  74

  0

  1,202

  United Hospitals HSS Trust

  575

  395

  111

  75

  57

  1,213

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  123

  23

  0

  0

  0

  146

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  853

  283

  18

  8

  1

  1,163

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  439

  22

  1

  0

  0

  462

  Altnagelvin Area Hospitals HSS Trust

  1,092

  530

  1

  0

  0

  1,623

  Northern Ireland

  6,363

  4,672

  829

  562

  509

  12,935

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to ensure that all multiple sclerosis sufferers who would benefit from beta interferon or glatiramer are receiving that treatment. [179114]

  Mr. Gardiner
  An additional £3.1 million for the provision of specialist drugs, including £100,000 specifically to provide the infrastructure to treat more people who suffer from Multiple Sclerosis (MS), was allocated to Boards in 2002–03. This funding has been uplifted for inflation and is provided on a recurrent basis. As well as recruiting additional consultants, additional nursing and pharmacy staff have been appointed together with Specialist MS nurses to provide patient education and support.

  Currently 511 patients in Northern Ireland are receiving beta interferon treatment and there are around 70 on the waiting list.

  My Department will continue to seek additional resources for specialist medicines that offer the potential for significant improvement in patient care.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes he plans to the way in which the Northern Ireland Housing Executive pays housing benefit to tenants. [178614]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no plans at present to change the way in which the Northern Ireland Housing Executive pays housing benefit to tenants.

  Ice Hockey
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent(a) meetings have been held and (b) representations have been made by the Sports Council to promote the development of amateur ice hockey in Northern Ireland. [178528]

  Angela Smith
  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland met with representatives with an interest in the sport of ice hockey as follows.
  1240W
  Information of patients awaiting a first out-patient appointment is collected at Trust and specialty level. The latest available waiting list statistics show the position at 31 March 2004.
  The NI Ice Hockey Federation in November 2003
  Castlereagh Borough Council in November 2003
  Belfast Community Ice Hockey Club in January 2004

  A further meeting has been planned for 16 June 2004 with representatives from the Belfast Community Ice Hockey Club.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Sports Council recognises the Northern Ireland Ice Hockey Association; and what individuals the Sports Council understands to constitute the Northern Ireland Ice Hockey Association. [178529]

  Angela Smith
  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland does not recognise the Northern Ireland Ice Hockey Association, as this body is no longer operational. The sports Council now officially recognises the Northern Ireland Ice Hockey Federation, in place of the Northern Ireland Ice Hockey Association, as the governing body in Northern Ireland. It is understood that there is one member club—the Northern Ireland Ice Hockey Club—which is affiliated to the Northern Ireland Ice Hockey Federation.

  Juvenile Justice Centre
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what external investigations took place into the two escapes by young offenders from the Juvenile Justice Centre; how many managers were on duty within each unit from which an escape was made; and if he will make a statement on security at the centre. [179501]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational responsibility of the Acting Chief Executive of the Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland (Artie O'Neill). He has advised me that no external investigations took place. However the Director of the Juvenile Justice Centre ordered two internal investigations and a number of recommendations for improving security were made. On each escape there were three managers on duty, one of whom was on-site. The Social Services Inspectorate subsequently reviewed the escape episodes and observed the additional security measures which had already been implemented.
  1241W
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what access tho Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) has had to the Juvenile Justice Centre since its opening; and if he will list(a) the representations received from the NIHRC and (b) the meetings the centre's director has had with commissioners. [179502]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational responsibility of the Acting Chief Executive of the Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland (Artie O'Neill). He has advised me that the Director of Custody and other senior staff at the centre met with two investigators of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) on 13 January 2004. They were then given a tour of various parts of the centre. The NIHRC has written on a number of occasions requesting access to the Juvenile Justice Centre for the purpose of conducting a review. Appropriate access, taking account of the planned inspection of the centre by the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice, has been offered.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is responsible for the running of the Juvenile Justice Centre; what the gender mix of management is at(a) weekends and (b) public holidays; and what qualifications they have in (i) social work and (ii) management. [179503]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational responsibility of the Acting Chief Executive of the Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland (Artie O'Neill). He has advised me that the gender balance of on-site and on call managers varies according to the rota each weekend and public holiday. The centre strives to achieve a balance where possible. The on call managers are qualified staff. While there is no requirement for the on-site managers to be qualified in either social work or management, it should be emphasised that they do possess the necessary competences and experience to carry out their roles effectively. The Director of Custody is responsible for the day-to-day operational management of the Juvenile Justice Centre.

  Medical Notes
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the rights of families to seek access to the medical notes of relatives who die in hospital. [179088]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Where a patient has died, the patient's personal representative and any person who may have a claim arising out of the patient's death, may make an application to the holder of the health record, for access to the health record or to any part of the health record.

  However, where such an application is made, access shall not be given if the record includes a note, made at the patient's request, that he or she did not wish access to be given on such an application.

  In addition, access shall not be given to any part of a health record which, in the opinion of the holder of the record, would disclose:
  (i) information likely to cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of any individual, or,
  (ii) information relating to, or provided by an individual other than the patient, who could be identified from that information.
  1242W

  Multiple Limb Disability
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals in the Province have congenital multiple limb disability. [179072]

  Mr. Pearson
  Information on the number of individuals with congenital multiple limb disability is not collected centrally. However, the following table shows the total number of children born in each year from 1997 to 2003 inclusive who were recorded as having any type of congenital malformation of their limbs.

  Number of children

  1997

  428

  1998

  393

  1999

  447

  2000

  349

  2001

  550

  2002

  510

  2003

  553

  Note:

  As a child may be recorded in more than one category of malformation, there may be an element of double counting in the figures.

  Source:

  Child Health System.

  Omagh Bombing
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made during the past 12 months in the police investigation into the bombing of Omagh on 15 August 1998; and if he will make a statement. [178924]

  Mr. Pearson
  Within the past 12 months one person has been charged with serious terrorist related offences, including one connected to the Omagh Bomb. There have been other significant developments that it would not be appropriate to disclose at this stage of the investigation.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers are working on the investigation into the bombing of Omagh on 15 August 1998; and if he will make a statement. [178925]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Omagh investigation, by its nature, requires substantial resourcing. It is currently one of the largest and most protracted investigations ever to have been conducted within the United Kingdom. The actual number of officers deployed at any given time varies according to the most efficient use of resources within the Crime Operations Department.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the investigation of the police into the bombing of Omagh on 15 August 1998 has ascertained what happened to the threat book from Omagh police station for the period covering the weeks immediately prior to 15 August 1998; and if he will make a statement. [178926]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Senior Investigating Officer has carried out detailed investigations into intelligence relating to threats in the period immediately prior to the
  1243W
  Omagh Bomb. The threat book referred to was a document that recorded those threats and would not in itself add to the investigation.

  Public Angling Estate
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to ensure adequate disability access to the Public Angling Estate. [178380]

  Angela Smith
  A number of the waters within the Public Angling Estate are accessible to anglers with disabilities, with special facilities, including car parks, paths, fishing stands, and a hoist to facilitate angling from boats, provided at some. Representatives of persons with disabilities have undertaken access studies at a number of waters and have provided appropriate advice to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure.

  The Department is committed to continuing to upgrade and enhance the facilities at its waters for anglers with disabilities and will continue to consult with those groups representing the disabled.

  Recruitment Practices
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is towards the recruitment practice of collective shortlisting without individual notes of assessments being taken and only a score or pass mark being recorded. [178103]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Recruitment to the Northern Ireland Civil Service and to the Home Civil Service in Northern Ireland Office is carried out in accordance with Northern Ireland and Great Britain Commissioners' Recruitment Codes respectively. Collective shortlisting is not practised.

  The Commissioners' codes state that those making appointments to the Civil Service must adhere to the following requirements:
  applicants are considered equally on merit at each stage of the selection process;
  selection is based on relevant criteria applied consistently to all candidates;
  selection criteria are objective, reliable and guard against bias;
  applicants are aware which criteria will be used at eligibility sift stage;
  if it is considered that shortlisting may be necessary to reduce numbers to manageable proportions, applicants are aware which job criteria will be used and in what way.

  In order to adhere to the requirements it is the practice of the Civil Service that each application is examined and a determination made if the candidate satisfies each of the eligibility and if appropriate shortlisting criteria. Candidates who fail to satisfy one or more of the required criteria are offered feedback explaining the decisions reached.

  Sports Facilities
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in relation to the establishment of a new sports ground development programme; and if he will make a statement. [178524]
  1244W
  Angela Smith
  The establishment of the new Sports Grounds Development Programme is a matter for the Sports Council for Northern Ireland which is responsible for the development of sport including the distribution of funding. I can confirm that the Sports Council recently completed risk assessment exercises in relation to the new programme and is now implementing the recommendations of these. It has also recently concluded discussions on proposals for taking forward the programme with the governing bodies of those sports identified as of the highest priority from its risk assessments. The Sports Council is considering the outcome of these discussions and the new programme is expected to be launched in the near future.

  Sports Governing Bodies
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are applied by the Sports Council when deciding to recognise a governing body for any sport. [178538]

  Angela Smith
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave on 12 May 2004,Official Report, column 395W.

TRANSPORT

  Clapham Junction
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects Clapham Junction railway station(a) to have lift access to platforms and (b) to have resolved the problem of gaps between platforms and passenger trains. [179202]

  Mr. McNulty
  The SRA is beginning development work on solutions to improve the accessibility of stations to ensure both stations and train services meet the accessibility requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. This will apply to train operating companies that lease stations, including Clapham Junction.

  Network Rail also has a programme to evaluate the risk from platform stepping distances and to identify where it is reasonably practicable to make improvements. The programme is ongoing and risk based and will be subject to acceptance by Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI).

  The delivery and timing of any works arising from these programmes will be subject to prioritisation and the availability of funding following the outcome of the Spending Review.

  Congestion Charging Schemes
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers the proposed elected regional assemblies will have(a) to (i) modify and (ii) block congestion charging schemes agreed by a local authority and (b) to introduce congestion charging schemes. [179574]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are no plans to give such powers to elected regional assemblies.
  1245W

  Departmental Secondments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff in his Department and its agencies were seconded from the(a) private and (b) academic sector in each of the last three years. [174823]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed on 29 May 2002. All information dates from 29 May 2002.

  Department/Agency

  (a) Private sector

  (b) Academic sector

  Department for Transport (Centre)

  1 ended in 2003–04, 3 active

  1

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  0

  0

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  0

  0

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  0

  0

  Driving Standards Agency

  0

  0

  Vehicle and Operator Services Agency

  0

  0

  Highways Agency

  2 ended in 2003–04, none active

  0

  Falmouth Harbour Revision Order
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the Falmouth Harbour Revision Order 2004. [179579]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have received representations from some harbour users opposing the making of this Order, primarily on the grounds that the proposed arrangements do not provide for an adequate degree of accountability of the Harbour Commissioners.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to amend the Falmouth Harbour Revision Order 2004. [179580]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are now in the process of considering the representations we have received and will make an announcement when this has been completed.

  Intelligent Speed Adaption Systems
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what grants the Department has given to the research and development of Intelligent Speed Adaption Systems; and if he will make a statement. [177992]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [pursuant to the reply, 16 June 2004, Official Report, c. 933 W]: This research builds on an earlier project that was carried out between 1997 and 2000 at a cost of £557,997.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [175681]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was established following machinery of Government changes in May 2002.
  1246W
  The Department does not have details of the number of staff who may have left the Department because of anxiety, stress, depression or other mental health reasons.

  The Department has a Stress at Work Policy in place and recognises the legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for employees.

  PFI/PPP Schemes
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) book value of the stakeholding, (b) onward sale price and (c) arrangements for sharing any windfall gain from subsequent refinancing arrangements are for each of the private finance initiative and public private partnership schemes his Department has entered into where there has been an onward sale of the private sector stakeholding into secondary market. [179065]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport does not hold data on(a) book value of stakeholding or (b) onward sale price on PFI/PPP projects it sponsors. With respect to item (c), the Department is not aware of any circumstances in which the onward sale of an ownership stake would alter the sharing arrangements of refinancing gains. Such provisions have never been included in central guidance on the Standardisation of PFI Contracts (SoPC), or in the provisions of departmental PPP contracts.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to provide fast train services from Pendle to Manchester. [179438]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are no plans to introduce fast train services from Pendle to Manchester. A new Northern franchise has been competitively tendered. This will include local and regional services to Manchester.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) consultants and (b) contractors have been employed by the Strategic Rail Authority or employed on matters in each year since its creation expressed in full-time equivalent posts. [178867]

  Mr. McNulty
  Consultants are employed on defined, temporary tasks—typically studies into particular propositions—and their employment cannot be equated to SRA staff posts. Contractors, by contrast, may at times fill staff posts in lieu of permanently employed SRA staff.

  Data was not held in the form requested for the full period since the SRA was set up in February 2001. The available figures are as follows:

  February 2001

  August 2002

  March 2003

  March 2004

  Contractors on projects

  —

  —

  69

  135

  Contractors covering vacancies

  —

  —

  64

  37

  Other temporary staff

  —

  —

  22

  9

  Total

  66

  90

  155

  181

  1247W

  Transport Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the outcome was of the Transport Council held on 10–11 June; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [179173]

  Mr. Darling
  The transport session of the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council met in Luxembourg on 11 June. I represented the UK.

  The Council reached a General Approach on a Directive on enhancing port security. The agreement was based on a Presidency compromise text, which the UK was able to accept. The Directive will, complement Regulation 725/2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security adopted in March 2004.

  The Council reached Political Agreement on a Directive on ship-source pollution and the introduction of sanctions, including criminal sanctions, for pollution offences. The agreement was on the basis of a revised text, which met many of the concerns of the UK relating to equity, consistency with international law and the apportionment of responsibilities between the First and Third Pillars of the European Union. The agreed text does differ from MARPOL; however, the UK and likeminded Member States did not command sufficient votes to prevent political agreement from being reached on this basis.

  Reports to the Council on maritime issues under AOB dealt with: ratification of maritime conventions, identification documents for seafarers, and the recent maritime safety forum organised by the Presidency.

  The Council reached agreement on a number of aspects of the Galileo satellite navigation project. Council conclusions were adopted calling for continuing progress in work leading to implementation of the project. Political Agreement was reached on a Council Regulation on the establishment of management structures. The Council adopted two Decisions on Galileo external relations, the first a cooperation agreement with Israel and the second an agreement with the USA on the operation of Galileo and the GPS. All of the agreed texts were acceptable to the UK.

  The Council did not reach Political Agreement on the proposal to amend Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure (the 'Eurovignette' Directive). The key stumbling block to agreement at the March Council had been the hypothecation of revenues to the transport sector. At this Council, I re-stated that the UK cannot accept mandatory hypothecation and that decisions on how to spend revenue raised from road charging should be left to the discretion of member states. Further examination of this and other aspects of the text will now be carried out, so that the proposal can be put to a future Council.

  The Council reached Political Agreement on a Regulation amending current legislation on drivers hours' legislation that applies to certain drivers' of large commercial vehicles, and on a Directive on enforcement of those hours. Both of the agreed texts were acceptable to the United Kingdom.
  1248W
  The Council considered a proposal for harmonising weekend driving bans for heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport. A number of member states (including the UK) indicated that they were not in a position to support this. The proposal could be brought to a future Council.

  The Council did not reach Political Agreement on those proposals relating to cabin crew training and flight time limitations contained within the draft Regulation amending Regulation 3922/91 on harmonised operational safety standards and administrative procedures in civil aviation (EU-OPS).

  There was an exchange of views on EU-US air transport, based on a report from the Commission on its negotiations with the US. I was joined by other Ministers in stating that an agreement on the lines proposed would be unbalanced, and should not be accepted. It was agreed by the Council that urgent efforts should be made by the Commission in further negotiations with the US, with the overall aim of improving the balance.

  There were two aviation items taken under AOB. The Commission reported on progress on passenger name records and on the proposal for mandates for negotiation on air transport with certain neighbouring countries.

  Also under AOB, the Presidency gave a progress report on the third package of rail transport measures.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many employees in his Department have(a) signed a formal opt out from and (b) are exempt from the Working Time Directive; and how many employees in his 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. [178371]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport has(a) 37 staff who have signed a waiver allowing them to work more than the maximum hours allowed under the Working Time Directive; (b) no staff who are exempt from the Working Time Directive. There are 26 staff who have recorded hours in excess of the maximum allowed under the Working Time Directive in the 17 week period up to the week commencing 31 May 2004. These figures cover the central Department only.

  The Department for Transport is committed to reducing the number of staff who are required to work in excess of 48 hours a week to an absolute minimum commensurate with meeting operational needs.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  New Deal
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was spent on the New Deal(a) by region and (b) by London borough in each year since 1997. [177050]
  1249W
  Jane Kennedy
  The available information is in the table.

  New Deal spend by region/country1

  Rounded to nearest £ million

  Region/country

  1997–982

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  East Midlands and Eastern3

  0

  9

  23

  32

  27

  n/a

  n/a

  East Midlands3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  18

  18

  East of England3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  10

  12

  Northern3

  0

  12

  25

  28

  29

  n/a

  n/a

  North East3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  26

  27

  North West

  0

  14

  37

  40

  38

  37

  42

  London and South East3

  30

  21

  53

  49

  36

  n/a

  n/a

  London3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  38

  54

  South East3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  11

  13

  South West

  0

  9

  17

  19

  16

  16

  15

  West Midlands

  0

  8

  20

  22

  26

  26

  27

  Yorkshire and Humber

  0

  18

  37

  39

  31

  32

  30

  Scotland

  0

  10

  34

  40

  35

  38

  39

  Wales

  0

  7

  20

  23

  19

  21

  20

  1 Figures are for regional programme spend and exclude head office and other departmental costs.

  2 Regional programme spend was less than £1 million per region in 1997–98.

  3 From April 2002 the nine Employment Service regions/countries were reorganised into 11 Jobcentre Plus regions/countries: East Midlands and Eastern region was split in to two regions (East Midlands region and East of England region). London and South East region was split in to two regions (London region and South East region). Northern region was also renamed as North East region at that time.

  Note:

  Information is not available broken down by local authority.

  Source:

  Employment Service regional records 1997–98 to 2001–02 and Jobcentre Plus regional records from 2002–03 onwards.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were working in permanent New Deal placements(a) by region and (b) by London borough in each year since 1997. [177051]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is only available for New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus.

  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people registered with the New Deal failed to be placed in permanent employment after(a) six months and (b) 12 months in each year since 1997, broken down by (i) region and (ii) London borough. [177052]

  Jane Kennedy
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the(a) volume and (b) value of underpayments of benefits to pensioners in each year since 1997. [177908]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Some information is available for the Minimum Income Guarantee, Retirement Pension and Housing Benefit, but is not available in the format requested. Underpayments of Council Tax Benefit, Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Carer's Allowance and Pension Credit are not included as there are no figures available currently.

  Underpayments of benefits to pensioners in receipt of Minimum Income Guarantee which result from claimant and official error are estimated and reported in regular National Statistics publications.
  1250W
  The latest figures available are:
  2001–02: Approx £65 million (equivalent to 1.4 per cent. of total MIG expenditure)
  2002–03: Approx £68 million (equivalent to 1.5 per cent. of total MIG expenditure)
  The estimates are based on samples of cases and are therefore subject to sampling error.

  Underpayments of State Pension resulting from claimant and official error are estimated each year. These estimates are based on very small samples and have large margins of error therefore there is a high variance in the amounts quoted.

  The latest figures available are:
  1999–2000: Approx £66 million
  2000–01: Approx £118 million
  2001–02: Approx £88 million
  2002–03: Approx £84 million

  These figures are equivalent to between 0.2 per cent. and 0.3 per cent. of expenditure.

  For 2002–03 around 8.1 per cent. of all Housing Benefit cases (not pensioner specific) had underpayments associated with them, resulting in underpayments worth around 10 per cent. (approximately £100 million) of total HB expenditure. Many of the underpayments were of small value, hence the difference between the 8.1 per cent. and the 1.0 per cent.

  The next Housing Benefit Review report, reporting the level of fraud and error in Housing Benefit (HB) up to September 2003, will be published on 12 August as National Statistics, and will contain a breakdown of HB underpayments for pensioners.
  1251W
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much(a) disability benefit and (b) other support has been distributed to eating disorder sufferers in each of the last five years. [179241]

  Mr. Pond
  The information requested is not available.

  Number of jobseekers allowance sanctions imposed

  Year to March

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Discharge from HM forces

  4

  12

  5

  8

  5

  6

  6

  3

  Leaving employment voluntarily

  36,573 (JSA)

  109,994

  103,206

  86,226

  85,965

  73,186

  77,277

  69,381

  64,461 (UB)

  Losing employment through misconduct

  7,155 (JSA)

  22,357

  22,682

  18,888

  16,430

  15,939

  16,497

  13,760

  15,599 (UB)

  Not taken advantage of an opportunity of employment

  86 (JSA)

  244

  146

  85

  57

  52

  38

  28

  446 (UB)

  Refusal of employment

  4,098 (JSA)

  21,906

  11,118

  19,169

  26,370

  38,216

  43,398

  29,679

  1,140 (UB)

  Giving up place on training scheme/employment programme

  121

  882

  3,888

  6,146

  4,236

  2,859

  3,232

  2,690

  Losing place on training scheme/employment programme—misc

  183

  1,049

  2,222

  5,671

  6,465

  6,178

  6,954

  6,727

  Refusal of place on training scheme/employment programme

  130

  205

  380

  1,335

  838

  308

  281

  347

  Not taken advantage of place on a training scheme/employment programme

  19

  45

  527

  1,089

  956

  144

  97

  97

  Failed to attend place on training scheme/employment programme1

  310

  3,897

  7,028

  12,637

  17,652

  19,493

  20,383

  19,793

  Refusal/failure to carry out a JS direction

  215

  1,027

  2,218

  7,277

  5,542

  3,819

  3,676

  3,755

  Total

  130,540

  161,618

  153,420

  158,531

  164,516

  160,200

  171,839

  146,260

  1Including New Deal for Young People

  Note:

  JSA was introduced on 7 October 1996 and replaced Unemployment Benefit (UB).

  Figures are given for both benefits.

  Source:

  Labour Market Statistics—Analysis of Sector Decision Making.

  Carers
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost would be of not offsetting carers' allowance against(a) the basic state pension and (b) other benefits. [178598]

  Mr. Pond
  The gross cost of exempting all pensioners in receipt of Carer's Allowance from the overlapping benefits rule would be around £221 million. After adjusting for offsets in income-related benefits the cost would be around £145 million. The gross cost for non-pensioners would be around £109 million or around £50 million after adjustments for offsets.Notes:
  1. Estimates use benefit rates for 2003–04 and are based on a 100 per cent. extract of Carer's Allowance claims on the Carer's Allowance computer system for May 2003, a 5 per cent. extract from the claims on the Income Support computer systems in 2003 and a 1 per cent. extract of the Housing Benefit/Council Tax benefit claims of May 2002.
  2. These costs do not take account of the introduction of Pension Credit where Carer's Allowance is taken fully into account but an additional amount, the carer's premium (currently £25.55 per week), may be awarded in respect of the caring.
  3. The figures take no account of the behavioural effect of carers who have not claimed a Carer's Allowance but who would be induced to do so if the overlapping benefits rule was abolished.

  Departmental Secondments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff in his Department and its agencies were seconded from the(a) private and (b) academic sector in each of the last three years. [175365]
  1252W

  Benefit Penalties
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many unemployed people suffered benefit penalties in each year since 1997, broken down by reason for the penalty. [177902]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is in the table.

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the table.

  Numbers of staff recorded as having been seconded in to the Department and its predecessor organisations (Department of Social Security and Employment Service) from the private sector and academic sector.

  Secondments from the private sector

  Secondments from the academic sector

  2001–02

  8

  0

  2002–03

  27

  4

  2003–04

  19

  3

  Note:

  2003–04 figures are provisional.

  Disabled Workers
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the measures introduced to improve the working conditions of disabled workers in Manchester Central over the last seven years. [177741]

  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 Manchester Central, 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

  1253W
  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 Advisors, 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.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the pay gap between men and women employed by his Department and its agencies in(a) Southampton, (b) Eastleigh, (c) Winchester and (d) Romsey. [171636]

  Mr. Pond
  There is no official assessment made of pay differentials between men and women employed by the Department and its agencies in the specific geographical areas referred to. The following table and associated notes show an analysis of mean salaries of staff working in DWP offices in the Southampton area by gender. This analysis shows that the mean salary of a man is 98.7 per cent. of the mean salary of a women.

  Male

  Female

  Difference (percentage)

  Total staff in post

  164.7

  406.2

  —

  Total basic salary (£)

  2,746,425

  6,856,672

  —

  Mean salary (£)

  16,663

  16,882

  1.31

  Notes:

  1. The Southampton Area table shows salaries for staff in workplaces with an "SO" post code prefix. This includes Southampton, Eastleigh, Hythe, Romsey, Totton, Woolston, and Winchester.

  2. Salaries have been calculated on the basis of "Whole Time Equivalents", meaning full time staff count as one and part time staff count as a proportion of one depending on their work
  1254W
  pattern. Salaries are accordingly pro-rated on the basis of the work pattern. The salaries used are basic rates excluding allowances, overtime and any employer's contributions for NI or occupational pensions.

  3. The percentage difference has been calculated by dividing the value of the difference into the lower mean salary. This calculation shows that the mean salary of women is 1.31 per cent. higher than the mean salary of men.

  The gender differential in DWP overall is that men earn on average 4.8 per cent. more than women. This figure is calculated using the salaries of all staff within DWP excluding the Senior Civil Service. The differences between male and female mean salaries change by grade. In the administrative grades that predominate in DWP offices, such as those in the Southampton area, female mean salaries are higher. In the executive grades, male mean salaries are higher. In the Southampton area, 93 per cent. of staff are in Bands A/AA, B/AO and C/EO. Looking at the comparable selection for DWP overall the gender differential is 1.39 per cent. with women earning more than men.

  The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) suggests that, as a general guide, any gender differences of 5 per cent. or more, or patterns of differences of 3 per cent. or more will require exploration and explanation. The Department for Work and Pensions are committed to reviewing their pay policies to ensure that they are compliant with the current equal pay legislation and do not either directly or indirectly discriminate against any group of employees. An Equal Pay Audit is currently being undertaken to review existing policies and to inform the development of the departmental reward strategy.

  All jobs that relate to the grades mentioned above are gender-neutral, that is, there is no reason why they should not be performed by men or women. There is therefore no likelihood of any gender-based variances being due to the requirement for work to be performed by staff of a particular gender.

  Source:

  DWP "Dataview" for December 2003 extracted from FAMIS and Rebus payroll systems.

  Mr. Graham Cotton
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will take steps to resolve the case of Mr. Graham Cotton of Olton in Solihull, a Qa pensioner who has not received his compensation. [176232]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We cannot comment on individual cases but have much sympathy with those who have lost out through the closure of occupational pension schemes.

  That is why we have introduced the Pension Protection Fund. The Pension Protection Fund forms part of a substantial and balanced package of measures. It will significantly improve both protection for pension scheme members and confidence in pensions in general.

  On the question of financial assistance for those who will not be covered by the Pension Protection Fund, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 7 June 2004, Official Report, column 82W.

  New Deal
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was spent by his Department on the New Deal for young people in Greater London in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [177059]

  Jane Kennedy
  The available information is in the table.
  1255W

  Spend on New Deal for young people in Greater London

  £ million

  2001–02

  25.007

  2002–03

  32.959

  2003–04

  150.563

  1Forecast outturn.

  Notes:

  1. Information is for financial rather than calendar years.

  Quarter

  Number leaving New Deal for Young People

  of which to a known destination

  Number entering sustained employment

  Percentage leaving to sustained employment

  Percentage (with a known destination) leaving to sustained employment

  January to March 1998

  2,040

  1,630

  1,040

  51.05

  64.03

  April to June 1998

  13,640

  10,600

  7,440

  54.57

  70.21

  July to September 1998

  29,440

  22,520

  14,080

  47.82

  62.53

  October to December 1998

  33,000

  23,840

  14,160

  42.91

  59.40

  January to March 1999

  39,920

  28,060

  15,970

  40.01

  56.92

  April to June 1999

  46,280

  32,940

  19,580

  42.30

  59.44

  July to September 1999

  56,390

  41,390

  22,800

  40.44

  55.09

  October to December 1999

  53,390

  39,190

  20,640

  38.66

  52.66

  January to March 2000

  51,550

  37,930

  19,780

  38.37

  52.14

  April to June 2000

  50,110

  36,190

  20,810

  41.53

  57.50

  July to September 2000

  53,980

  39,330

  21,900

  40.57

  55.69

  October to December 2000

  42,990

  31,100

  16,610

  38.62

  53.39

  January to March 2001

  47,100

  34,020

  18,150

  38.53

  53.34

  April to June 2001

  45,220

  32,100

  18,220

  40.29

  56.76

  July to September 2001

  46,080

  32,450

  17,790

  38.61

  54.81

  October to December 2001

  36,900

  25,640

  13,280

  35.98

  51.78

  January to March 2002

  38,920

  26,560

  13,500

  34.69

  50.83

  April to June 2002

  42,300

  28,770

  15,830

  37.41

  55.01

  July to September 2002

  45,890

  31,460

  16,680

  36.34

  53.00

  October to December 2002

  38,520

  25,720

  13,290

  34.50

  51.68

  January to March 2003

  41,190

  26,930

  13,110

  31.83

  48.69

  April to June 2003

  43,670

  28,870

  15,710

  35.98

  54.43

  July to September 2003

  48,100

  32,230

  17,000

  35.35

  52.76

  October to December 2003

  48,670

  31,890

  17,620

  36.21

  55.26

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database, DWP Information and Analysis Directorate.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many starts there have been on each of the four New Deal options since the introduction of the New Deal for Young People; how many have moved into sustained unsubsidised employment; and what proportion this is of starts on each programme. [177911]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is in the table.

  New Deal for Young People—job starts from New Deal options1

  New Deal for Young People option

  Total starts

  Total sustained unsubsidised jobs

  Proportion of jobs from starts (percentage)

  Employment option

  79,510

  33,270

  42

  Education and training option

  173,860

  46,800

  27

  Voluntary sector option

  103,380

  28,990

  28

  Environmental task force option

  103,310

  27,680

  27

  1Data to the end of December 2003.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database, DWP Information and Analysis Directorate
  1256W
  2. Figures are only available for the jobcentre Plus London region, rather than the Greater London local authority area.

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus Finance Division.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of participants left the New Deal for Young People for sustained jobs in each quarter since the start of the programme. [177906]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is in the tables.

  New Deal
  Mr. Willetts:
  To ask the Secretary of State of Work and Pensions how many people have taken up the New Deal 50 plus employment credit in each (a) month, (b) quarter and (c) other period for which figures are collected, since the scheme was introduced. [177968]

  Jane Kennedy:
  The information is in the tables.

  New Deal 50 plus employment credit starts each month.

  month

  Number of employment credit starts

  April 2000

  1,730

  May 2000

  2,430

  June 2000

  3,000

  July 2000

  2,560

  August 2000

  2,490

  September 2000

  3,270

  October 2000

  3,290

  November 2000

  3,400

  December 2000

  2,660

  January 2001

  2,190

  February 2001

  2,720

  March 2001

  3,280

  1257W

  New Deal 50 plus employment credit starts each month.

  month

  Number of employment credit starts

  April 2001

  2,610

  May 2001

  3,290

  June 2001

  3,200

  July 2001

  2,920

  August 2001

  3,160

  September 2001

  3,010

  October 2001

  3,300

  November 2001

  3,670

  December 2001

  1,730

  January 2002

  1,800

  February 2002

  2,340

  March 2002

  2,920

  April 2002

  2,460

  May 2002

  3,330

  June 2002

  2,540

  July 2002

  2,620

  August 2002

  3,060

  September 2002

  2,480

  October 2002

  2,860

  November 2002

  3,490

  December 2002

  1,940

  January 2003

  2,010

  February 2003

  2,000

  March 2003

  2,290

  Total

  98,040

  New Deal 50 plus employment credit starts each quarter

  Quarter

  Number of employment credit starts

  April to June 2000

  7,170

  July to September 2000

  8,310

  October to December 2000

  9,350

  January to March 2001

  8,190

  April to June 2001

  9,100

  July to September 2001

  9,100

  October to December 2001

  8,700

  January to March 2002

  7,060

  April to June 2002

  8,340

  July to September 2002

  8,150

  October to December 2002

  8,280

  January to March 2003

  6,300

  Total

  98,040

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. Figures for each quarter may not sum to the total for individual months due to rounding.

  2. From April 2003, the employment credit was replaced by the 50 plus return to work element of working tax credit.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many partners have been invited to attend an interview under the New Deal for Partners scheme; how many attended an interview; how many of those ended up participating in the programme; and how many attained sustained jobs as a result. [178875]

  Jane Kennedy
  The effective date for the phased introduction of work focused interviews for partners (WFIP) in Jobcentre Plus areas was 12 April 2004. WFIP processes started as planned on this date and the interviews are now taking place. Information on how many partners have been invited to and attended a work 1258W
  focused interview for partners, and how many have gone on to join the New Deal for Partners and found work, is currently not available. Information is expected to be available in the autumn.

  Non-resident UK Pensioners
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many UK pensioners live in each of the other member states of the European Union; and how much in total is spent on benefit payments to pensioners in each of these countries. [177905]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The table shows the number of people receiving the UK State Pension as at September 2003 and the estimated benefit expenditure for 2003–04 in each of the EU countries:

  £

  Country

  Number of people receiving UK State Pension

  Estimated expenditure

  Austria

  4,600

  5,500,000

  Belgium

  4,400

  7,360,000

  Cyprus

  7,800

  24,540,000

  Czech Republic

  100

  320,000

  Denmark

  1,200

  2,460,000

  Estonia

  Nil or negligible

  Finland

  500

  1,210,000

  France

  24,600

  75,010,000

  Germany

  29,400

  38,100,000

  Greece

  2,200

  7,070,000

  Hungary

  400

  1,040,000

  Ireland

  93,800

  203,350,000

  Italy

  29,500

  52,740,000

  Latvia

  100

  320,000

  Lithuania

  100

  210,000

  Luxembourg

  200

  630,000

  Malta

  3,000

  8,630,000

  Netherlands

  6,600

  9,760,000

  Poland

  1,600

  3,250,000

  Portugal

  5,000

  16,140,000

  Slovak Republic

  Nil or negligible

  Slovenia

  100

  200,000

  Spain

  57,700

  185,990,000

  Sweden

  1,600

  3,060,000

  Notes:

  1Caseloads are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2 Caseloads less than 500 are subject to a high degree of sampling variation and should be treated with caution. The associated expenditure figures are also subject to a high degree of sampling variation and should be treated likewise.

  3 Expenditure figures have been rounded to the nearest £10,000.

  4 Ten countries joined the EU on 1 May 2004. People receiving the UK State Pension in Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Slovak Republic did not receive annual uprating before this date. In addition, certain benefits would not have been paid in these countries before 1 May 2004. On enlargement the bilateral Social Security agreements that apply to Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia have been largely superseded by EU legislation. The figures for Cyprus cover all UK State Pension recipients on the island of Cyprus.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent., sample based on September 2003 DWP administrative data.

  Official Vehicles
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of official vehicles used
  1259W
  by his Department are run on (a) petrol, (b) diesel, (c) liquid petroleum gas and (d) compressed natural gas. [172771]

  Mr. Pond
  The Department's ministerial vehicles are provided by the Government Car Service. In relation to these vehicles, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 25 May 2004,Official Report, columns 1538W.

  A breakdown of the Department's vehicle fleet at 1 April 2004 by fuel type is in the table. The Department has no vehicles which are run on compressed natural gas.

  Numbers

  Percentage

  Petrol

  320

  12

  Diesel

  1,587

  61

  European IV compliant diesels

  78

  3

  Hybrid electric

  19

  1

  Dual fuel

  593

  23

  Total

  2,597

  100

  Note:

  The Department's dual fuel vehicles are capable of running on both petrol and liquid petroleum gas.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 25 May 2004,Official Report, column 1513W, on pensions, what the net present value is of the expenditure projections shown in the table. [178871]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 25 May 2004,Official Report, column 1513W, on pensions, what the assumptions are for the uprating of each of the benefits covered in the table. [178872]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [pursuant to the reply, 25 May 2004, Official Report, c. 1513 W]: The current policy on the uprating of the various elements of the expenditures table found at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/ad/asd4/Table3_Long_Term_Projections.xls is given in Table 1.

  These policies are applied when estimating the expenditure on these benefits for future years, using the latest HM Treasury medium term assumptions for the annual movements up to 2006–07. For long-term projections beyond 2006–07, assumptions as found in Table 2 are used.

  Table 1: Assumptions for the uprating of various pensioner benefits

  Benefit

  Uprating assumption

  Basic State Pension State Earnings-Related Pension/State Second Pension Pension Credit

  RPI with 2.5 per cent. underpin RPI /Earnings/Constant(depending on element)Guarantee Credit: Earnings Savings Credit: RPI with 2.5 per cent. underpin Additional Amounts: Rossi

  Winter Fuel Payments Over 75s TV licences Christmas Bonus Housing-related Benefits Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance

  Constant RPI + 1.5 per cent.Constant n/aRPI

  1260W

  Table 2: Long-term assumptions for various indices, as used in for long-term expenditure projections

  Index

  Long-term assumption (percentage)

  RPI

  2.58

  RPI with 2.5 per cent. underpin

  2.83

  Rossi

  2.33

  Earnings

  4.58

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2004,Official Report, column 1040W, on benefit payments (pensioners), whether the percentage figures include both pensioners in a couple in receipt of their benefits. [178874]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The percentage figures are based on the number of individuals aged 60 or over in a benefit unit, which includes both the benefit claimants and their partners.

  Pensions
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received on the future of pension centres; and if he will make a statement. [178433]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have received a number of representations on the future of pension centres.

  As we said at the time of the budget, we will come forward with more developed departmental plans following discussions with our unions and when the spending review process has been completed.

  Richard Burden
  ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of whether members of the Cheney, Warwick Group and Debenholt and Kalamazoo pension schemes will be considered for assistance under the provisions of the Pensions Bill in respect of employees who have lost pension benefits following the wind-up of occupational pension schemes. [179444]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to my previous reply on 7 June 2004 Official Report, column 82W.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) pension units, (b) pensioner couples and (c) single pensioners had incomes below the median pensioner income in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion this is of total pensioners in each case. [177907]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Median net income before housing costs for pensioner units (pensioner couples and single pensioners) is £189 a week. The following tables show the number of and proportion of pensioner couples and single pensioners with cash income above and below this amount. Because of the different needs of single and pensioner couples these results should not be taken to reflect their relative living standards.
  1261W
  Tables 1a and 1b show the number of single pensioners and pensioner couple with weekly net income above and below this level on a Before Housing Costs (BHC) and After Housing Costs (AHC) basis. Tables 2a and 2b show the proportion of each type of Pensioner Unit with income below the median level on a BHC and AHC basis.

  Table 1a: Numbers below median net income (BHC)

  Pensioner couples

  Single pensioners

  All pensioner unit

  Below median

  550,000

  2,850,000

  3,450,000

  Above median

  2,200,000

  1,250,000

  3,450,000

  Total

  2,750,000

  4,100,000

  6,850,000

  Table 1b: Numbers below median net income (AHC)

  Pensioner couples

  Single pensioners

  All pensioner unit

  Below median

  550,000

  2,850,000

  3,450,000

  Above median

  2,150,000

  1,250,000

  3,450,000

  Total

  2,750,000

  4,100,000

  6,850,000

  Table 2a: Proportions under median income (BHC)

  Proportion of each group with income below pensioners unit median (BHC) (Percentage)

  Pensioner couples

  20

  Single pensioner

  70

  All pensioner units

  50

  Table 2b: Proportions under median income (AHC)

  Proportion of each group with income below pensioners unit median (BHC) (Percentage)

  Pensioner couples

  21

  Single pensioner

  70

  All pensioner units

  50

  Notes:

  1. Statistics based on Family Resources Survey data 2002/3 for Great Britain.

  2. Results in tables 1a and 1b are rounded to the nearest 50,000—due to rounding rows and columns may not sum to totals. Results in tables 2a and 2b rounded to the nearest 1 per cent.

  3. The median net income of £189 for all pensioner units is based on unequivalised cash income.

  4. The results are based on the incomes of the pensioner units themselves, it excludes any income from any other members of the households they are living in.

  5. Single pensioners are defined as people above the State Pension Age, Pensioner Couples are defined as couples where the man is above State Pension Age. This is consistent with definitions used in the Pensioners' Incomes series.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimates he has made of the proportions of pension income coming from(a) state benefits and (b) funded pensions and other private services in each year since 1996–97 [177560]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The following table shows the proportion of pension income coming from state and private sources in each year from 1996–97 to 2002–03.
  1262W

  Proportion of state benefit and private pension and other private asset income

  Percentage

  State benefit

  Private pension and investment income

  1996–97

  58

  42

  1997–98

  57

  43

  1998–99

  56

  44

  1999–2000

  57

  43

  2000–01

  55

  45

  2001–02

  57

  43

  2002–03

  57

  43

  Notes:

  1. State benefit income corresponds to benefit income as defined in the Pensioners' Income Series. The three main sources of benefit income are state retirement pension, disability benefit and income related benefits.

  2. Private pension and other asset income corresponds to the sum of occupational pension income, personal pension income and investment income.

  3. Estimates are subject to sampling error therefore definitive conclusions can not be drawn from small year-on-year changes in proportions.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1996–97 to 2002–03.

  Sure Start Maternity Grant
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many mothers in Manchester Central have taken up the Sure Start maternity grant. [177743]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. member to the answer that I gave him on 27 May 2004,Official Report, column 1811W.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many senior citizens in Manchester Central have benefited from the winter fuel allowance since 1997. [177739]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of senior citizens in Manchester Central who received a Winter Fuel Payment in each year since 1999–2000 (including provisional figures for 2003–04) is in the table. Information relating to the 1997–98 and 1998–99 winters is not available.

  Year

  Payments

  1999–2000

  11,810

  2000–01

  12,560

  2001–02

  12,370

  2002–03

  12,295

  2003–04

  12,120

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Please note that the figures for 2003–2004 refer only to the main payment run i.e. they do not include the late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid via late payment runs (0.8 per cent. of all payments). However, since late payment runs are mainly in respect of non-system cases whose claim had not been received by Qualifying Week, they are heavily skewed towards men aged 60.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. samples.

  1263W

  Work Incentives (Homeless Households)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he plans to introduce to increase work incentives for statutorily homeless households placed in temporary accommodation. [178738]

  Mr. Pond
  Homeless people who are at a distinct disadvantage in the labour market, and who are claiming benefits, are entitled to early access to the range of help available from Jobcentre Plus, such as the New Deal. This includes those statutorily homeless households placed in temporary accommodation. In addition, Jobcentre Plus is also piloting specialised support for clients who have additional barriers to work including homelessness. These pilots are aimed at helping homeless people, alcohol misusers and offenders move into work. There are progress2work-Linkllp pilots based in 22 Jobcentre Plus Districts.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees in his Department have(a) signed a formal opt out from and (b) are exempt from the Working Time Directive; and how many employees in his 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. [178368]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Work and Pensions discourages staff from working excess hours as a matter of principle, as it runs contrary to the values which the Department holds on respecting people, and reflects its concerns as a reasonable employer for employees' work/life balance. All timesheets are locally checked on a monthly basis with responsibility devolved to individual line managers to monitor the situation.

  Where employees in the Department for Work and Pensions wish to opt out of the Working Time Directive, managers are instructed to explore all available alternatives such as redesigning jobs and allocating extra resources to avoid excess hours being worked. At the end of that process, employees in the Department who still wish to opt out are required to sign an opt out agreement. A register of such staff is maintained centrally.

  In 2003 there were 13 staff in the Department in pay bands up to Unified Grade 6 who had recorded such an opt out and eight in senior civil service pay bands.

  Statistics for the year ending May 2004 are in the process of being collated and figures should be available by the end of June.

  No employees are covered by sector specific provisions.

  Information is not held centrally on the numbers of staff who have recorded hours in excess of the maximum allowed under the Working Time Directive, including any accruing on a flexitime basis. Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  1264W

HEALTH

  Aldehydes
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the carcinogenic effects of aldehydes on humans. [177482]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has not commissioned research in this area.

  The committee on carcinogenicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment provided advice in 1995 on the carcinogenicity of acetaldehyde in the context of their review of the carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages. The committee noted that acetaldehyde has been shown to induce malignant nasal tumours in rats and laryngeal carcinomas in hamsters following inhalation exposure to high concentrations. They concluded that the observation of these tumours in animals was not relevant to human consumption of alcoholic drinks.

  The committee on the medical effects of air pollutants considered the can carcinogenicity of formaldehyde when drawing up a statement on the effects on health of aldehydes in ambient air in 2000. They concluded that although formaldehyde is a carcinogen in rats, the risks to humans associated with exposure to ambient concentrations, if any, is extremely small.

  Allergies
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients by region were referred for allergies treatment in the latest year for which figures are available, broken down by region. [179001]

  Dr. Ladyman
  That information is not collected centrally. However, the table shows the count of finished admission episodes by strategic health authority in England with allergy as the primary cause for 2002–03.

  Primary diagnosis or external cause of admission related to an allergy condition1; count of finished admission episodes by strategic health authority (SHA) of treatment; national health service hospitals, England 2002–03

  SHA of residence

  Total episodes

  Q01

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire HA

  3,052

  Q02

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire HA

  1,400

  Q03

  Essex HA

  1,265

  Q04

  North West London HA

  992

  Q05

  North Central London HA

  953

  Q06

  North East London HA

  1,104

  Q07

  South East London HA

  910

  Q08

  South West London HA

  827

  Q09

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear HA

  1,720

  Q10

  County Durham and Tees Valley HA

  1,692

  Q11

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire HA

  1,504

  Q12

  West Yorkshire HA

  1,722

  Q13

  Cumbria and Lancashire HA

  2,432

  Q14

  Greater Manchester HA

  3,295

  Q15

  Cheshire and Merseyside ha

  3,209

  Q16

  Thames Valley HA

  1,627

  Q17

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight HA

  2,052

  Q18

  Kent and Medway HA

  1,384

  Q19

  Surrey and Sussex HA

  2,830

  Q20

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire HA

  2,877

  Q21

  South West Peninsula HA

  2,836

  Q22

  Dorset and Somerset HA

  2,214

  Q23

  South Yorkshire HA

  1,531

  1265W

  Primary diagnosis or external cause of admission related to an allergy condition1; count of finished admission episodes by strategic health authority (SHA) of treatment; national health service hospitals, England 2002–03

  SHA of residence

  Total episodes

  Q24

  Trent HA

  4,017

  Q25

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland HA

  1,431

  Q26

  Shropshire and Staffordshire HA

  1,021

  Q27

  Birmingham and the Black Country HA

  2,390

  Q28

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire HA

  1,085

  U

  England—not otherwise specified

  24

  W

  Wales

  162

  S

  Scotland

  56

  X

  Foreign (including Isle of Man and Channel Islands)

  100

  Z

  Northern Ireland

  10

  Y

  Unknown

  280

  England

  NHS hospitals

  54,004

  1Primary (ICD-10) Diagnosis Codes

  T78.0 Anaphylactic shock due to adverse food reaction

  T78. 1 Other adverse food reactions, nec

  T78.2 Anaphylactic shock, unspecified

  T78.4 Allergy, unspecified

  T80.5 Anaphylactic shock due to serum

  T80.6 Other serum reactions

  T88.6 Anaphylactic shock due to adverse effect of correct drug or medicament properly administered

  T88.7 Unspecified adverse effect of drug and medicament

  J30.1 Allergic rhinitis due to pollen (hayfever)

  J30.2 Other seasonal allergic rhinitis

  J30.3 Other allergic rhinitis

  J30.4 Allergic rhinitis unspecified

  J45.0 Predominantly allergic asthma

  K52.2 Allergic dietetic gastroenteritis and colitis

  L23.Allergic contact dermatitis

  External cause (Secondary ICD-10) codes

  Y40–Y59 Drugs, medicaments and biological substances causing adverse effects in therapeutic use

  Notes:

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

  2. The cause code is a supplementary code that indicates the nature of any external cause of injury, poisoning or other adverse effects.

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

  4. Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital episode statistics Department of Health.

  Anti-depressants
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will encourage manufacturers of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related drugs now under review to introduce dosage forms of tablets no stronger than one-quarter of the present recommended dose. [178294]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A number of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are available in liquid formulations to enable flexible titration of the dose. Any advice to manufacturers about the need for new dosage strengths or forms for the SSRIs will be decided on the outcome of the review of the Committee on Safety of Medicines' expert working group.
  1266W
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the current review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related anti-depressants will examine the risks of drug-induced suicidal behaviour for elderly users; [178296]

  (2) what conclusion the current review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related antidepressants has reached on whether, irrespective of presumed benefits, the risks of drug-induced suicidal behaviour are different for young adults than for children; [178297]

  (3) whether the current review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related anti-depressants will examine the risks of drug-induced suicidal behaviour in all representative age groups; [178298]

  (4) what assessment he has made of whether the risk of suicidal behaviour induced by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related drugs is an age-related adverse effect. [178299]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines' (CSM) expert working group on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) advised in December 2003 that paroxetine, venlafaxine, sertraline, citalopram and escitalopram should not be used in children and young people under 18 years because of a lack of benefit in this patient population and an increased risk of adverse events including suicidal behaviour.

  The recently completed Europe-wide review of the safety of paroxetine, led by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, has delivered advice on the need for careful monitoring during paroxetine treatment of patients at risk of suicidal behaviour, including those with a history of suicidal behaviour and young adults.

  The expert working group has yet to complete its review of all the evidence relating to a possible increased risk of suicidal behaviour associated with SSRIs. It includes among its membership clinical expertise in the treatment of depression in all age groups including the elderly.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the relationship between obesity and anti-depressant drug consumption. [178302]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As with all medicines, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) continually monitor the safety of antidepressants. Both weight loss and weight gain have been reported in association with most selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and this is reflected in the product information for prescribers and patients. The MHRA and CSM are not aware of evidence linking SSRIs or other antidepressants specifically with obesity.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and related anti-depressants will examine the risks of drug-induced suicidal behaviour(a) for elderly users and (b) in all age groups; and what assessment it has made of the level of risk of drug-induced suicidal behaviour for young adults; [178333]
  1267W
  (2) what research he has conducted on whether the risk of suicidal behaviour induced by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and related drugs is an age-related adverse effect. [178334]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines' (CSM) expert working group on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) advised in December 2003 that paroxetine, venlafaxine, sertraline, citalopram and escitalopram should not be used in children and young people under 18 years because of a lack of benefit in this patient population and an increased risk of adverse events including suicidal behaviour.

  The recently completed Europe-wide review of the safety of paroxetine, led by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, has delivered advice on the need for careful monitoring during paroxetine treatment of patients at risk of suicidal behaviour, including those with a history of suicidal behaviour and young adults.

  The expert working group has yet to complete its review of all the evidence relating to a possible increased risk of suicidal behaviour associated with SSRIs. It includes among its membership clinical expertise in the treatment of depression in all age groups including the elderly.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess possible links between anti-depressant drug consumption and obesity. [178440]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Newport West (Mr Paul Flynn), above.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to encourage manufacturers of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related drugs now under review to introduce dosage forms of tablets no stronger than one-quarter of the present recommended dose. [178521]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), above.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether research indicates that the risk of suicidal behaviour induced by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related drugs is an age-related adverse effect; [178564]

  (2) whether the current review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related anti-depressants will examine the risks of drug-induced suicidal behaviour for elderly users; [178569]

  (3) what conclusion the current review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related antidepressants has reached on whether, irrespective of presumed benefits, the risks of drug-induced suicidal behaviour are different for young adults than for children; [178570]

  (4) whether the current review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related anti-depressants will examine the risks of drug-induced suicidal behaviour in all representative age groups. [178571]
  1268W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines' (CSM) expert working group on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) advised in December 2003 that paroxetine, venlafaxine, sertraline, citalopram and escitalopram should not be used in children and young people under 18 years because of a lack of benefit in this patient population and an increased risk of adverse events including suicidal behaviour.

  The recently completed Europe-wide review of the safety of paroxetine, led by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, has delivered advice on the need for careful monitoring during paroxetine treatment of patients at risk of suicidal behaviour, including those with a history of suicidal behaviour and young adults.

  The expert working group has yet to complete its review of all the evidence relating to a possible increased risk of suicidal behaviour associated with SSRIs. It includes among its membership clinical expertise in the treatment of depression in all age groups including the elderly.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will encourage manufacturers of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and related drugs now under review to introduce dosage forms of tablets no stronger than one-quarter of the present recommended dose. [178341]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), above.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate a possible relationship between obesity and anti-depressant drug consumption. [178342]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), above.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the manufacturers of Seroxat were permitted to market that product in a 30mg tablet size. [178343]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Paroxetine is licensed in the dose range 10–60 milligrams (mg.), depending on the indication. The recommended starting dose for all indications is 20 mg. and this was the subject of a reminder to prescribers in March 2004. Clinical experience is that some patients not responding to the recommended dose may benefit from having their dose increased. Changes in dosage should be made progressively according to individual response both at the beginning of treatment and at the end of treatment. The 30mg. tablet allows for flexibility in titration within the licensed dose range.

  Blackwater Valley and Hart PCT
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Blackwater Valley and Hart Primary Care Trust. [177259]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has responsibility for strategic planning of local health
  1269W
  services. The SHA is working in partnership with local NHS organisations to consider how best the local NHS can focus the effort and increase the effectiveness of its leaders. As part of this work, it has been proposed at a local level that single integrated senior management teams will be established across clusters or pairs of primary care trusts (PCTs), allied to the on-going development of lead commissioning arrangements. I understand that this work will not affect the statutory duties of Blackwater Valley and Hart PCT and that the PCT will retain its focus on improving the health and well being of people within the local area.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nursing homes and (b) residential homes were found to be (i) in full compliance, (ii) in part compliance and (iii) not in compliance with the infection control standards set out in the national minimum standards for (A) older peoples' homes, (B) adult homes and (C) children's homes in the last year for which figures are available. [172736]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Minimum Standards do not have a standard exclusively for infection control. For older people and adults 18 to 65 the standards cover infection and hygiene control. For children's homes, the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) considers infection and hygiene control under standard 26 which covers health, safety and security.

  The CSCI uses a four point marking system for assessing compliance with National Minimum Standards:

  1= standard not met

  2= standard almost met

  3= standard met

  4= standard exceeded

  I understand from the Chair of the CSCI that the figures for 2003–04 were as shown in the table.

  Year 2 (2003–04)

  Score

  Establishment category

  1

  2

  3

  4

  Total

  Older people's homes—Standard 26: Hygiene and infection control

  Nursing

  Count

  132

  736

  1,570

  75

  2,513

  Percentage

  5.3

  29.3

  62.5

  3.0

  100.0

  Others

  Count

  256

  1,625

  3,504

  161

  5,546

  Percentage

  4.6

  29.3

  63.2

  2.9

  100.0

  Total

  388

  2,361

  5,074

  236

  8,059

  Percentage

  4.8

  29.3

  63.0

  2.9

  100.0

  Younger adult's—standard 30: Hygiene

  Nursing

  Count

  11

  82

  204

  7

  304

  Percentage

  3.6

  27.0

  67.1

  2.3

  100.0

  Others

  Count

  145

  1,138

  3,457

  86

  4,826

  Percentage

  3.0

  23.6

  71.6

  1.8

  100.0

  Total

  156

  1,220

  3,661

  93

  5,130

  Percentage

  3.0

  23.8

  71.4

  1.8

  100.0

  Children's homes—Standard 26: Health/safety and security

  Count

  143

  520

  555

  17

  1,235

  Percentage

  11.6

  42.1

  44.9

  1.4

  100.0

  1270W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of cancer research is targeted at the possible carcinogenic effects of chemicals in the environment; and how much funding has been spent on such research in each of the last five years. [177481]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not available. However, the strategic analysis the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) published in October 2002 provides an overview of the £257 million a year of cancer research in the United Kingdom that is directly funded by the NCRI's 15 partner organisations. The analysis shows that investment in research into the causes of cancer attracted 16 per cent., of the total.

  The international cancer research portfolio database at www.cancerportfolio.org contains details of projects supported by cancer research funding organisations in the UK and the United States. Data submitted by the NCRI includes the research portfolios of its 15 partners, the largest Government and charitable funders of cancer research in the UK. The database can be searched by type of cancer, area of research, and funding organisation.

  Crime Reduction Partnerships
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on when primary care trusts in England will have a statutory obligation, under the Police Reform Act 2002, to become responsible authorities with regard to crime reduction partnerships. [177614]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Primary care trusts in England became statutory partners under the Police Reform Act 2002 as responsible authorities with regard to crime reduction partnerships from 30 April 2004.

  Dentistry
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting time is for dental treatment in each of the prisons in Sussex. [178489]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The most recent returns made to the Department by the two prisons in Sussex indicate that a prisoner at Her Majesty's Prison (HMP) Ford who asked on 31 March 2004 to see a dentist would have had to wait one day for an urgent appointment and 30 days for a routine appointment. The corresponding figures for HMP Lewes were six and 30 days respectively.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have(a) started and (b) ceased to take NHS work for adults in the Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust area in each of the last seven years. [178306]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is shown in the table. Dentists are counted in this reply as doing adult national health service dental work in a financial year if they receive some payment for work on adults in that year.
  1271W

  General dental practitioners starting or ceasing NHS adult work in Adur Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust area

  Starting

  Ceasing1

  1996–97

  —

  17

  1997–98

  8

  6

  1998–99

  13

  11

  1999–2000

  15

  13

  2000–01

  23

  8

  2001–02

  20

  18

  2002–03

  13

  19

  2003–04

  26

  —

  1Numbers ceasing in 2003–04 cannot be counted until payment for 2004–05 is available.

  Notes:

  1. A dentist is counted as starting in a financial year if payment is received in that year and if no payment is received in the previous year.

  2. Dentists are counted as ceasing work, if they receive no payment in a financial year but receive payment in the previous financial year. Dentists ceasing are counted in the last year of payment.

  3. The figures cover dentists working in the general dental service or personal dental service.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are not registered with a NHS dentist in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [177682]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  39,000 children aged under 18 were registered with a general dental service practice in the Shropshire County Primary Care Trust (PCT) area on 31 March 2004.

  Some of the children registered will be resident outside the PCT area. Similarly, some children from the area will be registered with dentists who practice outside the area.

  The population estimate for Shropshire County PCT is 61,000 children under the age of 18. The difference between the population estimate and registration number is 22,000. However, it should be noted that registrations lapse if patients do not return to their dentist within 15 months. Registrations will exclude patients who have not been to their general dental service (CDS) dentist within the past 15 months and patients who receive dental treatment from other national health service dental services. It should also be noted that the figures do not include patients attending the dental access centres which opened during the period and whose patients are not registered.

  NHS dental services are also provided by the community dental service, personal dental service, salaried service of the CDS and the hospital dental service. These services do not require the patient to be registered with a dentist before treatment.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population he estimates have mercury-based amalgam fillings; and what quantity of mercury this represents. [179455]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 18 June 2004]: The adult dental health survey, which covered those aged 16 years and over in the United Kingdom in 1988, reported that 88 per cent. of dentate adults had at least one amalgam filled surface. This represents about 77 per
  1272W
  cent. of all adults (dentate and edentate) aged 16 and over. It is estimated that an amalgam filling comprises between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. mercury.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions(a) he and (b) senior civil servants at the Department have had with (i) the Treasury and (ii) the Department for Education and Skills regarding the NHS dental workforce review. [178260]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Discussions have taken place in the last month between officials at the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health and Her Majesty's Treasury about increasing dental workforce capacity.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the numbers of elective admissions from 1998–99 to 2001–02 inclusive given in Figure 7.1 of the Departmental Annual Report 2004 differ from those reported in the 2003 annual report. [171545]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The reports reflect how activity is changing as the national health service modernises. Figures for elective admissions are re-based to account for the latest definitions and improvements in hospital recording practices. This re-basing enables like with like comparisons to be made across the years.

  In figure 7.1 of the 2004 departmental annual report, elective admissions figures for earlier years have been re-based to be directly comparable with the 2002–03 activity figures. Similarly, in the 2003 report, figures for earlier years were directly comparable to the 2001–02 activity figures.

  Departmental Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total amount paid by his Department to employment agencies for the supply of temporary staff was in financial year 2003–04. [178919]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total amount paid by the Department for contract staff and employment agencies in the financial year 2003–04 was £15,184,000. The amount paid to employment agencies for the supply of temporary staff is not kept separately.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to introduce screening for type two diabetes; and if he will make a statement. [179158]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The United Kingdom National Screening Committee has been asked to advise on the most effective policy for screening for Type 2 diabetes. It will report to the Department in 2005.

  Drug Rehabilitation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on drug rehabilitation in Gloucestershire in each of the last three years; and how much was allocated to local drug action teams. [178465]
  1273W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The pooled drug treatment budget allocation for Gloucestershire this year is £2,070,000.

  Information is not collected centrally on total expenditure on drug rehabilitation.

  Expenditure on drug action teams by primary care trust (PCT) is collected and is shown in the table.

  2002–03

  PCT

  £000

  South Gloucestershire

  512

  Cheltenham and Tewkesbury

  82

  West Gloucestershire

  0

  Cotswold and Vale

  0

  Total

  594

  Sources:

  Audited summarisation schedules of the Above PCTs 2002–03.

  Emergency Readmissions
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has routinely to publish rates of emergency readmissions to hospital within 28 days of discharge for patients aged 75 years or over. [179591]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We have no plans to routinely publish this information.

  Endometriosis
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been put in place to raise awareness of endometriosis amongst health professionals. [177655]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We are determined to improve the awareness of endometriosis and are providing funding to the National Endometriosis Society (NES) and the Endometriosis SHE (Simply Holistic Endometriosis) Trust through the Section 64 general grants scheme to help achieve this. We have provided £39,000 to NES to produce two information leaflets. One leaflet for women to encourage those with symptoms to discuss with their general practitioner (GP) and another for GPs to highlight the symptoms and refer women for investigation and treatment.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what factors underlay the decision to indemnify water companies from liabilities arising from water fluoridation; [178615]

  (2) to what extent indemnity applies to the NHS authorities that may require private water companies to fluoridate their water supply. [178678]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Fluoridation is a public health intervention which water companies implement on behalf of strategic health authorities. The Water Fluoridation Act (1985) first made provision for the Secretary of State for Health to indemnify water undertakers because of the importance attached to the benefits fluoridation brings to dental health. Although there is no evidence of risks to health from fluoridation, it has been the policy of successive governments that the 1274W
  burden of any liabilities should be borne by the Crown, rather than by health authorities or the suppliers of the fluoridated water.

  Food Supplements Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide support to the legal challenge mounted by the Health Food Manufacturers Association and the National Association of Health Stores to the food supplements directive. [176953]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) on 3 March 2004,Official Report, columns 1023–24W.

  Foundation Trust Status
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts are developing, but have not yet submitted, preliminary applications for the establishment of NHS foundation trusts. [179593]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not yet invited preliminary applications for the next wave of national health service foundation trusts (NHSFTs). An independent review of NHSFTs is to be undertaken by the Healthcare Commission. We expect to make an announcement about the timing of the review and its terms of reference shortly, together with an announcement about the timing of the next cohort of NHSFT applications as part of wave two.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of preliminary applications for NHS foundation trust status have been successful in passing through to the preparatory phase. [179594]

  Mr. Hutton
  Of the 51 eligible national health service acute and specialist trusts, 32 submitted preliminary applications for NHS foundation trust status in February 2003 as part of wave one. Of these, three trusts later chose to defer from wave one. In May 2003, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, invited 29 trusts to begin their preparatory application for his approval later that year.

  Of the 38 eligible NHS trusts, 32 submitted preliminary applications in September 2003 as part of wave 1A. In November 2003, all 32 trusts were invited to begin their preparatory application. The Department has not yet invited preliminary applications for wave two.

  Free Eye Tests (Manchester, Central)
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many residents in Manchester Central aged over 60 years have benefited from the abolition of charges for eye tests; [179216]

  (2) how many senior citizens in Manchester Central have access to free eye tests. [179217]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data for the number of sight tests by constituency or by the number of senior citizens is not collected centrally.
  1275W
  The total number of national health service sight tests paid for by the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority in 2002–03 for patients in the aged 60 and over category was 189,900. The total number eligible for a free sight test for those aged 60 and over was 493,100. Sight tests cannot be equated to the numbers of patients.

  Health Services (Rochdale)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the numbers of NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses in Rochdale parliamentary constituency in each of the last seven years. [178512]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Imaging Tests
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many imaging and radiodiagnostics examinations and tests were carried out in the NHS(a) without intervention and (b) with intervention (i) in total, (ii) in imaging departments and (iii) in other departments in each year since 1997, broken down by (A) CT, (B) MRI, (C) obstetric ultrasound, (D) non-obstetric ultrasound, (E) radioisotopes, (F) radiographs with no fluoroscopy and (G) fluoroscopy. [176654]

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

  Mental Health
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government's targets are on the provision of single sex accommodation for mental health inpatients; and how many mental health trusts meet those targets. [178747]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has set three objectives to support the delivery of single-sex accommodation, designed to deliver single-sex sleeping accommodation, segregated bathroom and washing facilities and safe facilities for the mentally ill. The objectives apply to all national health service organisations providing inpatient accommodation.

  The Department set a target for the achievement of each of these objectives in 95 per cent. of NHS trusts by December 2002. I refer the hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement made on 14 January 2003, Official Report, column 24WS.

  Compliance with the objectives is measured at a national level rather than by trust type, as mental health services are not provided exclusively by mental health trusts. Levels of compliance have continued to rise. By December 2003:
  99 per cent. of all NHS trusts provided single-sex sleeping accommodation for planned admissions and have robust operational policies in place to protect patients' privacy and dignity;
  99 per cent. of all NHS trusts met the additional criteria set to ensure the safety of patients who are mentally ill; and
  97 per cent. of all NHS trusts provided properly segregated bathroom and toilet facilities for men and women.
  1276W
  The small number of NHS trusts which have yet to achieve the objectives have hospital development works under way, whose completion will bring them to the required standard.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the safe facilities for patients in hospitals who are mentally ill which are intended to safeguard patients' privacy and dignity as set out in Safety, Policy and Dignity in mental health units (DoH 2000). [178748]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 1997, the Department set three objectives to support the delivery of single-sex accommodation, designed to deliver single-sex sleeping accommodation, segregated bathroom and washing facilities and safe facilities for the mentally ill. The objectives apply to all national health service organisations providing inpatient accommodation.

  "Safety, privacy and dignity in mental health units" was published in 2000 to reinforce earlier guidance on the delivery of the Department's objectives. It should be read in conjunction with "Modernising Mental Health Services" and the national service framework for mental health. It is for NHS trusts to determine how best to ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of patients, in view of differing local circumstances.

  By December 2003, 99 per cent. of all NHS trusts had met the objective to provide safe facilities for patients in hospitals who are mentally ill. Compliance with the standard is measured at a national level rather than by trust type, as mental health services are not provided exclusively by mental health trusts.

  The small number of NHS trusts who have yet to achieve the objective have hospital development works under way, whose completion will bring them to the required standard.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how mental health patients' experience of being treated in hospital is used to inform(a) local and (b) national policies on the provision of facilities which ensure good standards of privacy and dignity. [178751]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department considers the issue of patients' privacy and dignity to be of paramount importance.

  Every national health service hospital is routinely inspected by patient environment action teams, which were first established in 2000 to help drive up standards of cleanliness and tidiness across the NHS. As part of their visit, these teams also review patient privacy and dignity to ensure that appropriate standards are maintained. The Healthcare Commission also assess this aspect of patient care during the completion of their clinical governance reviews.

  It is for NHS trusts to determine what use is made at a local level of the feedback from these inspection processes. At a national level, feedback from patients and carers is used in the review and revision of guidance on the achievement of single-sex accommodation to ensure that hospitals are providing an environment which meets patients' needs and expectations.
  1277W
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of funding for mental health services is for the current financial year; and how much it was in 1997–98. [177742]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is not possible to estimate the level of funding for mental health services in 1997–98.

  The NHS Plan announced an extra annual investment of over £300 million by 2003–04 to fast-forward the national service framework for mental health.

  For the latest round of allocations for 2003–04 to 2005–06, none of the growth money has been identified for specific purposes.

  It is for primary care trusts in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Methylsulfonylmethane
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the benefits of methylsulfonylmethane for arthritis symptoms. [179113]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Food Standards Agency has not made any assessment of the benefits of methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) for arthritis symptoms.

  In the United Kingdom, MSM is sold in dietary supplements marketed under food law. Food supplements, like other foods, are not required to demonstrate their efficacy before marketing, nor are they subject to prior approval unless they are genetically modified or novel as defined in Regulation (EC) 258/97 on novel foods and novel food ingredients.

  Food supplements are, however, subject to the general provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Food Labelling Regulations 1996. The Food Safety Act makes it an offence to sell food that is falsely or misleadingly described or labelled. The Food Labelling Regulations prohibit any food, including a food supplement. from making a claim that it has the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease or any reference, on the label, to such a property.

  MRSA
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the breakdown of expenditure on MRSA research proposed by the Department. [177990]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department last year commissioned a £2.5 million strategic programme of research aimed at improving scientific understanding of antimicrobial resistance. £590,000 of that total sum will be spent on projects that will provide useful information relating to best practice in preventing methicillinresistant Straphylococcus aureus.

  Myeloma
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the treatment and management of myeloma after diagnosis is effective; [178824]
  1278W
  (2) what steps are being taken to ensure equity of access to treatment and care for myeloma throughout the UK, with particular reference to new drugs and techniques that are not National Institute for Clinical Excellence approved. [178826]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Where a drug or technology has not been appraised or is awaiting appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), it will be for the clinicians and the funding authorities concerned to decide, in consultation with patients, whether that treatment is appropriate for an individual patient.

  In 2003, NICE published "Improving Outcomes in Haematological Cancers". The guidance makes recommendations to the national health service on the organisation of cancer services for people with haematological cancer, including myeloma, in England and Wales. The recommendations set out in the guidance will be translated into a series of measures against which cancer networks will be peer reviewed. This will provide a mechanism to ensure the guidance is being implemented.

  The Department has also issued general practitioner cancer referral guidelines to assist GPs in determining those patients who need to be referred urgently to see a specialist within two weeks. The guidance addresses myeloma. The referral guidelines are currently being reviewed by NICE and the updated guidelines are due to be published in March 2005.

  In addition, myeloma patients will also benefit from the measures set out in the NHS cancer plan to improve services across the board for cancer patients.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent assessment he has made of whether delays are occurring in the diagnosis of myeloma; [178825]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the two-week wait rule on the management of suspected myeloma. [178830]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A two-week outpatient waiting time standard was introduced for urgently referred cases of suspected haematological cancers from December 2000. In the last quarter, January to March 2004, 99 per cent. of urgently referred patients with suspected haematological cancer were seen within two weeks of urgent referral. We have issued general practitioner cancer referral guidelines to assist GPs in determining those patients who need to be referred urgently to see a specialist within two weeks, those patients that can be referred for a routine appointment and those who can be safely watched at a primary care level. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently reviewing the referral guidelines.

  The referral guidelines should be used to agree local referral criteria and referral pathways. All trusts have been encouraged to undertake local audit to assess the impact of the two-week wait on local services and to enable the appropriateness of urgent and routine referrals against the guidelines to be fed back to referring GPs.
  1279W
  Data is not collected centrally on the time taken to reach a diagnosis of myeloma. No assessment has been made nationally on whether there are delays in diagnosis.

  Nappies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Department has received a written request from the Nappy Alliance seeking a meeting to discuss policy and practice in the use of nappies within NHS facilities. [178246]

  Dr. Ladyman
  No written request has been received from the Nappy Alliance seeking a meeting to discuss policy and practice in the use of nappies within National Health Service facilities.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability of information concerning reusable nappies in maternity units. [178258]

  Dr. Ladyman
  No assessment has been made centrally of the availability of information concerning reusable nappies in maternity units. We ensure that women are given information on both disposable and reusable nappies in the Pregnancy Book and Birth to Five so that they can make an informed choice.

  New National Network
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the New National Network will be extended to(a) all sites offering services to NHS patients, including independent health providers and (b) community pharmacies. [173846]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is planned that over time, all organisations delivering national health service services to patients will have access to NHS care record services and the NHS national network, including independent health providers and community pharmacies.

  The initial implementation of the national network in 2004–05 will be to NHS trusts and general practitioner practices, all of which have existing NHSnet connections. The provision of services under the new national network to independent health providers and community pharmacies will take place in the later phases. This will be subject to an assessment of the requirements for connectivity and ensuring compliance with appropriate standards to protect the confidentiality, security and consistency of patient data.

  NHS Patients (Privacy and Dignity)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the standard for segregated washing and toilet facilities in the NHS was when the Patients' Charter was first published; what the standard is now; and how many mental health trusts have met this standard. [178749]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Patient's Charter, published in 1995, states that:"In all cases, you can expect single sex washing and toilet facilities".
  1280W
  In 1997, the Department set three objectives to support the delivery of single-sex accommodation, designed to deliver single-sex sleeping accommodation, segregated bathroom and washing facilities and safe facilities for the mentally ill. The objectives apply to all National Health Service organisations providing inpatient accommodation.

  The objective in relation to bathroom and washing facilities requires trusts to:
  "achieve fully the Patient's Charter standard for segregated washing and toilet facilities across the NHS".

  By December 2003, 97 per cent. of all NHS trusts had met this standard. Compliance with the standard is measured at a national level rather than by trust type as mental health services are not provided exclusively by mental health trusts.

  The small number of NHS trusts who have yet to achieve the objective have hospital development works underway, whose completion will bring them to the required standard.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the organisational arrangements which(a) NHS trusts and (b) mental health trusts are expected to have in place to ensure good standards of privacy and dignity for patients; and how many mental health trusts have these arrangements in place. [178750]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 1997, the Department set three objectives to support the delivery of single-sex accommodation, designed to deliver single-sex sleeping accommodation, segregated bathroom and washing facilities and safe facilities for the mentally ill. The objectives apply to all national health service organisations providing in-patient accommodation.

  The organisational arrangements which NHS trusts are expected to have in place were published in August 1998 in the form of an audit checklist. The audit checklist provides a framework which can be adapted to suit the needs of each individual trust according to their particular circumstances. The audit checklist is contained in "Enhancing privacy and dignity: achieving single sex accommodation", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  By December 2003, 99 per cent., of all NHS trusts had met the objective to ensure that appropriate organisational arrangements are in place to ensure good standards of privacy and dignity for hospital patients. Compliance with the standard is measured at a national level rather than by trust type as mental health services are not provided exclusively by mental health trusts.

  The small number of NHS trusts who have yet to achieve the objective have hospital development works under way, whose completion will bring them to the required standard.

  NHS Treatment Statistics
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished consultant episodes in NHS hospitals in England there were for each year from 1991 to 2003. [178887]
  1281W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: The table shows finished consultant episodes (FCEs) from national health service hospitals in England. Data are from 1990–91 to 2002–03.

  £ millions

  Financial Year

  FCEs

  1990–91

  8.81

  1991–92

  9.38

  1992–93

  9.68

  1993–94

  10.14

  1994–95

  10.55

  1995–96

  11.07

  1996–97

  11.14

  1997–98

  11.54

  1998–99

  12.11

  1999–2000

  12.30

  2000–01

  12.47

  2001–02

  12.35

  2002–03

  12.76

  Notes:

  1. Figures are grossed for coverage, except for 2001–02 and 2002–03, which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  2. A FCE is defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that the figures do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the year.

  3. The above figures include inpatient data for both ordinary admissions and day cases.

  Obesity-related Sleep Apnoea
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished consultant episodes to treat obesity-related sleep apnoea there were in each year since 1996; and if he will make a statement. [178878]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The table as follows gives information on the number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs) for sleep related apnoea from the financial year 1996–97 onwards.

  Obesity related sleep apnoea
  ICD 10 primary diagnosis G47.3 (sleep apnoea) with secondary mention E66 (obesity)
  FCEs National Health Service hospitals in England. 1996–97 to 2002–03

  Number

  1996–97

  507

  1997–98

  577

  1998–99

  594

  1999–2000

  529

  2000–2001

  703

  2001–2002

  707

  2002–2003

  1,102

  Notes:

  Diagnosis primary diagnosis)

  The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (7 prior to 2002–03) diagnosis field in the hospital episode statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  FCE

  A FCE is defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that the figures do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the year.

  Grossing

  Figures are grossed for coverage, except for 2001–02 and 2002–03 which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital episode statistics (HES) Department of Health
  1282W
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) and other local stakeholders are responsible for assessing the health needs of their populations, including those with sleep disorders, and commissioning services to meet those needs. Sleep services therefore, should be provided as part of the overall service package that PCTs and other local stakeholders develop for their local populations.

  Orlistat
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions of orlistat were dispensed in(a) England and (b) each strategic health authority in each year since 1996. [177966]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Number of prescription items of Orlistat that have been prescribed in GP practices in England and dispensed in the community.

  Year

  (thousands)

  1999

  127.2

  2000

  155.7

  2001

  414.9

  2002

  540.2

  2003

  484.2

  Strategic health authority (SHA)

  SHA in which Orlistat prescribed

  2002

  2003

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  17.7

  17.0

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  15.4

  13.2

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  24.1

  23.1

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  31.1

  28.0

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  16.2

  15.3

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  24.3

  21.1

  Essex

  13.6

  10.8

  Greater Manchester

  37.3

  36.7

  Hampshire and Isle Of Wight

  17.1

  16.1

  Kent and Medway

  20.0

  17.6

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  15.8

  13.9

  North and East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire

  20.1

  17.2

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  19.6

  18.6

  North Central London

  10.4

  10.1

  North East London

  13.9

  11.9

  North West London

  14.9

  12.8

  Northumberland Tyne and Wear

  20.2

  18.9

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  19.4

  15.5

  Somerset and Dorset

  7.2

  5.9

  South East London

  16.1

  14.3

  South West London

  10.6

  9.8

  South West Peninsula

  15.4

  11.8

  South Yorkshire

  18.6

  18.3

  Surrey and Sussex

  25.1

  21.1

  Thames Valley

  16.3

  14.8

  Trent

  33.9

  29.1

  West Midlands South

  18.0

  15.8

  West Yorkshire

  27.9

  25.6

  England Total

  540.2

  484.2

  Notes:

  1. This information was obtained from the prescribing analysis and cost (PACT) system. which covers prescriptions prescribed by GP practices in England and dispensed in the community. Prescriptions written in England but dispensed outside England are included. Prescriptions written within a GP practice but dispensed outside the SHA will be included in the SHA in which the GP practice is based. Prescriptions written in hospitals/clinics that are dispensed in the community, prescriptions dispensed in hospitals and private prescriptions are not included in PACT data.
  1283W
  2. Prescriptions are written on a prescription form. Each single item written on the form is counted as a prescription item.

  3. Orlistat is defined in the British National Formulary (BNF) section 4.5 "Drugs used in the treatment of obesity".

  4. Data in the table are presented in thousands.

  5. The sum of all SHAs does noi: equal the total England figure, because the total England figure includes unidentified doctors (those it is not possible for the Prescription Pricing Authority to allocate to a primary care trust).

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to prevent contra-indication prescription errors when electronic prescriptions are introduced. [176747]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is growing United Kingdom and international evidence that appropriate use of information technology can help significantly reduce human error in the use of paper records. Securing this important benefit is one of the key objectives of the national health service national programme for IT (NPfIT).

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): medical staff within the clinical radiology specialty by grade—England at 30 September

  numbers (headcount)

  All staff

  Consultant

  Non-consultant career grade

  Doctors in training

  Hospital practitioner/Clinical assistant

  Other community health service staff

  1997

  2,014

  1,442

  12

  521

  39

  —

  1998

  2,075

  1,481

  15

  541

  38

  —

  1999

  2,164

  1,507

  21

  605

  31

  —

  2000

  2,303

  1,585

  28

  655

  35

  —

  2001

  2,454

  1,645

  33

  743

  32

  1

  2002

  2,538

  1,702

  29

  774

  32

  1

  2003

  2,693

  1,810

  38

  818

  27

  —

  Whole-time equivalents

  All staff

  Consultant

  Non-consultant career grade

  Doctors in training

  Hospital practitioner/Clinical assistant

  Other community health service staff

  1997

  1,895

  1,364

  8

  507

  16

  —

  1998

  1,935

  1,387

  11

  524

  13

  —

  1999

  2,028

  1,414

  16

  587

  10

  —

  2000

  2,134

  1,460

  21

  639

  13

  —

  2001

  2,256

  1,492

  22

  729

  11

  1

  2002

  2,371

  1,582

  22

  754

  11

  1

  2003

  2,505

  1,669

  28

  799

  9

  —

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  The number of headcount and whole-time equivalent staff in clinical radiology has increased by 34 per cent. and 32 per cent. respectively since September 1997.

  Retinal Screening
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of diabetes sufferers received annual retinal screening in the latest year for which figures are available. [179111]
  1284W
  Electronic prescribing will be a service provided as part of the NHS care records service (CRS) that is being implemented through the NPflT. Decision support systems that include functionality to warn clinicians of possible contra-indications when prescribing are already in use in many parts of the NHS, but will be provided to all prescribing clinicians through the NHS CRS.

  NHS pharmacists also use their professional expertise to warn patients and their fellow clinicians of possible contraindications when dispensing drugs and medicines. The introduction of electronic prescribing within the NPflT will not change this important role.

  Radiographers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) headcount and (b) whole-time equivalent medical staff were employed by the NHS in clinical radiology (i) in total and (ii) broken down by (A) consultant, (B) non-consultant grade, (C) doctors in training and (D) hospital practitioner/clinical assistant in each year since 1997. [176752]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The latest figures show that, in 2003–04, 53 per cent. of those people identified with diabetes in England received screening for the early detection, and treatment where necessary, of diabetic retinopathy.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees in his Department have(a) signed a formal opt out from and (b) are exempt from the Working Time Directive; and how many employees in

  1285W
  his 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. [178378]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Thirty employees in the Department have signed an "opt-out" agreement under the working time regulations. None of the Department's1286W
  employees are exempt from the working time regulations. The Department is aware of the particular business areas where staff regularly work close to or surpass the forty-eight hours per week limit and keeps this under review.

  The Department is committed to reducing the number of employees who are required to work in excess of forty-eight hours per week to the absolute minimum.

DEFENCE

  European Defence Agency
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  The General Affairs and External Relations Council of the European Union agreed on 14 June to the establishment of a European defence agency in the fields of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments. The agency will make a major contribution to the development of the military capability of EU member states, a key UK objective for the European security and defence policy. By rationalising and harmonising capability requirements, and linking those directly to industrial and research efforts, it will help improve the military effectiveness of European nations which will benefit both the EU and NATO. The work of the agency will be directed by a steering board consisting of national Defence Ministers to ensure it is subject to appropriate national control as well as being given the necessary political impetus.

  The Government regret that it was necessary to agree to the establishment of the agency, through a scrutiny override, before parliamentary scrutiny had been completed and before the debate, recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee on 9 June (22nd Report, 2003–04, HC42-xxii) could be held. The United Kingdom did not wish to prevent the decision to establish the agency being taken at the Council meeting given benefits expected from the creation of the agency and the influential role played by the United Kingdom in shaping and implementing its formation. I wrote to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee on 10 June setting out this position. The Government are, nonetheless, fully committed to the need for national Parliaments to have proper oversight of EU issues and the establishment of the European defence agency will be debated in European Standing Committee B on 22 June.

  British Forces Post Office (BFPO)
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Key targets have been set for the chief executive of BFPO for financial year 2004–05. The targets are as follows:

  Key Target 1

  To provide a guaranteed 100 per cent. absolutely secure defence courier service for the carriage of protectively marked material (PMM).

  Key Target 2

  To provide a secure defence courier service for the carriage of protectively marked material (PMM) operating within timescales for scheduled and special items at not less than 98.7 per cent. of that agreed with customers.
  72WS
  Key Target 3

  To provide a resilient and dependable service for the controlled and specialised handling of defence official mails by operating at least 96 per cent. of deliveries within scheduled timings, agreed with customers.

  Key Target 4

  To meet 96 per cent. of the requirements negotiated and agreed with customers for the transit times for delivery and collection at defence mail centres.

  Key Target 5

  To meet 95 per cent. of the agreed customer requirement for the movement of private and official mails from BFPO London to authorised overseas destinations within agrees timescales.

  Key Target 6

  To achieve an overall 2 per cent. increase in efficiency.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Elections and All-postal Ballots
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Elections were held on Thursday, 10 June 2004 for local authorities in England and Wales, for the London assembly, for the Mayor of London and for the European Parliament. Following the passage of the European Parliament and Local Elections (Pilots) Act, voting in four regions of England—the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber and the east midlands—was by postal ballot.

  The elections were successfully completed. Six thousand and forty-four councillors were elected in England and Wales, twenty five members of the London assembly were elected, a Mayor of London was elected and 78 United Kingdom members of the European Parliament were elected.

  In summary the picture is as follows:
  In the four all-postal pilot regions, overall turnout in the European Parliamentary election has more than doubled from that in 1999, going up from about 20 per cent. to 42 per cent.
  In the other regions, turnout is also up, but by around half on their 1999 figures.
  Nearly 3 million more people voted in the four pilot regions in these European elections than in 1999.
  In places with all-postal local elections last week, turnout was substantially higher than elsewhere, with cities such as Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool showing increases in turnout of around half as much again since the last local elections.

  We believe therefore that the all-postal pilots have shown, on a significantly larger scale than ever before, that a system in which a postal vote is automatically given to every elector positively encourages participation.

  The Electoral Commission will evaluate the pilots and its report is due to be published in mid-September. The Commission will examine the extent to which the manner in which the elections were conducted affected the incidence of electoral offences or malpractice. During the period of the elections, a number of allegations of malpractice were made. Allegations of

  73WS
  malpractice and fraud will be investigated. But with a small number of exceptions, such allegations are not reflected in either the experiences of the electoral administrators or reports to the Crown Prosecution Service. Regional returning officers are not reporting a higher volume of problems than in previous elections. For example, the regional returning officer for the North-west, Sir. Howard Bernstein, and the Greater Manchester police issued a joint statement saying:
  "While the nature of allegations has changed this year, the scale has not increased—if anything, it has lessened."

  There were also some concerns expressed about the witness signature requirement on the declaration of identity form. Both the Government and the Electoral Commission had reservations about this requirement, and it was almost certainly a factor in limiting turnout. In pilots in local elections in 2003 there was a significantly higher turnout where no witness statement was used. We believe that there are better alternative security arrangements which avoid complexity and avoid the need for an elector to disclose their intention to cast a ballot.

  There were, in addition, a number of technical difficulties experienced during the pilots. Returning officers, the Royal Mail and other suppliers have worked very effectively together to overcome these difficulties where they occurred. Of the 14.1 million ballot packs, over 99 per cent. were issued by returning officers by the deadline of midnight on 1 June. The few remaining packs were issued by 5.10 am the following morning. Royal Mail provided an outstanding service in supporting the administrators and suppliers and ensuring their role in the process was delivered effectively.

  Our judgment is therefore that these pilots confirm conclusions from previous pilots in 2002 and 2003. These have already been evaluated by the Electoral Commission which concluded that, with some further development, there should in future be a statutory presumption in favour of all-postal voting in local elections. The Government are therefore also confirming its intention for the proposed autumn regional referendums in the three northern regions to be on an all-postal basis.

  The success of the all postal pilots will provide a strong base from which we can develop a multi-channel approach to elections in the future, giving further choice and opportunity to electors to have their say. Lessons from the pilots will be incorporated into the Government's wider plans for electoral modernisation, which include both traditional methods of voting and alternatives such as postal balloting and electronic voting.

  Whilst testing all postal voting on this scale was bound to present challenges, those challenges were met, and the Government believe that this is a positive result for engagement and participation in the democratic process.
  74WS
  APPENDIX:

  1999 & 2004 European Election Comparison

  Region

  1999

  2004

  East Midlands

  22.6%

  44.6%

  North East

  19.6%

  41.5%

  North West

  19.4%

  41.5%

  Yorkshire & Humber

  19.6%

  42.9%

  East of England

  24.5%

  36.6%

  London

  23.0%

  37.7%

  South East

  24.7%

  36.5%

  South West

  27.6%

  37.8%

  West Midlands

  21.0%

  36.6%

  Scotland

  24.7%

  30.9%

  Northern Ireland

  57.8%

  51.7%

  Wales

  29.0%

  41.9%

  Total pilot regions

  20.2%

  42.6%

  Total non-pilot regions

  25.9%

  37.2%

  Total

  24.0%

  38.9%

  2004 European and Local Comparison

  Non-Pilot

  Pilot

  Percentage Point Difference

  European

  37.2%

  42.6%

  5.4

  Local

  37.9%

  43.6%

  5.7

  The table below compares turnouts for a sample of local authorities that did not pilot at the May 2003 elections with the results in the June 2004 elections, when all-postal voting was available.

  Local Authority

  2003

  2004

  Percentage Point change

  Liverpool

  21.70%

  33.50%

  11.8

  Leeds

  29.80%

  43.00%

  13.2

  Derby

  30.60%

  46.48%

  15.88

  The table below compares turnouts for local authorities that piloted in 2003 (when witness statements were not required) and again in 2004 (this time with witness statements required).

  Local Authority

  2003

  2004

  Percentage Point change

  Newcastle

  49.90%

  46.80%

  —3.1

  Sunderland

  47.70%

  40.50%

  —7.2

  Gateshead

  54.70%

  47.71%

  —6.99

  Trafford

  52.39%

  45%

  —7.39

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Reform of European Union Staff Regulations
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) adopted the proposal to revise the staff regulations for EU officials on 22 March. While we noted that the European Scrutiny Committee had withheld clearance from the proposal when it met on 17 March and had recommended the document (15185/03) for debate, we supported the adoption of the proposal at
  75WS
  the 22 March GAERC. We considered the proposal met agreed UK priorities in the reform of the careers structure, pensions and pay of EU officials and would promote merit, efficiency and staff developments and deliver significant long-term savings in the EU budget.

  I regret however that we were unable to arrange the debate prior to agreement. This was due to the tight time frame involved. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
  76WS
  of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), explained in his letter to the Chairman of the Committee on 19 March, the GAERC needed to agree to the proposal in March to ensure that the new regulations would be in place in time for enlargement on 1 May. The debate with European Standing Committee B has now been scheduled for 23 June. I will be leading the debate.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Coventry): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Denis Tunnicliffe, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Tunnicliffe, of Bracknell in the Royal County of Berkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Berkeley and the Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen.
Lord Laidlaw
Irvine Alan Stewart Laidlaw, Esquire, having been created Baron Laidlaw, of Rothiemay in Banffshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Strathclyde and the Lord Harris of Peckham.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking ministerial visits to Newcastle on Friday 25 and to Oxford on Monday 28 June? Accordingly, I trust the House will grant me leave of absence.

Holiday Health Advice
2.43 p.m.
Lord Chan Lord Chan asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to ensure that United Kingdom residents travelling to tropical countries on holiday are given appropriate advice on protection against common infections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the Department of Health makes travel information and advice available to United Kingdom travellers via its publications Health Advice for Travellers and Health Information for Overseas Travel. Those publications are also available on the Department of Health website. The department also issues latest health travel alerts on its website showing any large disease outbreaks that may affect UK travellers.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. An increasing number of Britons are travelling to tropical countries, a growing number of whom are falling ill through diarrhoeal diseases and, more seriously, suffering from malaria; there has been a doubling of deaths. Does the Minister agree that it is now time for travel agents to be given information that
1006
they can pass on to people who book travel to tropical countries so that they can be saved from not only discomfort but also danger?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord may be aware that Health Advice for Travellers already provides a lot of information. The website is being constantly updated, including information from the FCO website. We are piloting information on the NHS digital online system and information is available on Ceefax. Certainly, we shall consider the noble Lord's issues, and I pay tribute to his work as patron of the Malaria Consortium.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister have any particular plans to raise the awareness of the specific dangers of skin cancer, taking note that Britain now has more skin cancer deaths than Australia?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I think that we have covered that ground before. The Government are funding the SunSmart programme that Cancer Research UK is running now, which aims to educate people about the dangers of excessive exposure to the sun's rays.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister tell me the equivalent of 999 in tropical countries?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am tempted to say that it is the Department of Health website.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are still quite a lot of people in this country who do not have access to websites, and so forth? It is the department's responsibility to inform people who do not possess those facilities.
Lord Warner: My Lords, of course, my noble friend is right. I was merely trying to make a commercial for the Department of Health website. But we print millions of copies of Health Advice for Travellers and Health Information for Overseas Travel, which are available.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in reviewing the advice that the Government give to travellers in line with the very good suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, will the Government also bear in mind the recent statement from Dr Nick Beeching of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine? He said that compared to 10 years ago we have roughly the same number of cases of malaria—about 2,000 to 2,500 a year—but that the majority of them are now the more lethal form of malaria. Is that not a particular cause for concern bearing in mind that, according to the institute, increasing numbers of travellers neglect to take suitable precautions?
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is correct that the number of cases fluctuates a little each year. That partly turns on rainfall in some of the Africa countries

1007
where many of the cases for imported malaria are caught. We are aware that two-thirds of imported salciparum cases, which tend to be the most fatal, occur in London. The vast majority are in the African population. The figures show that there has not been a significant year-on-year increase over the past 10 years, although there has been fluctuation between years.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, will the Minister provide information to the medical profession in this country about the dangers of antibiotic-resistant organisms and drug-resistant malaria that may be acquired in tropical countries? Travellers may be taking preventive medication in the false sense of security that they are free from any infections.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the problems of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. That issue was covered by the Chief Medical Officer in his Winning ways document last year. We try to ensure that doctors are well aware of the therapeutic advice to give to their patients. We must hope that patients follow that advice.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is any regulation in relation to the purveyors of sun-creams and the claims that they make? Does his department put out advice about what strength is the least that one should use for safety purposes?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I think that advice is covered in the SunSmart campaign that Cancer Research UK is operating. I shall look further into the question raised by the noble Baroness and I shall write to her.

Iraq: Financial Institutions and Mr Ahmed Chalabi
2.50 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Lord Hannay of Chiswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the appointments to Iraq's financial institutions by Mr Ahmed Chalabi, a member of the Governing Council, will promote good governance and the financial integrity of those institutions.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Ahmed Chalabi, as chairman of the Iraqi Governing Council's economic and finance committee, oversaw appointments to some of Iraq's key ministries and institutions. However, he had no role in appointing officials of the Iraqi interim government, which will assume full sovereignty on 30 June. These appointments were announced by Prime Minister-designate Iyad Allawi following
1008
recommendations from the United Nations Special Adviser, Lakhdar Brahimi, who conducted intensive and wide-ranging consultations to come up with individuals who would govern Iraq in a competent manner during the interim period.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I suggest that it is perhaps a little beside the main point? Are we satisfied that appointments made by Mr Chalabi during his period of office, and during which period we were jointly responsible for the governance of Iraq, are such as to be conducive to the future of Iraq? If not, are we taking steps to convey any information we have about the gentleman and anyone he may have appointed to the new government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it would be hard to say that we are entirely satisfied when one of the appointments made by Mr Chalabi was of someone who acted as the chief anti-corruption official in the finance ministry. He was subsequently arrested on charges of extortion, fraud, embezzlement and abuse of authority. So I imagine that that sort of appointment is causing the noble Lord some concern.
It is precisely in order to deal not so much with Mr Chalabi as an individual but to address the years of corruption in the Iraqi system that important steps have been taken to introduce proper regulatory frameworks in the form of laws for the central bank, for financial management and for public procurement, as well as ensuring that future appointments are made directly under the aegis of the Prime Minister-designate.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that Mr Chalabi is still very much around and that this is the latest twist in a tangled story, including that of his telling the Pentagon what it wanted to hear about Iraq regardless of its accuracy? Pursuing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, can the Minister ensure that the new Iraqi Government will have available all the information which we now have about Mr Chalabi's financial and intelligence activities so that, where necessary, they can make their own judgment about his reliability?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is very important to ensure that not only are there proper laws in place, as the noble Lord implied, but also that we do not encourage the Iraqi Government to go back to a system in which only one individual has complete oversight over financial institutions. There will be a role for the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, the IAMB, which was a matter of intense discussion earlier this year. There will also be a CPA inspector-general and an Iraqi board of supreme audit. In order to have those regulatory bodies in place, it is important that they are also able to undertake the role of looking at each other's position.

1009
The noble Lord is quite right to point out that this is a very tangled story and that there will be many different views on Mr Chalabi's role in it.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether, as members of the coalition authority in Iraq until the end of this month, we have received a request for extradition of Mr Chalabi from Jordan and, if so, what was our response?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am unaware of any request from the Jordanian Government for extradition. Mr Chalabi's conviction by the Jordanian court is a matter of public record and any further steps are for the Jordanian judicial authorities and the Government of Jordan, as well as for Mr Chalabi himself. But I do not think it right for me to comment any further on that case.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, given the amount of information that has been coming out about Mr Chalabi's various activities, some of it extremely confusing, can the Minister reassure us that among the various inquiries about intelligence sources in the run-up to the Iraq war now under way, we are looking particularly at how far credence was given to reports which now appear to have come from Mr Chalabi and his associates?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is important that we do not come to conclusions about Mr Chalabi's role on the basis of anecdotal evidence. There is a great deal of chit-chat around Mr Chalabi, some of which may be accurate, but some of which, I would suggest, may not. Mr Chalabi has been associated with a number of different issues, and the noble Lord referred to that of intelligence. The question of intelligence in the context of the United States and the basis on which it was given is for the US Government to assess. Our own intelligence effort before the conflict is a matter now under consideration by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who I am sure will give us a very objective assessment.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, first, could there be a connection between the allegation that has recently surfaced in Washington about Ahmed Chalabi and his demands for a full inquiry into allegations of fraud in the management by the UN of the Oil for Food programme? Secondly, is there not a need to find a scapegoat for WMD intelligence failures? Finally, and most importantly, is the fact that since last November Mr Chalabi has called repeatedly—including in this House—for the withdrawal of US troops to garrison and the transfer of security in Iraq to a fully armed Iraqi security force. Is it not the simple truth that the Americans created Mr Ahmed Chalabi, and that now that they do not agree with him any more they want to destroy him?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Mr Chalabi is a controversial, one might almost say a colourful, figure. It is absolutely true that Mr Chalabi
1010
is extremely concerned about fraud in relation to the United Nations Oil for Food programme. I discussed that with him myself when I was in Baghdad earlier this year.
My noble friend has adduced two other reasons why individuals may seek to discredit Mr Chalabi. It has equally been put to me that Mr Chalabi has his own reasons for trying to discredit others. Where the truth of the situation lies, I cannot tell. But I can fell noble Lords about Mr Chalabi's role in making sensitive appointments in the future. It will not be the role he has had hitherto.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, whatever the connections and appointments of Mr Chalabi may have been, and some do seem pretty curious, does not the Minister agree that the currency reforms, along with those of Iraq's financial institutions and banking structure, while they may have a long way to go, have been remarkably successful and very well managed? Is not that the kind of story about which we should hear more rather than endless negative reporting about the work of the coalition in Iraq?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is absolutely right, which is why I sought to stress my point about changes in the law and changes in the regulatory framework in Iraq. I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord for confirming my view that these are important reforms.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
2.58 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of their intention to abolish some quangos, whether they expect to review the constitution and functions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the answer is yes. The review of the department's arm's-length bodies covers a wide range of organisations, including the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The constitution and functions of the HFEA are very important and are set out in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. All arm's-length bodies are subject to periodic review and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is no exception. The Act is also itself the subject of a review, announced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health on 21 January 2004.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the medical and scientific community regards this admirable body as being the very model of what a regulatory authority ought to be, not only in its licensing role but also in its advisory capacity? The body is widely commended and

1011
appreciated in other countries, many of which are now trying to replicate the functions of the HFEA and to produce bodies with a similar constitution. Are the noble Lord and his colleagues willing to accept the old adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I always pay tribute to old adages, in particular when they come from the mouth of the noble Lord. As I have said, on 21 January last we committed ourselves to a review of the 1990 Act. That legislation has served this country well, as has the authority, which has earned an international reputation. But times and many of the technologies have changed and we have to review the Act. I stress also the other part of my Answer: it is important to look at whether there should be changes in the arm's-length bodies themselves.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell us when the Government plan to introduce new legislation to cover such issues as human cloning, stem cell research and sperm donation?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government have no plans to introduce legislation on subjects such as cloning and stem cell research. These have been thoroughly debated in both Houses of Parliament and we have no plans to make changes in these areas.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I declare an interest as a recently appointed member of the HFEA. Whatever refiguration of the HFEA might result from this arm's-length body review, does the Minister agree that strict regulation of work on embryos has been essential, is essential and will continue to be essential? Will he ensure that the review takes into account paragraph 8.1 of the House of Lords' Select Committee report on stem cell research? It states:
"The regulatory system established by the 1990 Act has worked well. The linchpin of the system is the HFEA…it has also been instrumental in reassuring the public that regulation in a particularly emotive area of public policy is carried out effectively and sensitively".
Lord Warner: My Lords, I agree very much with the remarks of the right reverend Prelate. As I said earlier, we pay tribute to the work that the HFEA has done in establishing an internationally recognised system for controlling research and treatment programmes in relation to embryos. We have no intention of abandoning that international reputation.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, will the Minister reassure the House that whatever the new title of the HFEA—if there is to be one—and whatever its new functions, it will continue to be sufficiently well funded so that it can carry out its duties efficiently, including, especially, the duty of wide consultation on controversial issues? At the moment, this is part of the respect in which it is held as a model for other
1012
institutions. It is an open and consultative body. I hope that the Minister can reassure the House that this work will continue to be funded.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the bulk of the HFEA funding comes from the charges that it makes for its inspectorial work. There is certainly no intention on the Government's part to limit the grant that they make to the HFEA.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the licence fees levied by the HFEA will go up from £200 to £6,000? We all understand why the costs of regulation have to be covered, but is there not a concern that because of the steepness of the rise, many institutions will not be able to afford the fees and the pioneering work in stem cell research and other areas may simply not be undertaken?
Lord Warner: My Lords, it has been a fairly fundamental point of principle, under this Government and previous governments, that those who are regulated pay the cost of regulation. I will certainly look into the particular issue the noble Earl has raised and will write to him.

Strategic Rail Authority: East Coast Main Line
3.3 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will require the Strategic Rail Authority to comply with Cabinet Office guidelines on consultation on the new East Coast Main Line franchise.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the stakeholder consultation document was issued on 7 May to statutory consultees in accordance with the Railways Act. The SRA has exercised its discretion to reduce the consultation process timetables. It is not a precedent for any future consultations. A wider-based consultation day was held earlier this month. There will be another opportunity for public input on key strategic issues affecting this route and its operators when the East Coast Main Line strategy is consulted upon later this year.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that the consultation document he referred to was confidential to those who received it? The Rail Passengers Council, which of course is the representative body of the travelling public, has referred to the,
"extraordinary position whereby we cannot contact our key stakeholders, which are the travelling public",
to get their reaction. Does my noble friend really think that this is the right way to go about consulting on a very major passenger service up the East Coast Main Line? Is it not extraordinary that the SRA will issue its

1013
strategy after it has apparently let the franchise? What is the hurry? Why cannot it start a 12-week public consultation now?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this is a very important franchise. We are in the last year of the service by the existing franchisee, so there are time constraints. The issue has been one of accelerating the process but, as I indicated to my noble friend, this is not a precedent for future consultations. There are in place future opportunities for full consultation on this important franchise. I am pleased to report to the House that there are four bidders, each of which has excellent credentials, including the present franchisee.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the current franchising arrangements have lost the confidence of both the industry and the passengers, who see the whole process characterised by lack of transparency and by delay? That is due, in part at least, to the activities of the Office of Fair Trading. Its most recent intervention has been to investigate the new Greater Anglia franchise, months after the franchise was awarded, and six weeks after Alistair Darling launched the new service from Liverpool Street?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is of course referring to another franchise, not the one which is the subject of the Question. I should like to reassure her that the issue with regard to the arrangements for the franchise in the Question was a matter of urgency and speed. The noble Baroness rightly indicated that there have been some concerns about delay. I take on board her point about the franchise to which she referred, but she will know that arrangements are already in hand on that front.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, later today there will be a Statement on the European Council, repeated, with permission, by my noble friend the Leader of the House. It will be made at a convenient time after 4 p.m.
Christmas Day (Trading) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 7 [Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare]:
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 5, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) the Youth Justice Board"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 44 is grouped with Amendment No. 48A. The purpose of Amendment No. 44 is to amend Clause 7, which is designed to safeguard and promote welfare, so that it is supplemented by the addition of the words "the Youth Justice Board". For clarity, let me point out that Amendment No. 44 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, as well as mine.
Amendment No. 48A would create the same duty upon the Youth Justice Board as the duty conferred on other agencies under this clause, in relation to its statutory functions under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 with regard to commissioning, purchasing and allocating placements in secure juvenile estate. The amendment would also ensure that decisions about the placement of children in custody are taken having regard to their needs for safeguarding and promoting their welfare.
Noble Lords may remember that, in Committee, amendments were laid by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and me to address the problem of the inappropriate placement of vulnerable children in prisons. The amendments would have placed a duty on courts to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and to ensure that children deemed to be vulnerable are not placed in Prison Service custody.
The debate itself and subsequent discussions with the Minister, the Children's Society and others have led us to the conclusion that, even if the courts were given new duties in this respect, they would have no control over the numbers, standards, management or availability of placements, with the result that children would still fail to get the appropriate placements. The responsibility sits squarely with the Youth Justice Board, and for that reason the amendments would include the board in the new duty in Clause 7.
The amendments also place an additional duty on the board to ensure that it makes appropriate placements having regard to the need to safeguard and promote welfare, and when children are placed inappropriately, to ensure that accurate records are kept of why the child is not placed in suitable accommodation and for how long the placement lasts. To speak of accommodation suggests that we are talking about providing housing for these children, but we should recognise that we are dealing with very vulnerable children and the risks inherent in sending them to prison.
I do not want to rehearse fully the background or arguments that were set out comprehensively in Committee, but it might assist the House if I set the amendments in context. Members of the House will be aware of my interest in the case of Joseph Scholes and his death in custody on 24 March 2002 when he was found hanged in his cell. Joseph's case highlights the

1015
current problem. He was clearly a very vulnerable young person with a history of self-harm and sexual abuse, yet he still found himself in Prison Service custody because of the lack of adequate placements in local authority secure accommodation that could have provided him with the care, supervision and more child-centred therapeutic regime that he desperately needed.
In 2002, the Government's Social Exclusion Unit reported that:
"Too many young people remain in custody when they need inpatient mental healthcare. In most areas there appears to be no alternative/diversionary provision, and no system for identifying or dealing with mental health problems".
That is coupled with the lack of statutory provision for placement elsewhere. Any young male aged 15 or over being sentenced to a detention and training order will almost certainly serve it in prison despite any assessment of his vulnerabilities under the Youth Justice Board's ASSET assessment profile. In Committee, the Minister promised to investigate how many children assessed as vulnerable have been placed in a Prison Service young offender institution, and I am grateful for that promise. A recent Answer to a Parliamentary Question by a Home Office Minister makes depressing reading. The number of vulnerable children either remanded or sentenced to Prison Service custody in 2003–04 was 3,337, which is just over the estimated total population of children in custody at any one time. It is a massive increase on the number for 2000–01, which was just 432.
Of course, even one vulnerable child in prison is one too many. Prison is no place for children and I urge the Government to take urgent steps to stop the rot and to resolve the situation. The more delay that there is, the more risk that other children will end up like Joseph. I expect that the Minister will tell us that the problem cannot be solved in the Bill, but I ask her to consider the facts carefully. My amendment recognises the unique position of the Youth Justice Board in making critical welfare decisions on a day-to-day basis for individual children right across England and Wales. There is currently no statutory requirement upon it with respect to the safeguarding or welfare of children. My amendment would rectify that and put the Youth Justice Board under the same duties as other operational and strategic bodies in Clause 7.
3.15 p.m.
The Youth Justice Board's critical role in commissioning and purchasing custodial placements for children in the youth justice system and for allocating each child remanded or sentenced to custody a place within the prison secure estate is recognised by the amendments. I believe that, over time, the duty would have a positive influence on the make-up of the secure juvenile estate. All those involved in the commissioning process would then be clear that complying with the duty is a priority for the Youth Justice Board that could not be disregarded or reprioritised. Other than that, there is a need to consider the placement options available to the Youth
1016
Justice Board which are currently extremely limited and I hope that the Minister will have something positive to say in that respect.
If the Minister is resistant to the amendments, will she explain to the House why the Youth Justice Board should not be included in the duties in Clause 7? In her response, will she assure the House that the Government recognise that there is a problem in the placement of vulnerable children in Prison Service accommodation; the Government agree that there is a need to take urgent action to address the problem, particularly in light of the numbers of children involved; the Government will further consider how the problem might be addressed in the Bill; and that any legislative change outside the Bill will have direct reference to the framework of the Children Bill and its measures to increase the safeguarding and promotion of children's welfare? I do not think that we are asking much. All we need is a positive assurance that these matters will be taken forward. I beg to move.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who made such a powerful case that there is little that I could reasonably add. One of the strengths of the Green Paper consultation document, Every Child Matters, was its inclusiveness and concern for all young people. Surely, these young people are among the most vulnerable. The degree of self-harm and attempted suicide among this group of young people should cause us all concern. I hope that the Minister will give an encouraging response, at least in respect of links with the Youth Justice Board.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when I became Minister with responsibility for the Prison Service, I remember the great horror with which I discovered that a number of juveniles were kept in adult accommodation. We made strenuous efforts to bring that practice to an end and I am even more saddened to discover that this evil continues. It is essential that this statute is in place to limit it and bring it to an early conclusion. I will certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I will also be brief, because the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has expertly expressed the concerns. I very much hope that this problem can be dealt with sympathetically. The rise in the numbers now in prison is appalling. All that is being asked is that a record is kept during the period of custody and a report made. Something of that nature would certainly keep our minds on the subject to make certain that the situation is reviewed regularly.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, particularly in relation to the mental health service for children and adolescents. I know that that issue falls within the National Health Service mental health framework. However, as prison health is now part of

1017
the National Health Service, will the Minister assure us that such services will also be made available for those unfortunate children in custody?
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to assure the House that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, have the wholehearted support of these Benches in their amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I apologise for missing the opening statement of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, but it may be helpful if I draw the House's attention to a recent Parliamentary Question by Paul Goggins. Apparently, in 2000–01 some 50 children were identified as vulnerable and placed in young offender institutions. Most recently, that number has risen to about 350 or so. That is more than a six-fold increase in vulnerable young people being placed in young offender institutions. I hope that that is appropriate to what is being discussed and that I have not missed the point that was being made.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, many noble Lords have spoken, rightly, with real passion about this issue. I was extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, for coming to see me to talk through these issues in detail. As noble Lords will know from Committee stage, this is not an area in which I have great expertise. Indeed, it is an area in which our two departments—the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills—are collaborating and co-operating. It was extremely important to have that discussion.
I share with the noble Baroness and with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, a concern that the mother of Joseph Scholes, in particular, should feel that from that terrible tragedy something may come which would enable other children to be cared for more appropriately and ensure that such a tragedy never happens again. That should be the ambition of all of us for her sake. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said in his closing remarks that he was looking for positive assurance. I shall try to give to him and to other noble Lords who have spoken that assurance about this area of policy.
We accept entirely the principle behind the amendment that young people in custody should be accommodated in the most appropriate setting, with full account taken of any issues that may make them particularly vulnerable. However, we are not persuaded that the Bill is the right way in which to achieve that. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the role give to the Youth Justice Board. We all recognise that, in fulfilling that obligation, the board has to consider many issues, including age, any special needs of the young person, closeness to home—which could be particularly important—and any risk of harm to the young person or to others. We believe, as I am sure do all noble Lords who have spoken, that good decisions will be made by taking account of all relevant factors.
My fear is that in taking decisions we would run the risk of seeing the issue discussed under the amendment in isolation. I am concerned that with Amendment No.
1018
48A that could be the case. For example, in the great majority of cases, closeness to home is very important and, indeed, conducive to a young person's welfare. But there may be other factors in particular cases which are important, and we want to ensure that those factors are taken into account. If there were a local authority secure children's home on the doorstep of a 17 year-old boy convicted of a serious offence of violence, but within that home there were vulnerable 12 and 13 year-olds, it might not be the most appropriate placement. Our consideration must be to ensure that all issues can be taken account of in determining not only the vulnerability of the young person—which, as noble Lords will know, is not a clear-cut issue—but also the vulnerability of other children and young people who may be affected.
We believe that it is important to ensure that secure accommodation is safe. The Bill already places a duty on young offender institutions and secure training centres—and, via local authorities, on local authority secure children's homes—to make arrangements for ensuring that their functions are discharged, having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. I do not believe that the amendments will add more to that. We have already captured a crucial part of what the noble Lord seeks.
What I can say to reassure the noble Lord is that not only have we captured the essence of that part of his concern but we are in constructive discussion with the Home Office, which is very keen to move forward on the matter. In the department's role of looking right across the agenda for children, we want to ensure that we do not do one thing in isolation but approach the matter appropriately, by looking across the needs of all our vulnerable children. Children within secure accommodation fall into a number of different categories.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord. It is my intention to continue discussing the matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and the noble Lord, and to keep both of them up to speed and up to date with what is happening in this area of policy. I can say categorically, however—and I was not in this position in Committee—that having talked to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and understood the issues, and having talked to colleagues in the Home Office and brought officials together, we shall make good progress on the matter and address the issues. In the spirit of wishing the matter to be taken forward appropriately, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords on all sides of the House for their support; I am most grateful to them. It is the least that we can do for vulnerable children.
I do not have much confidence in the way in which the Home Office deals with this matter. Following the coroner's request for a public inquiry into Joseph Scholes' death, I immediately wrote to the Home Office—in early May—and to this day I do not have an acknowledgement or a reply. That does not build much confidence in the promises that the Home Office

1019
is making in such matters. However, I shall discuss the Minister's response, which has been fairly positive, with the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. If need be, we shall return with the amendment on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 6, line 3, leave out from "discharged" to "the" in line 4 and insert "in a manner consistent with the objective of safeguarding and promoting"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 45, I shall speak to Amendment No. 47 as well as Amendments Nos. 87 and 89, which contain the Welsh equivalents of the proposals.
We had a long debate in Committee on the issue of safeguarding and promoting. The amendments that dealt with safeguarding and promoting children's well-being attracted a number of speakers, all of whom clearly considered that in some way or another the existing wording in the Bill was not strong enough. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, stressed the need to separate administration from practice and ensure that safeguards were strong enough to protect children, as opposed to the sort of theory which might he subject to a series of tick-box questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, who is not in her place, referred to those who work away from the public eye and who need strong unambiguous law to lean on in taking decisions affecting the treatment of children and thereby their welfare.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made a most telling point when she alluded to the gap between the perception of authorities concerned with the provision of services to the elderly and the appalling standards actually achieved. It is that balance between what is perceived and what is achieved that brings me back to this group of amendments.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, quoted the training given to staff working with children in secure training centres and pointed out how little of it actually equips them to deal with,
"very vulnerable, troubled and troubling children".—[Official Report, 20/5/04; col. 989.]
That was a point well made.
In her response the Minister seemed more concerned that safeguarding children might conflict with other duties of the agencies affected. I hope that I have not shorthanded her, but that is the impression that I got and I have reread her response again since. It was almost as though she felt that in many situations one can pursue only one course or another. She cited the conflict between the criminal system and the need to safeguard children's well-being where those convicted are parents. I would prefer to see it in terms that the parent has done wrong. In other words, the system demands punishment, but the system also demands that the needs of the affected child or children be given priority in determining how the prisoner will spend his or her time, and how visiting will be arranged and rehabilitation progressed.
Similarly, if agencies are compelled by law to prioritise children's well-being alongside their normal duties they will be more likely to succeed than if the duty of safeguarding is only something to which they must have regard. I am told of many walks of life in which a requirement to have regard to a particular set of circumstances means very little more than to discuss them at a meeting, agree that the arguments against are stronger and get on with ignoring them. That was expressed very clearly in Committee and concerned many noble Lords.
The Children's Society in its briefing highlighted its concerns about the issue. It felt that:
"Creating a duty of 'having regard to' means that an administrative test is applied to the undertaking of functions. It does not provide the clear legal framework for a positive test as to whether actions taken are consistent with safeguarding of children and the promotion of welfare".
It goes on to state:
"At the very least the Bill's provisions should provide that decisions and actions in the exercise of functions should not be detrimental to children's welfare and protection".
Indeed, those thoughts were also highlighted by other briefings that I have received, including briefing from the NHS Confederation, which stated:
"We also have similar concerns for the arrangement to safeguard and promote welfare in Clause 7. As the contracts are nationally negotiated there would need to be direction to the national negotiators to include this in the new contracts. Otherwise PCTs may not be able to comply with the direction to make local alterations. We are also unsure how this will be built into the contracts given that the GMS contract for GPs, for example, has already been signed".
I shall not go over the ground that we have already covered, but I hope that bringing in some more up-to-date information strengthens the argument.
Many noble Lords were concerned about this issue in Committee. I read what the Minister said very carefully and, coming down on the train this morning, I tried to make more of it. But I could not. I found that her answer did not allay my fears. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I shall not weary the House by repeating everything I said in Committee but I still support the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and her amendment. I believe that the wording she has chosen is stronger and clearer about the objectives that people should have in mind when dealing with these issues. I shall not repeat the arguments but we still support her.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 49, which is grouped here. In Committee, I proposed that the Bill should contain a definition of what is meant by "safeguarding and promoting" the welfare of children to ensure that the full import of those two terms is fully understood.
The Minister will know that there is considerable concern about this among the voluntary agencies. If one does not have a clear idea of what safeguarding and promoting involves, or should involve, one is bound to get inconsistency of interpretation and therefore inconsistency of practice around the

1021
country. Precisely what activities are implicit in the word "safeguard" and what activities are presupposed by the word "promote"? That is the issue. For example, one important aspect of both safeguarding and promoting is partnership working in specific contexts.
The Minister said that the terms were widely understood, but then went on to say that guidance would be issued to set out the arrangements that agencies would need to put in place in order to implement these provisions. I thought that rather proved my point and it certainly bears out the representations I have received from the NSPCC and the NCB, among others, about the need for proper guidance in this area. I found the Minister's undertaking about guidance very reassuring and my amendment suggests that that undertaking might appropriately translate itself on to the face of the Bill.
I simply make a plea to the Minister that if she is faced with a decision on how to define and flesh out the word "safeguard" she should take her cue from the joint chief inspectors' report, which contains a very satisfactory and robust definition, rather than from the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families 2000, which she referred to in Committee. As regards a definition of "promoting welfare", I would commend to her paragraph 1.17 of the assessment framework as the model on which to build. I hope I am not sounding too prescriptive, but I make both these recommendations advisedly.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to receive recommendations. I always find them helpful, particularly from the noble Earl, and I am very grateful to him. Indeed, I shall go back and look at those issues again.
I start with a greater clarity than in Committee about what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is seeking to achieve. When we are debating some of the intricacies around legislation of this kind, I feel that we are in the same place but are simply arguing about whether the provision on the face of the Bill is the most appropriate measure and whether there are other means of achieving those ends.
The noble Baroness quite rightly reiterated what I said in Committee regarding the concern about agencies that have other responsibilities under criminal justice. I think that I gave an example in Committee of a case of a convicted parent where decisions would have to be taken in the criminal justice system. The noble Baroness did not necessarily see that as paramount and I understand her view that, in such circumstances, one might rightly be interested in arrangements for the children. However, our concern is that when one is looking to agencies to fulfil their obligations—and by agencies, we end up meaning people like us—we need clarity about where responsibilities ultimately lie.
When looking to people to carry out their functions, I still think that they must be clear about their primary function; but, in doing it, they should be mindful of the implications for an individual and his family. None the
1022
less, I stand by what I said earlier, that there is sometimes inconsistency if one tries to make two responsibilities of equal weight apply when trying to carry out functions. That is tricky in terms of how people would look at this.
As regards the most vulnerable children, I absolutely accept that all noble Lords participating in the Bill have constantly reminded us to focus in particular on the most vulnerable groups who need additional support. However, we should remind ourselves that there is already a very strong legislative framework that will sit alongside the Clause 7 and Clause 22 duties. I shall not spell out all the details but noble Lords will know about the role of local authorities under the Children Act, the duties of social services departments and local authority services, including education, housing and health services. I can confirm that the Secretary of State has the power to vary the GMS contract in response to new legislation. I think and hope that that addresses the particular issue.
The police have a legal duty to investigate criminal offences committed against children and to make sure that such investigations are carried out sensitively, thoroughly and professionally. The Children Act gives the police powers to take emergency action to protect children from suffering "significant harm".
So there are already a number of different ways in which, through existing legislation, we are seeking to ensure that children are safeguarded. We believe that what we have in Clause 7 and Clause 22 effectively builds upon that in the most appropriate way. There is a very strong and widely understood system for protecting the most vulnerable children. The report of noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the joint chief inspectors' report, which has been referred to, concluded that the legislative framework for protecting children is basically sound but that there are severe weaknesses in the way in which it is interpreted, resourced and implemented. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will correct me instantly if I am wrong. These are the problems that we seek to address not only through this legislation but also as set out in Every Child Matters and through the work that is going on across children's services to support them more effectively.
This legislation offers a framework. We hope that Clause 7 and Clause 22 add to the framework for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children by ensuring that agencies take a more proactive approach in responding to the needs of children. The aim is not to compromise their ability to carry out their duties but to ensure that they consider and address the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she has had more information on this issue. We do not feel that it would be right to accept these amendments for the reasons that I have given about the nature of the work that agencies carry out and because we believe that the existing legislation, plus what we have within these two clauses, addresses the problem. As the noble Earl said, Amendment No. 49 allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance that will promote an understanding of the phrase "safeguard and promote the welfare of

1023
children". I have great sympathy with the amendment. It is right that we should ensure that the guidance issued to those agencies is clear about what it means by the phrase, "have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children".
The noble Earl will know that that phrase is used in the Children Act 1989. Under Section 17, local authorities must "safeguard and promote the welfare" of children in need in their area. As I think the noble Earl said, the Government's Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families 2000 contains two elements: the duty to protect children from maltreatment and the duty to prevent impairment. It explains that those are two sides of the same coin. It states:
"Promoting welfare has a more positive, action centred approach … as well as ensuring they are growing up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care".
More recently, the joint chief inspectors' report Safeguarding Children gave a description of what the chief inspectors thought safeguarding meant in practice. It entails all agencies working together, ensuring that the risk of harm to children's welfare is minimised and, where there are concerns about the welfare of a child, to take all appropriate action to address such concerns. I have paraphrased the point for the purposes of this debate but it is spelt out more fully in the report.
Our intention is to build on previous guidance in the guidance that is made under Clause 7(4) to set out the kinds of arrangements that agencies will need to put in place to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The purpose of our additional guidance is to ensure that those arrangements are in place and that we are very clear about what is expected. There are some good examples of where the definition is already in place. It has stood the test of time and I believe that it will continue to do so. The Secretary of State has the power to issue guidance, and I have indicated the type of guidance that it will be. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether she will return to the points dealt with in Amendment No. 45. I am very disappointed with the reply. Will she say which words in the amendment are unacceptable? I have listened very carefully, but I still do not understand the Minister's reluctance.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am always at pains not to be reluctant in your Lordships' House. As I understand it and tried to outline, the amendment would not assist agencies in examining their functions when those functions are seen as not always in the best interests of the child and the child's welfare. As the noble Baroness rightly said, I have given an example of that. That is my understanding and I have checked to ensure that it is right. I see that the noble Baroness does not feel that that explanation
1024
works, but I do not really know what else I can say. As she knows, I am always willing to re-examine a point. I can write to her or discuss the point with her to see whether I can say more or she can push the point further.
My understanding is that the amendment would create an inappropriate inconsistency; in other words, it would make things difficult. However, if the noble Baroness feels that the amendment would achieve quite the opposite, I would be very happy to discuss that with her. She will have the opportunity to come back on it if she is dissatisfied with what I say. I hope that that gives her some comfort.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response. I was getting to the stage of thinking that we will have to divide on the point, as it is such a basic one. I will carefully read Hansard and have talks with her before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 48 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 48A and 49 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Establishment of LSCBs]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 7, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) The chairman of the Local Safeguarding Children Board shall be appointed by the children's services authority."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I return to an issue I raised in Committee, which I did not feel we fully resolved; and that is the need to make sure that local safeguarding children boards are fully accountable to a children's services authority and fully bound in with the policies that the authority is pursuing.
When I spoke on this issue before, I took up the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, at Second Reading by proposing that the chairman of a LSCB should be the chief executive of a children's services authority. I did so because having the chief executive at the head of the table makes absolutely certain that the board cannot be some semidetached entity, merrily ploughing its own furrow, and that there is no possibility of a divergence of policy between it and the authority. It also sets an example for the grade of individual who sits around the board table. If the chief executive were in the chair it would be difficult for any board partner to send along someone of lowly status. It is in my view vital that these boards, which will be taking a strategic view of policy and procedures and monitoring activity, need to be populated by individuals of some standing and experience. Having the chief executive at the helm would, I think, ensure that that happened.
However, I do recognise that there are difficulties with this idea, one of the main ones being that the chief executive may simply not have enough hours in the day available to take on the role of chairman, important though that responsibility is. There is also a widespread feeling that there needs to be some

1025
flexibility in this area. I took note of the Minister's reservations, and I accept them because there is no doubt that not all local authorities are alike and that many want the freedom to choose how these boards are composed. One alternative, which would be to stipulate that the director of children's services should chair the board, would result in exactly the same problem, though this arrangement is certainly what many authorities currently have in mind.
At the very least there needs to be senior management commitment to the board. I think my main concern is that where there is a chair who is independent, this should happen only with the agreement of the children's services authority. I am distinctly nervous about the idea of an independent chairman, for the reasons I have already outlined, but I accept that in some area child protection committees having an independent chair has worked well. That is why my amendment is framed as it is. It is intended to ensure that the authority is fully bound in to the work of the board and that there is open accountability about the decision of who should chair it. But at the same time it allows for flexibility.
It would be helpful to have from the Minister an assurance that there will be guidance stating that it is expected that the director of children's services will be the chairman of most boards, unless there is a very good reason why not. I believe that that is what the Government have in mind; but it would certainly be valuable to have an explicit statement to that effect. I beg to move.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for giving such thought to a matter which I regard as very important. Clause 9 is fairly forthright in the language it uses. It begins by stating:
"Each children's services authority … must establish a Local Safeguarding Children Board…A board established under this section must include"—
a whole series of people. These include:
"the chief officer of police…the governor of any secure training centre…the governor of any prison in the area",
and so on.
There is a serious issue of principle here concerning accountability. I believe that two aspects of this issue are of overriding importance. First, the director of children's services should be accountable to the board, and therefore should not chair the board. Secondly, one of the local authority's premier responsibilities is to safeguard the vulnerable children in its area. If it is not too onerous to require the chief officer of the police service or a governor of a prison to be present at the board, in my view it is certainly not too demanding that the chief executive of the local authority should be required to do so.
I have spent a large part of my professional life in local government and I can think of no reason why a chief executive of a local authority should not be required to fulfil this function. I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving such thought to the matter. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance on this point.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising this issue. I hope to be able to make our intentions on this subject as clear as I possibly can, unlike on the previous amendment where I did not achieve that despite my best endeavours.
It is a function of the children's services authority to establish a local safeguarding children board. As is stated in Clause 9, the board partners must co-operate in its establishment. We believe it is implicit in this that establishing a board must include the appointment of a suitable chairman. Not to do so would be to fail to establish the board properly as it will clearly need a chair in order to operate effectively. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary but I shall explain that further.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. He has spoken with great passion about this matter in your Lordships' House and, indeed, to myself and officials previously. It is a question of making sure that the accountability lines are clear. As regards the director of children's services, we have made it clear that someone is required who takes responsibility for these services across a local authority and ensures that the lines of accountability extend to an appropriate member of the council and to the chief executive. However, we are reluctant to be prescriptive in saying that a certain person must be made chairman. Although the noble Lord, Lord Laming, referred to his experience in this area and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked of the scenario that one would expect to arise, if I may put it that way, we know of independent members of boards who do a fantastic job chairing those boards.
We are trying to focus our attention on accountability. The children's services authority will appoint the board and, therefore, the chair but we are not completely prescriptive about how that is taken forward. We can within—
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, the Minister spoke about variations in the way in which these roles are performed and said that there are excellent independent chairs. I have a fair amount of experience in this field and know that within area review committees there is wide variation in the performance of chairs. Limited research has been carried out on this matter. I am concerned that we might accept this structure simply because anecdotally we know that there are good examples of the role that we are discussing. I should like us to try to find out what it is that makes boards work well and what elements make that difficult because we could select personality rather than structure. On what evidential basis should we allow this very general acceptance of the way in which these chairs will be appointed?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am not talking about a general acceptance. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness as regards structures because they give a degree of certainty and one can evaluate them, whereas

1027
the cult of the personality is not one in which I have become embroiled as regards the kind of work that we are discussing. That would be deeply inappropriate.
It is critical to build on board structures that work effectively. First, one needs to make sure that individuals of the right level are involved in the boards. Subsection (4) of Clause 9 gives us the power to make regulations that can be used to ensure senior attendance. Clearly, there have to be people of the right level attending. Secondly, one needs to ensure that the accountability structure—that of the director of children's services to the council and that of each agency to the director of children's services—is absolutely clear, and that that forms part of the way in which we evaluate success. We need to be absolutely crystal clear about that. Thirdly, we need to ensure that the chief executive, in his function of overviewing all of the local authority's work, carries out that role appropriately.
I expect that in the majority of cases the director of children's services will perform the relevant function. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, said that the chief executive should fulfil the relevant function. I refer to effective safeguarding boards with senior people on them. An individual from a particular agency may be able to perform the role of chair extremely well. We are working with our colleagues in local government. We seek not to be so prescriptive that we do not allow them to ensure that their boards work well.
We need clear structures, a very clear level of involvement and very clear accountability through the director of children's services. We are discussing the person who chairs meetings. Noble Lords will know that fabulous chairmen exist who chair meetings well whereas others do not perform that function well. People attend meetings in part because there are clear outcomes, good agendas and so on. Noble Lords will know from their own experience that that can be a critical part of success. We should permit flexibility in that process.
We want to build on the successful arrangements deployed in the area child protection committees. It is important that we do not throw out the baby with the bath water. We need to ensure that we build on the successful structure of a good area child protection committee with the right kind of people involved in it. We need to build on that, not demolish it and start again.
We want to include flexibility in the guidance but the noble Baroness is absolutely right that we also need to be absolutely clear about the quality and the accountability of the people involved. We shall set that out clearly in the guidance. I hope that on that basis the noble Earl will consider that we have addressed the concerns that he raised. The guidance will be statutory. The chair will be appointed by the children's services authority. The views of other board partners will be taken into account. Flexibility is included in the arrangements.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a very helpful debate. I am grateful in particular to the
1028
noble Lord, Lord Laming, for his remarks. Intellectually, I am still with him, but politically I recognise the need for flexibility in this area. As the noble Baroness rightly said, the key issue is accountability. I take comfort from what she said about what may appear in regulations and, indeed, statutory guidance on the subject.
If nothing else, the points that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and I made on this subject have gone home. The debate has been useful from that perspective. With that it behoves me to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 7, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) a youth offending team for an area any part of which falls within the area of the authority;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Functions and procedure of LSCBs]:
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Funding of LSCBs]:
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55:
Page 9, line 1, at end insert—
"(1A) Any person or body specified in subsection (2) may provide staff, goods, services, accommodation or other resources for purposes connected with a Local Safeguarding Children Board established under section 9."
Page 9, line 2, leave out "subsection (1)" and insert "subsections (1) and (1A)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Director of children's services: consequential amendments]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 36, line 29, at end insert—
"The Relevant Authorities (Standing Orders) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/3384)
(1) The Relevant Authorities (Standing Orders) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/3384) shall be amended as follows.
(2) The following shall be inserted in the appropriate place in paragraph 2 (interpretation)—
"director of children's services" means the officer appointed under section 13 of the Children Act 2004".
(3) After every occurrence of "the head of the authority's paid service" in the rest of the Order, there shall be inserted—
"( ) director of children's services"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is not so much an amendment as a suggestion. As an amendment, it is probably very badly drafted. However, the central point is that three local authority statutory officers are currently accorded certain rights and privileges under the relevant standing orders of 2001. The question is whether the director of children's services should not also have those rights and privileges.
As the rights are enshrined in secondary legislation, the Government could choose to give them to the director of children's services outside the Bill-making process. The three local authority officers currently mentioned in the order are: the head of the authority's paid service, usually known as the chief executive, although some authorities use other titles such as executive director; the monitoring officer; and the chief finance officer. Those officers have to be appointed by the full council, and can be dismissed only by the full council. They have to be employees of the council.
Given the high profile that the director of children's services has in driving forward the Government's Every Child Matters agenda, the suggestion that we put to the Government in the amendment is that they should safeguard and promote the status of that post by giving the post-holder the same rights and privileges as the chief executive. That greater security will enhance the post. We make that as a suggestion, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we take every amendment as a welcome suggestion. This one is particularly good and we can endorse it. I assure the noble Baroness that the Bill already provides for what she wants in the appointment, dismissal and disciplinary procedures that currently apply to other chief officers. The 2001 regulations also apply to the director of children's services, so the amendment is redundant but a welcome suggestion nevertheless.
A few hazards would be introduced by the amendment, including some unwelcome inconsistencies in the treatment of the director of children's services and the position of other chief officers. He would have to be involved along with the chief executive in selecting a person to deal with all disciplinary matters. He would have to be appointed or dismissed by the whole authority, which would make him different from other chief officers. That would be undesirable, if not inappropriate. However, the burden of the amendment is perfectly sensible and reflected in the legislation.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. She said that the director of children's services was already included in the order. Has the order been amended in that way since it was passed in 2001? Is my amendment totally redundant in that sense?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it would have always been the case.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I therefore apologise to the House for tabling an unnecessary amendment. Nevertheless, it is an interesting point and worth our while having established it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

European Council
4.4 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the European Council which took place in Brussels on 17 and 18 June.
"At this Council, the EU—now of 25 nations, soon to be 28—agreed a new treaty for Europe which sets out for the first time, in one single treaty, the powers, rights and duties of the EU. I have placed a copy of the Presidency Conclusions in the Libraries of both Houses. I thank the Irish presidency, under the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, for its skill in negotiating a successful conclusion. As the Taoiseach said, the Constitutional Treaty makes it clear that Europe is,
'not a super state; not a federal state but a group of nations'.
This treaty makes it plain, again for the first time in a European treaty, that the EU has only the competences conferred on it by member states and states expressly, also for the first time, that member states can withdraw from Europe should they want to.
"This treaty makes clear where the EU can and cannot act. It provides for qualified majority voting where we need it—for the single market, for reform of the common agricultural policy, for action against international crime and terrorism. It keeps unanimity for the most important decisions and, at our insistence, in particular for tax, social security, foreign policy, defence and decisions on the financing of the Union affecting the British budget contribution. It keeps our ability to opt out of measures affecting our laws on asylum and immigration, and extends that so that we cannot be obliged to co-operate on criminal law procedures where we do not want to do so.
"For the first time ever, a power for national parliaments is provided to scrutinise proposals from Brussels at the draft stage and to send them back if parliaments are not satisfied. It provides, through the route of enhanced co-operation, for a flexible Europe in which groups of countries can take action together within the framework of the European Union, provided that they do not damage the interests of others. This is a flexibility within the framework of law, not the free-for-all which some have advocated.
"Above all, the treaty provides for the reforms in the working of the EU necessary if it is not to fall into gridlock with 25 members. It reforms the

1031
system of the six-monthly rotating presidency to provide greater continuity and coherence in a Union of 25, and replaces it with a full-time chairman of the European Council who will serve for up to five years. This is crucial in placing the power to set Europe's agenda in the hands of Europe's intergovernmental body.
"The EU treaty includes, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the rights of the citizen under EU law. The charter expressly rules out establishing any new power or task for the European Union or any change in the powers of the European Union. In each area, the rights are expressly limited to those available under existing national law and practices and under existing Union law. So, for example, Article 28 of the charter says that workers and employers have the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels, but only,
'in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices'.
In addition, the charter contains explanations for each article, making it clear, for example, that the,
'limits for the exercise of collective action, including strike action, come under national laws and practices, including the question of whether it may be carried out in parallel in several member states'.
The treaty requires those explanations to be given due regard by the courts.
"Some have also expressed concern at the references in the treaty to the primacy of EU law. In fact, primacy of EU law has existed since we joined the European Union and is there in the European Communities Act 1972. But, of course, European law takes precedence only where member states have agreed that Europe should have a competence. The idea that this is something new is nonsense. The treaty also completes and consolidates the existing treaties of the European Union. Some 75 per cent of it is a repetition of what is in earlier treaties.
"Among the many myths about the constitution that have been published over the past few months have been accusations that we would lose our rebate and our seat on the Security Council, that Brussels would seize control of our oil supplies, that the UK taxpayer would pay for other EU countries' pensions, that we would have to give up control of our Army to Brussels, be forced to join the euro or raise our taxes, have our foreign policy dictated by Brussels, and lose control of our borders.
"Now, the British people have before them the text of the treaty as agreed. It demolishes those myths.
"But the myths, and the propaganda which goes with them, are not really about the constitutional treaty. They are about whether Britain should or should not be a leading member of the European Union.
"The new Europe of 450 million people is a success for Britain. The new countries of Europe share our view that it should be run by sovereign nation states. They have joined the European Union
1032
for the stability, security and prosperity it provides; the same stability, security and prosperity that we have enjoyed as members of the European Union for the past 30 years.
"We are in the European Union for the single market and customs union it provides for our goods and services, for the extra 1.8 per cent of GDP that membership brings us every year and the 3.5 million jobs which depend on that single market. We are in it for the strength it gives us in trade negotiations with powerful countries like the United States and Japan. We are in it for its network of aid and trade relationships with China, India and the countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia, relationships which make an important contribution to international peace and security and development. Of course there are frustrations and compromises. But the European Union is the most successful way anyone has yet devised of managing the relations between European countries whose national rivalries had, until 60 years ago, only ever been settled in a series of bloody conflicts.
"Now, we not only manage those rivalries, we pool our combined strength for our economic advantage, for influence in the world and for peace and security. The power of the European Union has helped eight countries of eastern central Europe achieve democratic stability. It is transforming Turkey into a modern democratic state. It is helping achieve peace in the Balkans. Not a single government of a single nation, either those in Europe now or those waiting to join, opposed this treaty. All welcomed it. All want it to work. Many share the British view of Europe's future.
"All that is what the opponents of this treaty would put in jeopardy for the sake, not of any real British interest, but of a narrow nationalism which no British government have ever espoused or should ever espouse if they have the true interests of the British people at heart.
"In the end, the final say will be with the British people in a referendum. But in that debate, we will argue this Constitutional Treaty represents a success for the new Europe that is taking shape, is a success for Britain and today I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, once again, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I was tempted to say, "Another week, another Statement". Last week the noble Baroness came to the House and underlined this Government's historic alignment with President George Bush in the world-wide war on terror. This week she has underlined the Government's historic alignment with the advocates of yet further EU integration.
Neither of those propositions is exactly ecstatically popular. As the noble Baroness knows, we think that the Prime Minister is right to back Mr Bush, but we have very serious doubts about what he did last weekend. Mr Blair has tied Labour's fortunes to a new

1033
EU constitution. It would be nice to think that he had a better eye for an EU constitution than he has shown for our poor old British constitution these past seven years. Looking at the communiqués coming out of Brussels. I do not see it.
Let us be clear. The issue will come down to a straight choice. Do we agree with this new EU constitution or not? Yes or no. However long the Prime Minister may want to put off the vote, there is no third way between "yes" or "no". The British people must resolve that question and the British people will decide whether what the Labour Party has done is what the British people wanted it to do. So, will the noble Baroness assure the House that, even if one other EU country votes against the constitution, the British people will still be given a chance to register their votes? When will that day come? Can it really be the case that Labour is plotting to put it off until 2006?
Surely the debate and the referendum should follow as soon as the text of the constitution is available. If Caxton could put the Bible into English centuries ago, how long will it take to translate the EU constitution? And if the referendum is put off until after the next election, why should we believe that Labour would grant one, if it won, any more than it allowed us a twice pledged referendum on the euro?
Whatever happened to the Prime Minister's cry of "let battle commence". His rhetoric is all conviction, but his every tactical duck and weave betrays the opposite. It is a strategy designed to encourage his opponents and frustrate his friends.
The latest catchphrase is about fighting myths with reality. We should agree with that. We want open, honest debate about a great national question. So, let us dispose of one myth right now. This is not a choice between staying in Europe or coming out. It is not the policy of this party to withdraw from Europe. Unlike the party opposite, or indeed the Prime Minister, it is not our policy today and it never has been in the past. To claim otherwise is not to confront myth with reality, it is to pervert reality with myth. It is a classic Downing Street tactic, but it will not wash. The lie says more about its perpetrators and how little they credit the intelligence of the British people than it says about us.
The millions of people who gave our party the largest backing of any in recent elections are not "little Englanders". The difficulties we have with the constitution that the Prime Minister has signed are genuine and significant. Of course, it is possible to point to aspects of the constitution that might of themselves be welcome. But it is the effect of the whole that has to be weighed, measured and, I regret, found wanting: a new state called Europe, with a legal personality and a legally binding constitution; a Charter of Fundamental Rights, carrying the risk of intervention by EU judges in yet more areas of British legislation, including over asylum and trade union rights; abandonment of 43 more areas of policy to decision by majority voting—including, crucially, criminal procedure; the creation of a new post of Foreign Minister; a new European public prosecutor and the risk of intervention in our very different legal
1034
system; failure to exclude policy from the constitution; and failure to achieve a real and unavoidable parliamentary lock on new European Commission legislation.
The Prime Minister's Statement says:
"This treaty makes clear where the EU can and cannot act".
Will the Leader of the House point to the passage in the treaty that says precisely where that is made clear? There is much more. Where is the bonfire of regulation? Where is the halt to the onward march of integration?
The presidency's conclusions signal legislation on financial services, on professional qualifications and social security co-ordination; common action on copyright and patents; initiatives in consumer protection legislation; measures on air quality, maritime law, biodiversity and climate change; urgent work on corporate governance, action on chemicals, directives on services and a strategy on sustainable development. We have even instructed the Commission to draw up plans for a European gender institute—as if the Gender Recognition Bill before our Parliament is not enough. I shall not read on, but that is just the summary of what has been agreed at the weekend.
Europe has brought so much that is good, so much that we should unite to defend and support. But when will Mr Blair and the Government hear what people all over Europe are now saying? It is time for a new approach, for co-operation not coercion and a Europe of "live and let live".
Brussels was a giant missed opportunity and a further step along an integrationist road that is no longer relevant in the 21st century. What we needed from the Government was a lot less posturing about red lines and a lot more action with the blue pencil. Of 275 amendments submitted by our Government, how many have been accepted? Just 27: scarcely a diplomatic success to have the shades of Canning and Castlereagh craning their necks down from Elysium.
I have three closing observations. First, on Turkey, I welcome what was said. We have long argued for meaningful engagement with Turkey and I hope it will be pursued with vigour by the British Government. Secondly, on the succession to Mr Prodi, what candidate does the United Kingdom now support? Finally, on Zimbabwe, I have read the Presidency Conclusions carefully, but I find no mention of Zimbabwe. I find quite rightly the Sudan and Congo, but not Zimbabwe. Last week the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, told us of the near half a million refugees now driven into exile by the Mugabe regime. She also said that she could do nothing about the spectacle of Gideon Gono, President Mugabe's moneybags, swanning around Britain, because he was not on the EU list. Is he on the EU list now? There is a massive human tragedy in southern Africa, so when will this Government stir to use their influence in the Security Council, in the Commonwealth and in the EU to bring Mr Mugabe down?
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I also echo what she has said about the remarkable achievement of the Irish presidency, to which I think we are all deeply grateful. Ireland now has the difficult job of trying to obtain agreement on a President of the Council, and we wish it very well in attempting that.
The Prime Minister, in terms of what he was seeking, has done remarkably well. He has established a permanent president of the Council of Ministers, which means that the Council of Ministers will be considerably strengthened vis-à-vis the Commission. He has achieved the exclusion of taxation, foreign policy and defence issues from the European Union treaty. He has also achieved, from his point of view, quite remarkable new measures on the role of parliaments. One-third of parliaments can now insist upon any directive or regulation of the Commission being returned to it for further consideration if they do not like it.
Those are all considerable achievements. They are part of trying to make the new Europe workable, but from the point of view of these Benches they fall quite well short of what we would like to see. We believe that a strongly integrated foreign and defence policy would give greater weight to Europe in the world.
But just for a moment let us consider raising our game. Some people will remember the remark of the famous post-War Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, who said in 1945 that what he most regretted about Britain was what he called a "poverty of aspiration". Let us raise our aspirations.
First, this treaty is about making an enlarged Europe workable. It is high time to celebrate that enlarged Europe and not to nit-pick about it. It is a remarkable achievement by any standards. Secondly, we need to give due weight to the fact that the European Union, for all its faults—and it has many—has managed to make human rights a central criterion for the membership of the Union, not only in Turkey but in central and eastern Europe. In doing so it has promoted one of the values most important, I would have thought, to this country and indeed to the democracies of Europe as a whole. That influence is spreading far beyond Europe and importantly so. Thirdly, I thought that we were people who believed deeply in trying to go beyond the endless military conflicts of our world, and God knows we see enough around us at the present time. The European Union has pioneered a method which has put politics in the place of war and of conflict. I believe it is high time that we in this country recognised that remarkable achievement.
Let me conclude by saying that we all have a very uphill path to climb. We are faced with an incredible tissue of myths and lies which has been steadily promulgated over the past five years, particularly in parts of the media. It is very difficult, as Adlai Stevenson once said, for truth to catch up with a lie. He observed that a lie runs around the world before the truth pulls on its boots. It is high time that
1036
the truth pulled on its boots and that we began to see the argument in favour of a European Union which is strong, powerful and, above all, a force for peace, democracy and human rights in the world. We on these Benches will accept and support the constitution, and we believe that what really matters is to go even further than it does.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their comments. I agree with the principles so clearly set out by the noble Baroness. I thank her for recognising that the Prime Minister and the whole team in Brussels at the weekend did extraordinarily well and came back with a package which is good not only for Britain but for Europe as a whole.
I also agree with her that we should be celebrating an enlarged Europe, recognising the fact that only 60 years ago we were a continent mired in conflict. It is a remarkable achievement. Using that experience and knowledge in the peace and security agenda, which has become so important in the way the EU is working across many parts of the world, is a great testament to that achievement.
I also agree with the noble Baroness's comments on human rights and their centrality as regards membership of the Union.
I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was dealt a poor hand in terms of the comments he made. With respect to Britain's relationship to the United States and the European Union, yes, we want to see a Britain which is leading and strong in Europe and we want to see strong ties with our United States allies. The noble Lord clearly fears that his party could never deliver that leadership. It clearly has to follow where we lead.
On the referendum, the Prime Minister has made our position absolutely clear. A process must be gone through. The treaty needs to be formalised into a legal text, but it is not clear when that text will emerge. There will then be the parliamentary process of ratifying the document, followed by a referendum.
I cannot understand why, when all of us in this House talk about the importance of putting Parliament first and the importance of parliamentary debate, the noble Lord is now afraid of parliamentary debate. Perhaps he is afraid that it will inform the British public and begin to deal with the web of tissues and lies referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, so enabling them to make an informed decision in the referendum.
On a referendum on the euro, the noble Lord is well aware that the position on that has not changed. We have said—and the position remains the same—that when the economic conditions are right we will put that to the British people in a referendum.
On withdrawing from Europe, it is clear that the noble Lord's party wants to renegotiate existing membership. Not a single country in the European Union wants to do that and the leader of his party has been challenged on that many times. The noble Lord

1037
may have failed to notice that all countries must agree to get together to renegotiate a treaty. The noble Lord's party has absolutely no allies on that.
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is afraid of the word "constitution". It has come to my attention that even Kent County Council, that Tory heartland, has a constitution. The United Nations has a constitution. What is the problem with the European Union recognising that it needs to look at its procedures and the way it works, to consolidate its treaties and bring that together in one document which is being called a "constitution"?
For the very first time, national Parliaments will have a role in Commission legislation. It is absolutely clear from the document that the issues of defence, foreign policy and social security will have to be agreed by unanimity. There has been an extension of qualified majority voting in some areas—in fact, in a number of technical areas. The noble Lord raised the question of bureaucracy. I should have thought that he would welcome the development in that respect.
With regard to the amendment to the constitution, the noble Lord will know that we submitted a number of amendments to the treaty when it was in draft form. The draft treaty has changed substantially over the past year. This was a process of negotiation, and we have come out of the negotiations with all the things that we said were important to us.
With respect to the noble Lord's question about Zimbabwe, it is not our job to bring down Mugabe; it is for the people of Zimbabwe to do that. But we must recognise the humanitarian crisis in that country and deal with it.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that he will engage in discussions with colleagues in the European Union about who is the best person to be President of the Commission. He has made it clear that he has never entered into that discussion publicly and does not intend to do so now.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked me where the constitution lays out the areas in which the Union can act and those in which member states can act. I suggest that the noble Lord looks at the headlines in Part I, Articles 11 to 16 and the detail in Part III. Paragraph 11.6 in Part III makes it clear that the scope for exercising the Union's competences shall be determined by the provision specific to each area in Part III. The noble Lord may wish to look at those sections, where it will be absolutely clear where the Union acts and where nation states act.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the outcome of the European Council meeting was as favourable as it could be and that it was overwhelmingly not only in the national interest but in accordance with the express wishes of your Lordships' House, as set out in the various documents produced during the passage of the Convention on the Future of Europe?
1038
Does she further accept that it is now imperative that we begin as early as possible in the new Session of Parliament the process of parliamentary ratification of the new treaty so that, before they continue to make statements about it, everyone in this House can be quite clear about exactly what the treaty states? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, entered into areas which were alleged to be part of the treaty but which, in fact, are not contained within it.
Does my noble friend further agree that, in order to achieve the fullest possible participation and informed decision-making in a referendum, it is imperative that the Government find an appropriate way to provide factual information to as wide a group of the public as possible so that we can have a proper public debate based on real information about the treaty and its contents rather than the contents that others have imagined?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend. I cannot say what the timing of the process of parliamentary ratification will be. Obviously, we need to wait for the treaty to be formalised and it will then come to Parliament.
I absolutely endorse what my noble friend said with regard to the need to be clear about what the constitution says and the need for informed decision-making. I also agree that we need to inform the British public on a factual basis about what the constitution involves in terms of our rights as a nation state and our rights as part of the European Union.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, perhaps I may say how satisfactory it is to be able to underline my agreement with every word that the noble Baroness read out this afternoon and, further, to breathe a sigh of relief that this country has avoided the danger of isolation and has provided leadership in taking the European Union into a position where it can effectively make decisions not only for its own benefit but for that of the wider world.
Does the noble Baroness agree that the rampant Euro-scepticism to which certain Conservatives are now kow-towing risks obscuring the reality that Britain is at far less risk of having unwanted decisions imposed upon it by the European Union than it is by isolating itself from the potentiality of influencing those decisions for our own benefit and for the benefit of those whom we would seek to help effectively in the third countries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right and I agree with his comments. It is important that we are not on the margins of this debate but that we are in the centre of, and leading, the debate and influencing the decisions which are taken. The noble Lord is also right that we need to ensure that we engage in a debate and a discussion with those who are peddling the myth and ensure that the debate is based on facts and reality. Here, we are dealing not only with some of our parliamentarians who hold a different view from that of the Government; we are also dealing with the press and other opinion formers who seek to

1039
move the debate into a different territory. They are dealing not with the facts and the positive aspects of our membership of the European Union but with underlying myths.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, did not the noble Baroness hear the Prime Minister say that the constitution protects our right to run our own foreign policy? Does she agree that for most people it seems absolutely obvious that we should maintain that right and inconceivable that we should lose it? But is not the difficulty here—I use this simply as an illustration—that what seems obvious to the noble Baroness and to me seems to be contradicted by the plain words of the treaty?
How can our right to run our own foreign policy not be adversely affected when the treaty creates an EU Foreign Minister who,
"shall conduct the Union's foreign and security policy",
and when we are obliged by the treaty to support that policy actively and unreservedly, in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity, and when we are obliged by the treaty to refrain from any action contrary to the Union's interests? In those circumstances, if the words of the treaty to which the Prime Minister signed up are taken with their natural meaning, how on earth can anyone assert that our ability to run our own foreign policy is not adversely affected? If the noble Baroness is saying that, she is contradicting the plain words of the treaty.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that the common foreign and security policy and the text regarding the issue of loyalty are contained in the Maastricht Treaty, signed up to by John Major, Prime Minister of a Conservative government. In respect of the common foreign and security policy and the European Foreign Minister, the treaty will make the CFSP more effective and coherent by introducing a set of common objectives for the CFSP and the Union's wider external action. That issue was left open following Maastricht.
I also remind the noble Lord that two current jobs in the European Union—the external relations post and the Chris Patten post—will be brought together to create the European Foreign Minister post. At the moment, the presidency is able to speak at United Nations' meetings, but that will be substituted by the European Foreign Minister. The text to which the noble Lord objects so strongly was signed up to by Parliament under the Maastricht Treaty.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, as the Government are now on a steep uphill path to the top of mount referendum, will the Leader of the House agree with some positive advice from a veteran of various European treaties? The advice is, first, that the Government should explain to the public that, despite comments in the media and elsewhere, the European Union has always been for greater freedom—freedom for our citizens—exchange students and house-hunters, for example—to go where they wish in the
1040
Union; freedom for trade in a single market with a massive reduction in red tape compared with the situation that existed before; and freedom for capital exchanges. "Friends" may have ended on television, but "friends" continues to run in the European Union. My second piece of advice is to concentrate principally on part one of the Constitutional Treaty, which is very short and clear and contains almost all the significant changes of substance and presentation in the new treaty.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, a veteran of negotiations at EU level. I am very happy to take his advice. He is absolutely right. We need to explain to the public exactly what the European Union stands for. His use of the term "freedom" is very important indeed. The noble Lord is also right about part one of the constitution and its clarity in setting out the areas that it addresses. It is important to recognise that the Constitutional Treaty is also about greater flexibility. Let us not forget that.
Lord Radice: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the agreement of last weekend on the Constitutional Treaty is good for Britain and good for Europe? It is good for Britain and good for Europe because it prepares the European Union for a Europe of 25 and at the same time skilfully preserves a proper balance between the nation state and action at a European level. Is she also aware that colleagues on all sides of the House look forward to exploding the myths and misinterpretations that we heard about the Constitutional Treaty long before it was agreed and long before it was even in draft form? We look forward to putting the positive case about the treaty and about our membership of the European Union, a case that I predict will be supported by the British people.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend. As a result of the decision that was taken on holding a referendum and as a result of the skilful negotiation conducted by my right honourable friend over the weekend, we can now move the debate forward and concentrate on the positive case and, as my noble friend said, on the proper balance between the nation state and action at European level. We can also focus on the fact that this is not only good for Britain, but also good for Europe and for Europe's role in the wider world.
Lord Taverne: My Lords—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords—
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we have plenty of time. There are several minutes left so I suggest that we hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches and then from the Conservative Benches.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, do the Government agree that it is quite extraordinary that almost unanimously the rest of the European press has declared the negotiations to be a victory for the British view of the

1041
European Union, while certain quarters now apparently declare that this is a further step towards a federal Europe? Do the Government accept that it is important that they should put boldly the positive case for Europe and that they should not shy away from the apparently difficult issues? Will they stress, for example, that majority voting in Europe has been overwhelmingly in the British interest; and that, where possible, Europe speaking with a single voice on foreign affairs is in the interests not only of Europe but also of this country? If the Government are not prepared to speak out clearly and with courage, it will be much more difficult to transform the somewhat parochial view of our national interests that now prevails in certain quarters.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The press across European countries—France, Spain and Germany—all herald what they see as a British victory in terms of getting the balance right between the nation state and action at a European level. Le Figaro, but one example, talked about the draft constitution sealing the victory of the nation states over the European super state.
I say to the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and this Government have no intention of shying away from difficult issues. When one considers the action that we have taken, not just on the constitution but also on other areas of foreign policy, that has been made absolutely clear. Yesterday in an interview, the Prime Minister spoke of the need to lead the debate and to ensure that the British public understand that he was acting in the best interests of Britain.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, can the Leader of the House explain why, prior to last weekend, the Government stated that they were opposed to the concept of the public prosecutor, even if it were to be preceded by a unanimous decision? Such a post was stated to be unacceptable, even with the unanimity qualification. Why have the Government changed their mind?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we saw no reason to create the post. We have ensured that under the treaty a public prosecutor could be created only by unanimity. That means that our consent would be required to create such a post. However, at the moment we see no reason to create such a post.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that before the parliamentary procedure takes place there is a case for a White Paper setting out in more popular language what is in the constitution? Whatever side of the argument one takes, the constitution is not a document that one would put in every post office. Is there not a case for an explanation of the Constitutional Treaty in popular wording being provided around the country so that people can see what Parliament will debate on the ratification of the treaty?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to bring to our attention the need to ensure that
1042
the treaty is understood and put into day-to-day language. I am not sure that the best vehicle or route to achieve that is a White Paper, but I share the underlying point made by my noble friend about being positive on what is in the treaty so that people can relate to it and understand it.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware—she may be too young to remember it—that the foundation of the search for a common foreign and security policy was laid in part three of the Single European Act in 1985? It was based on a draft treaty that was handed, in my presence, to Chancellor Kohl by my noble friend Lady Thatcher and the search has continued to this day. It is founded on a principle that I am sure will appeal to my noble friends, that we want to enhance Britain's influence around the world. If one applies Archimedes' principle,
"Give me whereon to stand and I will move the earth",
the place whereon this country should stand is at the heart of the European Union.
Will the Minister further accept that if that case is to be accepted, as it should be, the longer the referendum is postponed the greater the burden of responsibility upon the Prime Minister and his colleagues to argue that case vigorously and tenaciously? Meanwhile, will she do everything possible to secure a president to the Commission who has the driving energy and integrity to tighten the administration of the Commission and to implement the urgent Lisbon agenda for economic liberalism to be applied not just in this country but throughout the European Union?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I certainly hope, in light of the wise words from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, that we will be able to argue that case vigorously and tenaciously together. We need to work on this across party lines in the interests of the British people. I say to the noble and learned Lord that I am not too young to remember the 1985 Single European Act, but my memory, I have to say, is not as good as that of the noble and learned Lord. I thank him very much for reminding us.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in her Statement in the context of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Leader of the House said that the treaty requires those explanatory statements to be given due regard by the courts. In consideration of an express provision which shows incompatibility between the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the wording of the text itself, what, if any, relevance has the charter?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Lord on that. My understanding is that the charter is enforceable in British courts when it interacts with EU law, but it does not give the European Union any wider powers. I should like to go back and check the detail and write to the noble Lord if I can amplify the matter in any way.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give further thought to the very good suggestion of the

1043
noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, about a White Paper? The prospect is of proceeding by other means with campaigning organisations expressing their slanted views of the various issues. For those of us who stand in the middle, it will be very helpful to have something which has some evidence of impartiality.
In the same vein, does the noble Baroness realise that the great majority of the public and a large number of Members of this House subsist for their views on these negotiations on broad assertions made by one side and broad denials made by the other? Will she assure us that in the debates on the Bill that will become the Act of ratification there will be an opportunity to go through the constitution more or less line by line?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally take the point being made by the noble Lord about the need for impartiality. Having looked in detail at the press over the weekend, I recognise the point made about broad assertions being made by our political commentators.
On the issue of how we discuss the Bill and the treaty, we will do that in the same way as in the past when we have debated other treaties. I am sure that when we reach that point this House will make its own decisions about the best way of doing so.

Children Bill [H.L.]
4.54 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 57:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"SINGLE CHILDREN'S SERVICES PLAN
Each children's services authority shall produce a single local children's plan setting out how the authority and relevant partners and the Local Safeguarding Children Board propose to fulfil their functions relating to improving the well-being of children in the authority's area, including their educational development, and safeguarding and promoting their welfare."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 57, I return to a proposal I made in Committee that the Bill should contain a requirement for every children's services authority to produce an overarching local children's plan.
Having a single plan of this kind is important. If we believe in the delivery of integrated services, which we do, that delivery will be immeasurably buttressed by planning for them in a co-ordinated way. It would force partners to prioritise and make decisions about how best to promote the well-being of children. One spin-off would be that the public sector would be relieved of the need to have individual statutory plans covering the various elements of service delivery. Of course, it would still be possible to develop more specific plans if that were thought necessary.
The Minister was good enough to say that she was sympathetic to the intentions of the amendment and that the Government were in the process of talking to
1044
partners about how to achieve the transition from a single education plan to a whole children's agenda plan. However, she felt that more time was needed to consult and that in any event the introduction of a single plan should be accompanied by the lifting of the existing planning arrangements. I understand that entirely. I have not attempted in my amendment to repeal any of the existing arrangements and I agree that that would need to be done if it were accepted.
However, I am not sure that I found the Minister's arguments for resisting the amendment all that convincing. If the Government believe that my amendment is in principle a good idea and they are working towards the objective that is set out, then surely something along these lines should be in the Bill? It is open to the Government to bring different parts of the Bill into force at different times, so the provision would not need to bite immediately.
I wonder whether the Minister could reflect further on this, because it seems to me that the Bill presents a golden opportunity for setting out the direction in which we want to go, over the medium as well as the short term, in the way that children's services are planned and delivered. I beg to move.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I support the thrust of the amendment as set out by the noble Earl. It seems to me that one of the tests of these new arrangements is how well the local services actually look at the needs and well-being of all children in their area. In recognising that each of the key services has a unique contribution to make to achieving that goal, one of the disciplines that we should consider very carefully imposing upon them is the requirement to produce such a plan. It is against that plan that their achievements, or lack of achievements, can be measured.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond to this amendment. It is interesting how over the years we have moved, not least under the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to seeing children not as a bundle of problems but as young people who deserve to be treated as individuals and who need a coherent approach to all the services they require for their potential and aspirations as well as for their needs. We have every sympathy with the amendment, which would require the children's services authority to have a statutory plan for children's services. Coherent and joined-up planning is clearly essential to the well-being of children.
In Committee, we debated a similar amendment. I told your Lordships with conviction that we wanted to move forward with planning for children's services and that we were considering how best to do so. The current position, as I said, is that planning for education and social services for children is largely separate. In education, we are in the process of introducing a single education plan. Social services departments are required to have a children's services plan for children in need. We are very conscious of the need to move to a more unified position, taking into account planning across the whole agenda.

1045
The Bill repeals the requirement for a children's services plan because the provision specifically relates to children in need rather than to all children. I am delighted to be able to say that we have now also decided to introduce a requirement that local authorities have a statutory plan for children and young people which will include both education and social services as a minimum. That means that we will not be proceeding with a draft regulatory reform order, which was to have introduced the single education plan.
The only exception to the requirement is likely to be for those authorities given the freedom in 2002 from producing plans by virtue of their excellent performance and star rating for education and comprehensive performance assessments. That is well established and makes perfect sense because we know that those authorities with an excellent record are already thinking and acting in terms of planning strategically across the children's agenda. They are very much at the leading edge so we expect them to be in the forefront of those developments.
So at the same time as legislating for a plan for children and young people, we need to lift requirements for four statutory education plans that are linked, which we were planning to do under the draft regulatory reform order which would have introduced the single education plan. Those are the behaviour support plan, the early years development and childcare plan, the education development plan and the school organisation plan. As the noble Lord said, we have begun to share our thinking with local authorities and voluntary sector partners. It is gratifying to note that their response has been so warm. They see that as a positive proposal and have pledged their support as we take the next steps and see the children's agenda as holistic.
5 p.m.
However, we need time. Having agreed the principle, this is complex stuff and needs time and careful thought about both the scope and timing of the children and young persons' plan. I will ensure that noble Lords are made aware of how we intend to proceed now that we have made the decision. Of course, it would be possible to achieve those purposes via a government amendment to the Bill in another place and we are considering that possibility.
So I hope that noble Lords accept that we agree on this issue and see a clear way forward. We have made progress and I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, what can I say, except how pleased I am that the Government have made such progress? I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining in detail the thinking behind recent deliberations and consultations. What she said certainly meets the point that I sought to convey. I am very pleased to hear that the Government are considering tabling an amendment in another place. I hope that they take this opportunity to do that, because the Bill is a golden opportunity. I reiterate my
1046
gratitude to the noble Baroness for giving me that extremely good news this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"PERSONAL SERVICE CO-ORDINATOR
(1) A children's services authority shall, where it considers appropriate for a particular child, designate a person to act as a personal service co-ordinator for that child.
(2) The function of the personal service co-ordinator will be to act as a lead worker to co-ordinate what is done by each person or body, for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of the individual child, and to ensure that the appropriate service is delivered.
(3) The personal service co-ordinator can be any appropriate officer of the children's services authority or its partners, or any person the authority deems appropriate."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I trust that this amendment will receive a similar response from the Government as another good idea.
The rationale for the amendment is that effective co-ordination and exchange of information about a child between professionals simply will not happen spontaneously, even with a central database, as provided for by Clause 8. Someone must be responsible for it; I know that that course of thinking is what the Government have in mind. Thirty years of inquiries into child protection failures have shown lack of co-ordination to be the central failing of the system in case after case.
Someone must get to know the child. At the point of delivery to the user, there should be a human being and a human relationship—a relationship of trust, to cite the Minister on a previous occasion—between the service provider and the child and its carers. That will help to ensure that the service provided is really appropriate to the child. No single professional ever got to know Victoria Climbié that emerged from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who is in his place.
When introducing the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said that there would be reform of working practices, including the use of lead professionals, but that that would be done outside legislation. That sidelines what ought to be a crucial reform within the Bill. Instead of placing it at the core of the new system, it is perhaps to be done by guidelines—I am not quite sure; perhaps the Minister can tell us.
The Bill's proposals, such as the Children's Commissioner and local directors of children's services, partial mergers of agencies, a new database and a reformed inspection regime, do not directly address the lack of individual accountability for decisions about a particular child. It is not clear how those complex reorganisations will help the frontline deliverer of the service. That is why the amendment would place an identifiable human being in the lead position for each child, where the children services authority considers it appropriate, as the amendment provides. That is an appropriate caveat to include in the amendment because

1047
that is not needed for most children, but for some it is an approach that deserves careful consideration. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is such a good idea that I can tell the noble Baroness that it is in the Green Paper. She made an excellent and eloquent case for that personal relationship. Perhaps I may explain in a little detail what we intend to do and how far we have reached in our thinking. That is one of the most positive and exciting parts of the new arrangement.
The role of the personal service co-ordinator—the noble Baroness is right to place the emphasis on co-ordination—is reflected in Every Child Matters with reference to the need for a lead professional. That lead professional is for every child who is in contact with more than one specialist agency. In that context, in view of our debates on Clause 8 and the need to share information, and so on, it is important to build in a personal and consistent relationship. So that is clearly already part of our forward thinking for the organisation of children's services. Some very good officials are considering how best to take that forward in operative terms.
By lead professional, we mean a professional responsible at a minimum for ensuring that all those working with a particular child are sharing information effectively; that there is a co-ordinated approach to meeting the child's needs; and that there are regular reviews of the effectiveness of that approach. So co-ordination, follow-through and monitoring is involved, undertaken by one consistent person. Where they have the appropriate skills and knowledge, they may also be expected to carry out case work themselves; we are not saying that case workers and lead professionals are exclusive and different.
The role of that professional has been designed to ensure that those children with additional support needs—that is important—and those children who are assessed under the common assessment framework as having complex needs requiring more specialist support but who do not currently meet the threshold for statutory intervention under Section 47 of the Children Act—those children who fall in the gap between a general assessment under Section 17 and the child protection assessment in Section 47—will now have access to a case management approach to meeting their needs with a responsible professional in charge. Currently, there is no framework to ensure an integrated approach to meeting the needs of children who fall below the formal child protection threshold. Those who work in the services will be pleased that we are filling that gap in that practical way.
The department has been working closely with several local authority areas that are being funded to test some models for that integrated support framework for children and their families. We are considering what practical ideas are emerging and how we can universalise them and tap into and develop best practice. At this stage, our thinking is that the lead professional function may emerge from and become a more formal part of the work of such people as
1048
educational welfare officers, social workers, family workers, learning mentors and Connexions personal advisers.
We intend to produce strong and specific guidance on the role of and best practice for the lead professional. The aim of that guidance will be to enable and encourage effective implementation of what we believe to be the most suitable way to ensure that those children with the need for additional support services gain access to an integrated service. That guidance will be based on the substantial evidence emerging from those trailblazing areas and will also draw on the extensive consultation for which we are planning.
My second reason for being unable to accept the amendment is that it is technically unnecessary. Children's services authorities already have the general powers that they need to appoint such lead professionals. They do not need new powers to do that. That will also be covered in the guidance, which will obviously be issued before the policy is rolled out. It will be facilitated by the development of the common assessment framework, on which we are working very hard.
The third difficulty, which I think the noble Baroness will accept, is that we do not want to create a single organisational model but one which is able to respond to the situation of individual service authorities and their populations. We do not want a single model to run across all authorities on a legislative level. We must give local authorities the opportunity to interpret guidance in line with their needs and be flexible and adaptable in that regard.
I recognise that subsection (1) of the proposed new clause recognises the need for flexibility by stating that it should be provided where appropriate. However, it would have the perverse effect of providing a loophole, which would ensure that the amendment would have more weight than guidance because it would allow people to opt out. The guidance is intended to address the issue in more detail.
I have given the noble Baroness three very good reasons for withdrawing her amendment, but I hope that she will do so on the understanding that we are very engaged with the process and want to see all the ideals that she has set out realised in practice.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may seek clarification. Would it be envisaged that such a named person—which seems an absolutely excellent idea—should have a right of entry into the household of the child for whom he or she was responsible?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I cannot answer that question at present. It is a co-ordinating post, so the person would be responsible for ensuring that the other people involved in delivering services to the young person did their job properly. If those people had rights of entry, the co-ordinator would ensure that they were enforced. We do not know whether they would have in their job description any additional

1049
powers to secure that or anything else, but it is unlikely. We must wait to see how it will be worked out in practice and in the guidance.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. It was because I was impressed by this idea in Every Child Matters that I was so surprised not to see it in the Bill. It is a central plank of the Government's thinking about the matter and the role of accountability and co-ordination. I was also most impressed by the co-ordination role described by the trailblazing authorities when they came to your Lordships' House to make their presentations. I have to say that this is clearly working without the benefit of Clause 8, and with the benefit of quite a lot of money.
However, I shall certainly look with great interest at the guidance when it comes in. I hope that it is tight enough to ensure that every child who needs the services of such a co-ordinator has them. It would be nice to feel that the resources for such people would be forthcoming, but we will have to wait and see. I am delighted that the noble Baroness and I appear to be thinking along the same lines in our admiration for the idea expressed in Every Child Matters. It is now a matter of seeing how it is implemented. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, we come to Amendment No. 59. If Amendment No. 62 were agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendments Nos. 62A to 64A.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 59:
Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
"CHILDREN'S SERVICES INSPECTORATE
There shall be a body corporate called the Children's Services Inspectorate, the chief officer of which shall be known as the Chief Inspector of Children's Services and which shall otherwise be constituted in such manner and have such functions in addition to those conferred upon it by section 16 as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61A, 62A, 63, 63A and 64A.
This group of amendments is probing, but the amendments relate to two slightly different issues. Amendments Nos. 59, 61A, 62A and 64A all suggest the substitution of a chief inspector for children's services in lieu of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. Clauses 15 and 16 make it clear that, while a whole range of agencies, including the Commission for Social Care Inspection, are to be involved in the joint area reviews, the co-ordinator of the reviews is to be the Chief Inspector of Schools. Clause 16 requires that he draw up the framework for inspection.
In the briefings that we all received before Second Reading, quite a number of doubts were raised about to what extent Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools should be given that role and whether his staff
1050
in Ofsted really had the right background, knowledge and experience to take it on. This is particularly important given the new role that the Government now seem to envisage for Ofsted, which is narrower in relation to schools. Can someone with a largely educational background really understand the social services framework and the issues involved?
In that regard, I was surprised that more amendments on inspection were not tabled in Committee. As there were no amendments on the issue, we did not get the chance to discuss the Government's intentions in regard to how they see the area reviews and the inspection framework working with all the different agencies and organisations listed in Clause 15(5), and how it is envisaged that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools will set about drawing up a comprehensive framework of inspection. Amendment No. 59 is tabled as a probing measure because we would like to hear a little more about how it is proposed to set about all these tasks.
Amendments Nos. 63 and 63A are different because they take it as given that there will be an area review mechanism and raise two further questions regarding the mechanism. The aim of Amendment No. 63 is that the reviews should be conducted only after the framework envisaged in Clause 16(7) has been agreed. Therefore we would like to know more about how that framework might be developed. It is reasonable to ask that it should be in place before the area reviews take place.
Amendment No. 63A questions the timing of the reviews. As noble Lords may know, under the current Ofsted framework for area reviews of local educational authorities, the authorities are inspected over a four-year period. Amendment No. 63A would ensure that the inspectorate, while accepting the four-year cycle, reported annually to the Secretary of State. The current Ofsted LEA inspection regime aims for,
"sharper, shorter inspections to assist LEAs in their task of supporting schools"
and to ensure that the level of inspection will be,
"commensurate with the local authority's performance, needs and plans, as indicated by the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) of its education services".
The number of days allocated for inspection fieldwork is determined by a formula based on the comprehensive performance assessment education scores and the overall grade for effectiveness given in the LEA's previous inspection. LEAs with the highest comprehensive performance assessment scores and with a good overall grade will be allocated "substantially less time" for inspection fieldwork.
For the highest performance LEAs, fieldwork could range from 20 to 30 inspector days. For weaker LEAs, inspection fieldwork could be allocated 45 days or even more. The remaining LEAs would receive inspections of between 30 and 45 days. Those local authorities graded "excellent" under the CPA get an inspection holiday, permitted under the Government's new freedoms and flexibilities for local government.
We ask the Government to tell us whether the variations in CPA achievement will be reflected in the new inspection regime for children's services; how far

1051
those proposals will have an impact down the line—for example, on schools—how far the framework under Clause 16(7) is to be developed and drawn up; and how far it will be applied. I beg to move.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I have been wrong-footed on this probing amendment as the noble Baroness has made the case well against it. Nevertheless, I will make the points that I would have made if she had made the speech that I thought she might have made, simply to underline the issues that I feel are important.
I was deeply concerned about the suggestion that there should be one children's inspectorate. As noble Lords will know, we already have two inspection bodies, Ofsted and CSCI, which are responsible for the inspection of children's services. These two bodies bring experience and expertise that are invaluable in their respective fields of education and social care. Clauses 15 to 18 set out provisions for joint area reviews and inspection frameworks between the inspectorates, building on their expertise and developing proportionate inspections. Clause 17 sets out a duty on those in inspection bodies to co-operate. I know that CSCI and Ofsted have already developed proposals in this regard.
However, as was clearly outlined by the noble Baroness in the last part of her speech, these are very much linked to the education elements of inspection. I am concerned about the welfare aspects of inspection. Long experience has taught me that if education issues come to the fore it is seen as a political priority, often at the expense of children's social care. It is crucial that children's work has focus and emphasis. Far from improving this, a single inspectorate would be detrimental.
It would also cause further instability in the sector. I do not know who is pressing for this amendment—I gather no-one, now that I have heard that it is a probing amendment—but I know from having spoken to numerous people, providers, users and inspectors in social care, that yet another regime that inflicts new methodologies and ways of working would destabilise what is happening.
I emphasise that it is not only for boarding schools that a framework is being put together under the lead of Ofsted—whatever view one might have about that—but for foster care family centres, children's homes and adoption agencies, all with their own specialisms which crucially need to be developed in CSCI.
I was a member of the National Care Standards Commission when, 17 days after its inception, I was told that it was going to be CSCI. I worked for two years with that instability. I beg your Lordships not to re-inflict that in any form on the sector, which at the moment is developing extremely well.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 62 and 64, which are in this group. Again, they are very much probing amendments to seek clarification. With regard to Amendment No. 62,
1052
if the wording is to be taken to mean that the "arrangements" are simply the procedure by which the reviews are to be carried out, we have no objection, but I need that to be clarified. However, there is an implication in the Bill that the role of the chief inspector will be much stronger than that, and again I seek clarification.
Once again, the major problem is that there is a disparate body of people involved, and we are not satisfied that the Bill will establish a clear line of command. The chief inspector may be expected to command support, if not obedience, from those who work in education, except that he is the sole representative of the child and youth education listed. He has, perhaps, fairly strong ties to social services and the police, but where is his knowledge or understanding of the rest of his functions to be drawn from? Indeed, the noble Baroness, lady Howarth, was right to ask about the social care side. That obviously needs to be looked at.
Some of those working in the individual authorities charged with the provision of children's services are employed on contracts that have no reference to the type of activity envisaged by the Bill. Do the Government anticipate that they will provide their time and input in effect for free, and in accordance with the timetable set out by the chief inspector of schools? How do the Government expect a review to work? It may well follow the lines of existing reviews, but I would like clarification of that. Will the Minister address the timetable that is envisaged—that is, the frequency, the time allowed to set up the review, the time to carry out the review, and the time allowed for the report to be published following the review? It is not clear, but it may well be that this is tied up with other existing Acts or processes. Who will pay for the undoubted clerical, administrative and use of resources costs involved?
Finally on this amendment, will the Minister assure the House that the senior people listed here—several of them are in groups listed between paragraphs (a) and (i)—will have some form of indemnity to protect them from censure? For example, the chief inspector is listed as literally the "chief inspector". I presume that means one individual person. Will he have some form of indemnity to protect him from censure should the duties under this section interfere with other duties that he might have to undertake as a chief constable? It is not clear where the overlap does or does not occur. These are fairly minor points, but I would be glad of some clarification.
With regard to Amendment No. 64, I understand that the reviews will be carried out by a combination of designated job-holders and responsible bodies. In theory at least, it would be possible to have the Chief Inspector of Constabulary working with a social care inspector. Is the former senior to the latter, or are they all equal? If these reviews are to have value, they must be properly organised and run. They will need high-quality administrative and clerical support. Each review must be clearly staffed with the lead person identified by name and not by department or function,

1053
or not notified at all. A timetable should be laid down. I apologise to the Minister that there are quite a few questions, but I was not here for Committee stage.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I contribute to this debate with some diffidence, partly because the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, knows a great deal more about education and the working of Ofsted than I will ever know. In commenting on this amendment I need to declare two interests. The first is that I shall be quoting from the Victoria Climbié report. Noble Lords will recall that one of the firm conclusions reached in that inquiry was that each of the statutory services has a separate and distinctive contribution to make to the wellbeing and safeguarding of children. It is not possible to adequately provide that framework if any one of those services fails to carry out its particular responsibilities.
Clause 7 is one of the great achievements of the Bill because it places a duty of care on each one of the key services. That being so, it seems clear that the Government's inspectorates and the Audit Commission have a contribution to make that needs to mirror those functions of these key services. I declare an interest in that Members of your Lordships' House will probably know that the 10 inspectorates have produced a discussion document on this, which they have all signed up to. If there is anything good in this, I claim no credit for it, although I admit that I played a small part in it.
It is important to be clear what the inspectorates are doing to respond to the challenge that the Government have placed on them. Each inspectorate will continue to fulfil its distinctive core functions. In so doing, it will amass a huge amount of data relating to the wellbeing of children, both specifically and generally. In discussion, it seemed to the inspectorates that it would be helpful if that data could be brought together to produce a more comprehensive picture of children's needs and the way in which those needs are being met, and for the inspectorates to produce a protocol whereby collectively they could look at the way in which the co-ordinating machinery, as established by the Bill, is working for the benefit of children.
5.30 p.m.
Therefore, in addition to their everyday responsibilities—to put it rather crudely—the inspectorates would produce a protocol whereby they could collectively work towards evaluating how well the arrangements under the Bill would work in the future. Because of that, they came together and produced this document, which I commend to your Lordships.
In those discussions, it was clear that one body would have to co-ordinate the activities. That is not to say that it would dominate, dictate or override other inspectorates, but would take on the duty of co-ordinating the task. The Government decided that Ofsted was best placed to do that for one overriding reason; namely, that Ofsted has an interest in the whole range of school-age children. Therefore, it would be the service that would have most contact with children as whole.
1054
I hope that I have not detained the House too long. I hope that noble Lords will feel that the progress that has been made in producing an almost unique way of working across 10 government inspectorates is something that should commend itself to the House. Therefore, I hope that the thrust of the thinking behind this amendment will be considered to have been addressed in that way.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that not only has he allowed me to be briefer than I would have been, which is great, but also that he is being modest in saying he has played a very small role in this. The noble Lord has been incredibly helpful in ensuring that all of this was thought through properly. I should not think that other noble Lords underestimate for a moment the importance of that role.
I am pleased, too, that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that this is a probing amendment. I can therefore skip everything that refers to what would happen if the amendment should be passed. I can see clearly now that the noble Baroness was looking for reassurance and wanting to discuss the overarching issues rather than either to create a brand new inspectorate umbrella or to subsume all the other inspectorates. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, addressed the problems that would be created were we to take that route. I shall therefore not spend too much time on that.
The critical element of this is within the discussion document. We have brought together 10 different inspectorates to consider how best their resources, services and inspections can focus on an area in order to consider outcomes for children as effectively as possible. Noble Lords who have had the opportunity to look at the discussion paper will know that these are proposals presented by all of them. It states that the proposals come from a steering group of commissions and inspectorates.
Members of the steering group fully recognise the benefits that a co-ordinated approach can bring and are committed to working together to meet the objectives of Every Child Matters, which states:
"Nothing can be more important than promoting the well-being of children and young people and we believe that inspection, assessment and review have a key part to play in evaluating and helping to improve the way services work together to improve outcomes".
In seeking views from people, the inspectorates hope to be able to refine the work that they are doing and consider how best they can establish the framework. I think that noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was concerned about how the framework would work. They have already said that they want to see an integrated approach that will establish agreed sets of principles that underpin all inspection activity; they want to define the contributions to the outcomes for children and young people that different settings and different services may make; they want to identify an extent to which these will be evaluated in different inspections; and they want to develop a consistent approach to making judgments, which I think is important in that co-ordinated

1055
framework. By conducting joint area reviews, evidence from a range of different sources will be pooled so that it can be linked into a unified system of performance assessment.
That is the basis on which this discussion document has gone forward. Noble Lords who have seen it will know that it goes into much greater detail of the ways in which the inspections would operate, including having the experience of children and young people and the outcomes for them at its heart. Again, that is absolutely critical.
The reviews will work by being organised around the arrangements set up under Clause 15(6). The initial thoughts fall within the document that was published in May 2004. The ambition is that the inspectorates will reach a point where they can make fuller proposals on which there can be a full consultation later this year. This is their "first stab" at looking at what might be the right way to go forward. As I have said, that is based on what they have said about an integrated approach and what they hope to achieve by so doing. They hope to position this within a framework that is consistent and agreed between them all.
In terms of the resources available, two points are critical. The first is for the Government to ensure that resources are available. But I have always been a very strong believer that when one integrates different services, greater opportunities are provided for "better"—dare I use that word?—resources. I am not sure that there will be a resource implication in addition to those that currently exist. However, I accept that that is a critical part of the way in which we must approach the issue. If I am able to elaborate on that, I shall do so in correspondence, but it will be important to make sure that we have considered that.
As regards timing issues, we will ensure that inspection arrangements are differentiated between different authorities, which reflect their comprehensive performance assessment ratings. That may mean that some authorities will have less frequent inspections or, indeed, inspections with less fieldwork associated with them. The regulations being put in place under Clause 15(1) can set out the times or intervals for inspections. Currently, we intend that all authorities will receive an initial joint area review. We will assess the timings of follow-up reviews in the light of experience during that initial round.
That is the ambition. I have said that there will be an opportunity to look at the fuller ambitions of the joint inspectorate document later in the year when it comes into formal consultation and after there has been an opportunity to reflect on what is in the document. I recommend noble Lords to examine it. It demonstrates not only the commitment of the different inspectorates working together, but also the way in which they plan to go about it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, spoke about the possible conflict of interests. The chief inspectors and inspectorates that are listed, as the noble Baroness said, in Clause 15(5) are all bodies and organisations that focus on inspections. The purpose of the joint area
1056
review is to ensure that the work on children's services takes place against a joint statement of principles, on which the inspectorates have done excellent work and have made great progress, some of which I have just indicated.
In a sense, this will embody the common purpose at the heart of the Bill. All the inspectorates are equal. The references to the chief inspector are to ensure accountability where needed, which brings me to the role of Ofsted. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, was very much party to these discussions and deliberations. As he said, the reason that Ofsted has been put in this position is twofold. First, it is the only inspectorate that deals solely with children: other inspectorates deal with adults and work in different ways. Secondly, it was thought very important that someone should take the final decision. We expect that this will be done through consultation. However, if a local authority has particular issues around certain aspects of its work, it may well be appropriate for that inspectorate to take the lead. The situation would be obvious. For example, if the issues were to surround social services, it would be appropriate for it to be the social care inspectorate and so forth.
Ultimately, we need a co-ordinator who can make the final decision in what I stress would be the collaborative sense, not in an overriding way. We feel it is important for one body to take final responsibility and we have chosen to achieve that in this way. As I have said, engagement and co-operation have been very encouraging so far, and we believe that the inspectorates are working together extremely well.
I hope, therefore, that I have been able to address the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, while deliberately not taking the route of explaining in detail what the effect of the amendment would be.
I return to a question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. We are very clear that we expect the framework for inspections of services to be in place at the start of joint area reviews. While that is not stated explicitly in the Bill, that is the ambition and the timetable the inspectorates are working towards in the deliberations that form part of the discussion document.
I have already indicated why we think that Ofsted is the appropriate body to take forward the co-ordination role as I have described it. Amendment No. 64 asks for agreement on the most suitable inspectorate or commission to take the lead for each review. However, were no one to be available, should no agreement be reached? Ultimately, we are beholden to ensuring that there is a process in place should such a situation arise. It is not one that we anticipate, but we have to be clear about this.
We recognise that the arrangements under Clause 15(6) need to cover when the review would be scheduled, notification of the review, the formation of the review team, and who is to be the lead inspector. All of those details need to be in place to make sure that we fulfil our obligations, and we believe that these arrangements are appropriate for the inspectorates to determine.

1057
As I have also said, we do not intend in anything we do to compromise the independence or identity of the other inspectorates, but in order to run what will be a differentiated inspection process which will draw in the broad range of different expertise there has to be a named individual who will look across the programme and take on the co-ordination function. Clause 15(7) provides additional recognition that we value the range of inspectorates by providing that:
"Before making arrangements … the Chief Inspector of Schools must consult such of the other persons and bodies … as he considers appropriate".
I understand, too, the underlying principle that the most suitable inspectorate or commission should lead a particular review. As I have indicated, we are clear that the arrangements for any joint review must include the forming of a review and the determination of who is to lead it. It is important to have a lead inspector to ensure that the initial fieldwork is co-ordinated and that the findings are drawn together in order to prepare the report. Of course the lead inspector could be drawn from any one of the participating inspectorates or commissions. Moreover, it is important that they should fit the circumstances of the particular inspection based on information and knowledge of the areas that perhaps need greater input than others. Clauses 15(6) and (7) allow for that to happen.
I hope that I have given a broad-brush explanation of what we are trying to achieve within the inspection framework, and of our recognition of the way in which the inspectors will work closely together, as well as the way in which the Chief Inspector of Schools would operate in a lead capacity, while recognising that for differential inspection the appropriate inspector will be determined by the needs of that particular inspection, and that it will be co-ordinated through Ofsted.
I hope that I have answered as many of the points as possible and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply and other noble Lords for participating in this debate. I am sorry that I wrong-footed the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, but this was very much a probing amendment. Initially it was proposed by the National Union of Students and arose originally as a result of its suggestion that the Children's Commissioner should be the person to set the framework. Noble Lords on these Benches reacted firmly against that, but said that it would be useful to probe the thinking here. This series of amendments was tabled as a result.
I did not know about the joint report from the various inspectorates. Had I done so, I probably would not have bothered to raise the amendments because that report may well answer many of the questions raised. However, I think that it has been extremely useful to put on the record what is already going on and the reassurance that it is to remain a differentiated inspection process, but one
1058
with underlying collaboration. Many noble Lords will be reassured by the degree of engagement and co-operation that is taking place.
In terms of resources, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, it seems that the early process of getting together can cost much more in resource terms, but that the savings are made down the line. Sometimes a certain amount of seedcorn funding is needed to get such processes under way.
I thank the Minister, once again, for replying in such detail and, in view of the assurances that she has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Joint area reviews]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 11, line 14, at end insert—
"(a)"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 60 I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 61. They address many of the same issues that we have been considering. In the current process of inspecting LEAs, the joint area review is an outcome-driven model of assessing performance, with the outcome focused on the total experience of the child in the local authority area. The original purpose of Ofsted inspections of LEAs was to assess the effectiveness of each LEA's school improvement role. The current framework, set up in 2004, has enlarged this role to look at many other important factors such as compliance with statutory requirements and capacity to improve, as well as output indicators such as the quality of provision for children with special educational needs.
The aim of these amendments is to add an additional purpose; namely, that of an assessment which would be made of the extent to which the children's services authority had improved education and care settings in schools, domiciliary and day care services. The amendment probes the extent to which the joint area review will still assess the LEA in the school improvement role and how much wider that will be.
As I say, the amendments overlap somewhat with the issues already discussed, which the Minister will probably take into account in her reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I should say, first, that I am very sorry that the noble Baroness did not receive a copy of the discussion document. I thought that I had covered everyone. I can confirm that it has been placed in the Library of the House, but I shall ensure that it is sent to all those interested. I apologise if the document was not made widely available, but I try to get everything out as quickly as possible. However, I think that our debate has been extremely useful because it covers an important subject.

1059
My first reaction to the amendments was to turn to a word that I have not used for a while in our debates; that is, "list". I am concerned that we should not find ourselves making another list of different purposes.
Clause 15(4) provides that:
"The purpose of the review … is to evaluate the extent to which, taken together, the children's services being reviewed will improve the well-being of children and relevant young persons".
That is the key focus of the joint area reviews: outcomes for children and young people, and how the children's services being inspected improve their well-being. Clearly, within that, education and care are critical, but there are many bodies which contribute to them. Joint area reviews will look at the children's services authority function as an education authority and review children's social services. Therefore, we agree that the children's services authority has a key role in helping to secure improvement but, as I have indicated, other bodies contribute as well. We could, for example, also list in Clause 15(4) the support given by the relevant partners of the children's services authority, already listed in Clause 6(3).
We do not want to lose sight of the primary focus. We think it is very important that education and care are reviewed properly. Noble Lords will know that the impact on issues of education and care come from a broader range of services and require us to think much more holistically about the impact on a child. To take a purely educational stance for a moment, in terms of wanting improvements in the outcomes for children in educational achievement, we know that much of their ability to achieve comes from what else we can provide in additional support. I have already threatened your Lordships that I could talk about extended schools for hours, but I will not.
I do not think that we need this amendment. I would be concerned about starting another list. The noble Baroness can be reassured that the education authority and social care functions will be reviewed. However, we should be clear that those services are provided by a broader range of organisations. At last, we have the opportunity to review them, as a whole, and to test the outcomes for children.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister and am reassured by what she has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 61 and 61A not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment No. 62 were to be agreed, I would not be able to call Amendments Nos. 62A to 64 because of pre-emption.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 62A to 64A not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert "(including provision for the creation of criminal offences)"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe that these amendments improve Clauses 15 to 18, the inspection clauses. As I have indicated, for the new purposes of joint area reviews, whenever possible we shall mirror the powers that inspectorates have for the purposes of their existing inspections, reviews, investigations and studies.
The principle that failing to provide information to inspectors or obstructing their entry to premises is an offence is well established in other enactments—for example, in Section 57 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 and Sections 66 to 68 and 89 to 90 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. It is our intention that regulations made under Clause 15(9) can replicate this principle for the purpose of joint area reviews.
Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 make it clear that under the regulation-making power of Clause 15(9), a criminal offence can be created where persons fail to comply with requirements under Clause 15(9)(a) or (b). That is where people fail to share or produce information for the purposes of a joint area review, or obstruct an inspector from entering premises for the purposes of a joint area review.
Amendment No. 68 shows that we intend to apply the existing powers of inspectorates and commissions to require information and enter premises, when making regulations under Clause 15(9)(a) or (b). So, where an inspectorate's existing powers of entry specifically exclude domestic premises, the same limitation will apply for the purposes of a joint area review.
Amendment No. 76 provides a definition of an "assessment" as being something which encompasses inspection, review, investigation or study. It adds the word "study" to the three words already in the Bill. Relevant existing enactments use each of these four words, and the intention behind the amendment is very straightforward—it is to ensure that all relevant assessments will be covered by the framework for inspection of children's services and can be drawn upon for the purposes of joint area reviews. In particular, we wish to ensure that evidence from Audit Commission "studies" under Section 33 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 can be drawn upon for the purposes of a joint area review.
Amendments Nos. 69 to 75 and Amendment No. 77 each replace the term "inspections, reviews or investigations" with the word "assessment", as defined by Amendment No. 76.
Clause 15(9)(e) provides that regulations may disapply the requirement for an inspectorate or commission to undertake an assessment. This is straightforwardly to avoid duplication in having the same service or function assessed twice, once for the purpose of a joint area review and, secondly, for another purpose.
In practice, an assessment may be undertaken under an existing enactment and also used for the purpose of a joint area review, with findings included in the report of the joint area review. Amendment No. 67 provides that regulations may also disapply a requirement to do,
"anything in connection with an assessment".
Thus, for example, regulations could disapply the requirement to write a report or an action plan, so avoiding duplicating joint area review activity under another enactment. In other words, one does not have to write the report twice.
I believe that these amendments will improve the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 66 to 68:
Page 11, line 44, at end insert "(including provision for the creation of criminal offences)"
Page 12, line 6, leave out "a review, inspection or investigation" and insert "an assessment or to do anything in connection with an assessment"
Page 12, line 7, at end insert—
"(10) Regulations under subsection (9)(a) and (b) may in particular make provision by applying enactments falling within subsection (11), with or without modification, for the purposes of reviews under this section.
(11) The enactments falling within this subsection are enactments relating to the powers of persons and bodies to which this section applies for the purposes of assessments other than reviews under this section."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16 [Framework]:
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 69 to 72:
Page 12, line 13, leave out "inspection, review or investigation" and insert "assessment"
Page 12, line 14, leave out "inspections, reviews and investigations" and insert "assessments"
Page 12, line 20, leave out "inspection, review or investigation" and insert "assessment"
Page 12, line 22, leave out "inspection, review or investigation is one" and insert "assessment is an assessment"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17 [Co-operation and delegation]:
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 73 to 75:
Page 12, line 37, leave out "inspections, reviews or investigations" and insert "assessments"
Page 12, line 38, leave out "inspections, reviews or investigations" and insert "assessments"
Page 12, line 41, leave out "inspections, reviews or investigations" and insert "assessments"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18 [Sections 15 to 17: interpretation]:
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 76 and 77:
Page 13, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) "Assessment" includes an inspection, review, investigation or study."
Page 13, line 6, leave out from "of" to "is" in line 8 and insert "assessment, or secures that any kind of assessment"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 78:
Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
"CHILDREN'S SERVICES IN WALES: PRINCIPLES
In the delivery of children's services in Wales, Children's Services Authorities and their relevant partners in section 20(3)(a) to (e) shall have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure consistency between all agencies working with and for children and young people in Wales. It is in accordance with Assembly policies that have been debated and were formally adopted on 14 January 2004, when the Assembly recorded that it formally adopted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as the basis of policy-making in this area.
The amendment is also consistent with the advice of the Carlile review into safeguards for children in the NHS in Wales. The Assembly wants this enshrined in primary legislation. This coherent policy framework is essential to realise a shared vision for services. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has praised the use of the convention as a framework for the Assembly's strategy for children and young people.
The Children's Commissioner for Wales and the national umbrella body, Children in Wales, want this amendment because they feel it would be helpful if there were a clear statutory requirement for all those providing children's services in Wales purchased by the Assembly, in line with its strategy, to have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It would give additional force to the commissioner's focus on promoting and safeguarding children's rights and welfare.
At present, the commissioner can recommend improvements, but an explicit instruction to providers of services to children would allow him to identify non-compliance.
The commissioner and the Welsh Assembly want to make Wales fully compliant with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I support the amendment which has been ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. A weakness in the Bill is that the UNCRC has been treated as being of importance solely for the Children's Commissioner, whereas it is of equal importance to all the agencies which provide services for children and young people.

1063
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, indicated the principal benefit of this amendment. It will ensure greater consistency of practice between all the children's agencies in Wales. Two other benefits will also flow from the amendment. First, it will ensure that the commissioner and the children's authorities share the same philosophy and approach. Secondly, I believe that the role of the commissioner will be more effective because the children's authorities will be aware of their statutory duty to act in accordance with the UN convention. Therefore, the amendment would facilitate the implementation of the UNCRC in Wales.
When we discussed a similar amendment in Committee, my noble friend Lady Andrews, in replying, indicated that she was sympathetic to the principles of the amendment. I understood her to say that the department would be discussing the matter further with the Assembly. I very much hope that my noble friend will respond positively to the amendment. However, in fairness to my noble friend I also recall that, in replying to the debate, she mentioned the department's old friend—complex legal issues—that might stand in the way of reform. If the Government have decided to resurrect the complex legal issues argument, the children's charities in Wales would be grateful if the Minister would tell us precisely what those difficulties are so that leading counsel can be instructed to advise us on how they can be overcome.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I also welcome the amendment on behalf of these Benches. The United Nations committee has praised the National Assembly for Wales for setting out its priorities in this field and for commending the convention as a framework within which all service providers should work, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said a moment ago. In Committee, we detected that the Minister showed some warmth towards the amendment and we had hoped that some work has been done on it since so that we could have a favourable reply. It would not go down well in Wales should it emerge that the principle has been accepted for the English commissioner and for the purposes of the Children Bill relating to English issues, but for some reason—to do with devolution or some legal problem—it will not be put into primary legislation for the Welsh people. I say Welsh people, but of course it is Welsh children who are our priority in this Bill.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we had a good debate on this issue in Committee and I am happy that we have another opportunity to revisit what has happened since then. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has been assiduous in keeping us up to the mark on what she wants to achieve. She has spoken about the support in Wales for this change. We fully recognise what Wales has achieved—such a new Assembly giving priority to children—and the Assembly's commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Assembly has adopted the convention as the basis for all its work with children and young people and it has translated the convention into seven core aims that are being developed as a basis both for setting priorities and
1064
for measuring the impact of services for children and young people in Wales. In practical terms, the Assembly already requires that the Children and Young People's Framework Partnerships in Wales set out in their plans their commitment to the convention. Those partnerships are unique to Wales and much can be expected from them. In addition, we know that the Assembly has established a Cabinet Sub-Committee on Children and Young People, the main aim of which is to oversee implementation.
Therefore, to an extent, we are considering something that is logical in terms of what Wales has achieved. I am happy to repeat the assurance that I gave in Committee. The Government are giving detailed consideration to this issue, in conjunction with the Assembly. Discussions to resolve the problems are continuing. I do not think that complex legal issues are an old friend of the Government. The Government would never seek refuge in such an excuse. We are trying to ensure that, if the measure is introduced, it has a practical effect, it adds value, does what it is intended to do and will make a material difference. It must serve the children of Wales in the specific ways intended.
These are not matters that can be lightly or superficially resolved or discussed because they go into the operation of different services in Wales, many of which are organised differently, particularly children's services. We must ensure that all services are treated consistently and will be able to respond consistently. There are serious issues to be resolved that will take time.
We have been asked to come back and keep noble Lords informed about how we are proceeding with those discussions. I must repeat that, because this is work in progress, we will have to wait until discussions are concluded before we can consider giving any commitment to introduce an amendment. This is a live issue and one that we are taking very seriously. We want to make a positive difference. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will undertake to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, is she embarrassed to concede anything at this stage because there is to be a handout from the Secretary of State Mr Peter Hain in the House of Commons at some later time? What difficulties are there?
Baroness Andrews: No, my Lords, it is not a question of that at all. If we require services to develop consistently with the UN convention we have to ensure that they are in position to do so, that they have the capacity to do so and that they do so consistently. When they sign up to do that we must have some guarantee that it will happen. It is very important to have that certainty. It is important, not least for the children who are dependent on those services. These are practical measures. This is not political games play. Officials will be going through a serious process of discussion and review. I am afraid that that is all I can say to noble Lords. I am sincere in that analysis and I hope that we can come back to the House and inform the House in due course what has been achieved.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, although I remain a little unconvinced by what she said. I have a major concern that in parts of Wales there is not a huge choice of providers, and that the Assembly, the children's charities and the Children's Commissioner recognise that they need a lever to give them a little push.
The standards laid out in the convention act as an international benchmark against which services can be measured. It would therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, increase the effectiveness of the commissioner to have some levers with those services. We must close the loop and ensure that everyone is working to a common philosophy and common aim. It is fine to state that the commissioner has to work to those standards; but then he must work with services, with which he has no lever, to ensure that they jack up in every single area. There is a real problem in some parts of Wales—if one took a service away, one would need to know that there was something coming in to fill its place.
At a personal level, I would like to see Wales delivering the best standard of care for children and young people anywhere in the UK. I want Wales to be an exemplar. I believe that the Assembly, the commissioner and the charities in Wales also want that as a common aim. Therefore, we must push on with this matter. I accept what the Minister said—that discussion is in progress and that she is asking for time to come back—but I fear that we cannot wait for ever.
Although at this stage it is appropriate to withdraw the amendment, I am really not convinced that this is something that can be let drop in the long term. As this Bill passes through Parliament, it must incorporate the issue, because there is a consistent call coming from Wales in that regard. I have not heard any voices from Wales saying that they did not want the provision that we are discussing in the Bill. That is a difficulty that I have with the legislation. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Co-operation to improve well-being: Wales]:
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 14, line 5, leave out "and training" and insert ", training and recreation"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 81 to 83 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 84 to 86:
Page 14, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) In making arrangements under this section a children's services authority in Wales must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the well-being of children."
Page 14, line 13, at end insert—
"( ) a youth offending team for an area any part of which falls within the area of the authority;"
Page 14, line 22, after "section" insert—

"(a) provide staff, goods, services, accommodation or other resources;

(b) "

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22 [Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare: Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Establishment of LSCBs in Wales]:
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 17, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) a youth offending team for an area any part of which falls within the area of the authority;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Functions and procedure of LSCBs in Wales]:
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Funding of LSCBs in Wales]:
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 92 and 93:
Page 18, line 37, at end insert—
"(1A) Any person or body specified in subsection (2) may provide staff, goods, services, accommodation or other resources for purposes connected with a Local Safeguarding Children Board established under section 24."
Page 18, line 38, leave out "subsection (1)" and insert "subsections (1) and (1A)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36 [Amendments to notification scheme]:
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 23, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (2), after paragraph (b), insert—
"(c) requiring any person who fosters a child privately within the local authority's area to be registered by the local authority.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, how nice it is to be here. I apologise for my absence during earlier proceedings.
We return yet again to the issue of private fostering and, specifically, its registration. When we debated the matter in Committee, I used a sporting metaphor relating to cricket and bowling to highlight, somewhat lightheartedly, the completely contradictory stance taken by the Minister and her predecessor on this matter. Hence, too, the change of tactics from these Benches. There is perhaps danger of this becoming a classic sporting moment—because, yet again, we on these Benches have returned to the same issue with a slightly different tactic and slightly different form of bowling in an attempt to get through.
These amendments are largely similar to those moved at previous stages and to previous Bills. What has changed this time is that we have removed the restriction that the regulations should apply only to children up to 11. I still believe that it is right, when one

1067
has to prioritise on resources, as we are frequently told we must by the Government, that we should have a reasonable means of doing so. With our earlier amendments, we thought that children below the age of 11 would be likely to be less able to articulate, principally to professionals, that they were in a private fostering relationship that was unsatisfactory. However, we have taken on board what the Minister said on that matter in Committee and have changed our approach.
The first question that we might be asked is, "Why are you making such proposals yet again?" To put it bluntly, although the Minister gave the matter great consideration in her reply, as she always does, and on a fair basis, she was not compelling on the subject—in fact she was far from compelling. The way in which the Government turned the argument on its head, in discussing whether children below the ages of 16 or 11 should be included, was symptomatic of that. The tactic is not unsurprising, when one considers the history of legislation on matters of adoption and fostering. It happens all the time that a government can deploy completely contradictory arguments.
We believe that the Government's points, which they made in Committee, about the need to establish best practice and enable local authorities to have some degree of freedom in which to determine what is best practice, were good ones. However, we see no contradiction between those arguments and stating that there is a necessity for there to be a registration scheme. We on these Benches believe that there is significant evidence from studies such as the Holman study and from People Like Us by William Utting that the notification system does not work. It is ignored far more than it is advanced. When the noble Earl, Lord Howe, comes to speak to his amendments, he may extend that argument.
I reflected at some length on the Minister's remarks in Committee. I agree that there is a great need to enable best practice and to enable local authorities to be proactive in working with communities in which private fostering is more common than in others. At the end of my reflection, I was left with an unmistakeable impression that privately fostered children will remain the most vulnerable and most hidden in the land if we do not have a registration scheme. Although the Government are willing to expend a great deal of time, regulation, effort and expense in the Bill for the majority of children, this is the one area in which there could be the most effective targeting.
The basis for that effective targeting needs to be a registration scheme. The three amendments that stand in my name enable local authorities to do that. They add the power to have a regulation scheme to the Children Act 1989. They place a duty on local authorities to establish and maintain a register. It is inconsistent with practically every other aspect of childcare, not just childminding, about which we spoke on an earlier occasion, but also with fostering, adoption and other forms of childcare. To leave unregistered and unregulated the placing of children with strangers—
1068
maybe for the best of reasons—is wrong. Much of what the Government have put forward to date has been based on the misapprehension that it is possible and comparatively easy to change a bad private fostering arrangement once it has started and that that is better than having a scheme that is proactive, in which private fosterers have to be assessed and show that they come up to standard in advance and in which the arrangements are then monitored. Parents, children and private fosters, all of whom have experience of the current situation, have said to researchers that they believe that a system of registration would be beneficial to all concerned.
The Bill is framed around reactions to the worst care of children. The amendment is a proactive way of ensuring that some of the most vulnerable children receive good and adequate care. Since we discussed this matter during proceedings on the Adoption and Children Bill, I have not understood why the Government are so resistant to this measure. It is a measure that will not affect many children but it will have a demonstrably beneficial effect for a very small number of children. That is why we are back at the crease today. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, before expanding on the noble Baroness's very wise words, with which I fully agree, I shall speak to two other amendments in this group. In Committee, I argued through Amendment No. 94A for a refinement to the provision in Clause 36(6), such that instead of a local authority simply having someone to monitor the discharge of its private fostering duties it would appoint someone responsible for the delivery of the entire service.
The Minister kindly wrote to me about what the monitoring role might involve and I am grateful to her for that. However, the description that she gave in her letter did not really seem to amount to more than a back office job. It did not seem to involve a co-ordinating role for an authority's private fostering activities, including support for carers, which is what my amendment proposes.
If the Minister does not feel able to agree to the amendment, I wonder whether, as a substitute, she might be in a position to reassure me that the national minimum standards for private fostering will include a recommendation that local authorities should appoint a private fostering officer to perform a co-ordinating role, not just a clerical, recording role.
Amendment No. 98 is designed to ask a very simple question. Clause 37(4) sets out the circumstances in which someone may be disqualified from being registered as a private foster carer under the scheme that Ministers will have the power to introduce. Subsection (4)(d) provides that a person will be so disqualified where he has been convicted of a relevant criminal offence, or is on probation for such an offence or, and these are the crucial words,
"he has been discharged absolutely or conditionally for any such offence".
It is this last part that concerns me.
I can understand the reason why a conditional discharge for a certain type of offence might render a person unsuitable to foster a child. But if that person

1069
has been discharged absolutely by a court, what possible grounds could there be for denying him the right to have his name on the register? I simply do not understand how this provision is consistent with natural justice or human rights. I hope that the Minister can explain.
Reverting to the main issue, the essence of the matter is whether we believe that an enhanced notification system on its own is capable of delivering the kind of tightening up of the private fostering system that we all know to be necessary. I am afraid that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, this is one issue on which the Minister has so far failed to convince me. An increase in the number of notifications would be desirable if it could be achieved. But even if it were achieved, there is nothing in current law to enable social workers easily and quickly to stop a private fostering arrangement if they think that it is undesirable. Only a registration scheme would do that.
The Minister held up Gloucestershire as a shining example of why a registration scheme is not needed. It is true that Gloucestershire has actively promoted the current legal requirement for private foster carers to notify the local authority of placements and that that has led to a significant increase in notifications. But Gloucestershire County Council has publicly said that this is not enough. It says:
"We would welcome a requirement that private foster carers must be assessed, approved and registered as the most effective way of ensuring that children and young people are protected and that their needs are identified".
Councillor Maureen Rutter, cabinet member for children and families, said that,
"we would welcome a strengthening of the law to ensure that privately fostered children are recognised as a potentially vulnerable group".
That is the nub of the problem with the Government's proposals. They do not sufficiently address the vulnerability of privately fostered children as a group. All the work in Gloucestershire and elsewhere shows that local authorities rarely hear about placements until after the event, which is too late. Under current legal powers, it is extremely difficult to change an unsatisfactory private fostering arrangement at that stage. In fact, such prohibitions are rarely undertaken. This in turn encourages some carers to believe that they have been "approved" when actually they have not been. But it is a belief that can lead birth parents into a false sense of security that it is somehow officially "all right" to leave their children with those carers.
The Minister did not answer my question in Committee about the review of private fostering initiated by the DfES in 2002. Can she say what the result of that review was and whether it has been published? My information is that the review came out in favour of a registration scheme, as did the Social Care Institute for Excellence last year. I understand that the Thomas Coram Research Unit at the Institute of Education has also recently done some work in this area for the DfES. Can the Minister confirm that its research too overwhelmingly indicated a preference for a registration scheme?
1070
In Committee, I argued that a registration scheme would provide a seal of approval for private fosterers that they would value and that parents would also value as a means of accessing safe carers for their children. I still believe that those are very powerful points. If the Minister is unable to accept the arguments for introducing a registration scheme straightaway, at the very least I should be grateful if she would say something about the criteria the Government will use for deciding whether the enhanced notification scheme has been a success or not. What sort of improvement in the statistics would tend to persuade the Government that there was no need to introduce a registration system? Indeed, will their decision rest solely on statistics or will it consider the pros and cons of a registration scheme in the round?
I very much hope, however, that the Minister will recognise that the Government's proposals are unlikely to deliver what we all want. It would be very good if she felt able to tell her colleagues that the case had been made for them to think again on this whole question.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, to which my name is attached, for reasons which were set out in Committee; therefore I shall speak only very briefly now. The fact is that an enhanced disclosure system will not bring forward foster parents with whom are placed the most vulnerable children. I agree with everything that the noble Earl said about the inferences that can and cannot be drawn from the Gloucestershire example. What they have done there is very good, but we really cannot generalise from that. As he pointed out, they themselves are calling for a registration scheme.
I am very impressed by the argument that parents who want to place children with foster parents should from the outset have confidence that the foster parent is registered. Surely it must be a benefit to society that once a foster parent is registered, he or she will be able to foster not only one child but a whole series of children, and parents can put children in such care with some degree of confidence.
I know that the argument about the relationship between foster parents and childminders was made previously, but it is still very compelling. It is not possible to put a child for even a few hours with a childminder, and up to 28 days, unless that childminder is registered, and yet at the moment we can put a child with a foster parent for longer than 28 days. That seem an extraordinary type of anomaly.
The arguments against having registration are not compelling. It is very difficult to understand why the Government continue to resist it. I hope that they might make some concessions even now at this stage.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, in Committee I put my name to a very similar amendment on private fostering. Having listened to what noble Lords have just

1071
said, I am completely puzzled why these amendments cannot be accepted. The right reverend Prelate has just mentioned the parallel with childminders that is there for all to see. We have been told that all the organisations involved with fostering, adoption and all these matters are in favour of moving to registration as opposed to the currently proposed voluntary arrangements. I should also have thought that parents who had to foster privately for whatever reason would be more reassured by the registration process. A check with local authorities would reveal whether anything known about potential foster carers made it undesirable for them to serve in that role.
I shall not repeat everything that has been said. I merely wanted to add my remarks to those of noble Lords who believe that the Government should move firmly towards a permanent registration system.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I had not intended to speak to the amendment. However, I should like, if I may, to ask a few questions. I apologise that I missed the Committee stage. Although I have tried to catch up, I may have missed the answers to these questions.
Are the Government reluctant to put in place a registration scheme because of the resource implications? The Association of Directors of Social Services has occasionally raised the issue of the resource implications of registration schemes. Are the Government reluctant because minimum standards would have to be set, just as there are for childminders and other foster carers? The stringency of those standards vary. As some of these foster parents would not meet those standards, there would be a need to find alternatives.
Are the Government reluctant because of a worry about family placement, an issue which has been raised before? If so, I believe they could make exclusions for children placed with families. I successfully brought up my sister's children for five years. I would not have expected to be registered; but if I had to be, then I would have looked at it.
If it is not for those reasons, I would find it extraordinarily difficult to understand why these most vulnerable children should not receive the same care as childminded children and fostered children. I am just very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is not here. I am sure that he would have had something similar to say.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful that we have had the opportunity to discuss this issue again—although I am always sorry when I have not been compelling in my arguments. However, this is a very important debate. I am very glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in her place despite her undoubted jetlag. We will forgive her if that has some effect later.
If I may, I should like to deal with Amendment No. 94A before turning to the substance of the group. I believe that the noble Earl wanted me to say something about the national minimum standards in this context.
1072
We think it very important that local authorities ensure that those who carry out the functions around private fostering on behalf of the local authority understand the private fostering issues, have the right kind of access to support and training and provide the co-ordination function for which the noble Earl was looking, and which I clearly failed to address earlier. However, other issues such as monitoring, and so on, are also important. It is quite important to cede those to the local safeguarding bodies.
I take the noble Earl's point that the job is broader and perhaps bigger than that. We will look at addressing that in the forthcoming national minimum standards, which I hope will answer that point. I may expand on that in correspondence with the noble Earl after I reflect on it. I wanted to say that straightaway, however, as I think it may sufficiently deal with the point.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 94, 95 and 96. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and other noble Lords have put the case very strongly and passionately for moving directly to a private foster carer scheme. We have taken a different view—by the very nature of the way in which we set out our objectives for the enhanced scheme and the sunset clause—but I hope that we have indicated that we take the case seriously. We may disagree about how we get there, but we recognise the vulnerability of children and young people in this context. We have thought very carefully about it.
It is just that we are not convinced that a registration scheme will work better than the Bill's provisions to enhance the existing notification scheme. That is partly because we believe that the existing scheme provides a robust framework of safeguards and that the Bill's provisions will make it even stronger. So we start from the principle of saying, "We think that it is robust. We recognise it could be strengthened. We have tried to do that in the Bill. If it does not work we will take action". Within the department I have discussed and deliberated on why we do not want to make such a direct move. The main reason is that it is very difficult to generalise about privately fostered children. As we discussed in Committee, there are many different types of privately fostered children and we need to be aware of that. Noble Lords expressed great concern about those who come from abroad perhaps to enhance their educational opportunities. Some children are in language schools—a category that has been looked at—for more than four weeks. Some of them are young people on exchange holidays, and some may have fallen out with their parents; that is, teenagers who need to go and live with someone else while the situation cools down. For some, a parent may have been taken suddenly into hospital and close friends or godparents are staying with the family during that period.
We seek to find a way of safeguarding all these children in different circumstances, some of which are purely commercial arrangements in which the people involved might be loving and caring, but the motivation is at least in part a commercial one and in arrangements where the motivation is purely one of support for the family. In the latter case emergency

1073
circumstances may arise which could last for some time and someone may take in the children of a family with whom he or she is very close but to whom they are not necessarily related. I can think of circumstances—as I am sure can noble Lords—in which should an emergency arise, heaven forbid, I would take in children whom I know well without hesitation for as long as that was necessary.
Given the range of circumstances that may arise, we wish to test out the enhanced notification scheme. We believe that it is worth giving it a chance to work. We believe that it could better engage local communities than a registration scheme. It might encourage people to notify the authorities of a much greater range of arrangements than would occur if the alternative was to register as a private foster carer.
We have talked about Gloucestershire where notification schemes have begun to work well. We want to test whether they could work well elsewhere. The requirement to raise awareness of the need to monitor—I am sure that some people are unaware that that is a requirement—closely the operation of schemes locally with a view to ensuring that they comply with all their duties in relation to privately fostered children is important. If people do not know that they should come forward, they simply will not do so. We have placed the onus on local authorities with regard to the enhanced scheme rather than on parents or individuals. We want to test that approach before we place the onus on the individual to come forward because of the range of different circumstances that I have outlined. We think that it is important to get our services working more fully before we place the onus elsewhere.
We have concerns—I hope that I have indicated them—that while a registration scheme might be appropriate for strictly commercial arrangements, it is more problematic where an extended family or friends offer to care for a child or help out in emergency situations. We are not yet convinced that they should need to register as private foster carers for what is to all intents and purposes informal and private arrangements made by parents who know the adults concerned extremely well, as, indeed, do the children. I am not convinced that families would expect or welcome such scrutiny of those private arrangements.
We are not sure that a dual system, which could cause confusion, is the best way forward. As I said on 27 May, we believe that we should have one system, whether that is enhanced notification or a registration scheme, which applies to all privately fostered children. We are approaching this matter with a degree of caution with regard to moving directly to another system without doing more to make the enhanced notification scheme work, and making sure that we consider very carefully the range of children involved in the matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, asked whether resource implications were the reason that the Government do not want a registration scheme. That is not the case. It is a question not of minimum standards but of the matters that I have indicated. The
1074
noble Baroness was right to talk about exempting families from certain requirements. However, the difficulty arises when one tries to define a family. I mentioned the kind of arrangements in which I would look after the children whom I mentioned. I would not register myself formally as I would not expect that to be necessary in those circumstances. However, I would probably not be caught by the traditional definition of a family as I would not be a family member. We shall, of course, consider the case—the noble Baroness makes an important point in that regard—where parents make private arrangements for their children with people with whom they have strong relationships who are not family members. We have to ask whether we should get involved in or interfere with that. Making a registration scheme encompass them is a matter that we have to consider further.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me on what basis we would determine the evaluation criteria. I do not have the detail of all the evaluation criteria at the moment as we are still thinking about it. I think that the noble Earl would be surprised if that were not the case. However, it will certainly involve an increase in notifications. That will be a critical part of it. We shall assess the impact of the Bill on authorities to raise awareness locally. We shall measure that through the new annual data collection exercise on notification rates which came in in April 2004. We shall monitor compliance with the Children Act and associated regulation through inspection. Ultimately, we shall need to decide whether the new measures, along with the national minimum standards for private fostering, have addressed the problems with notification schemes that have been identified.
As I said in Committee, we have deliberately given ourselves a short timescale with a sunset clause in order to conduct an evaluation quickly. Since our debate on 27 May we have agreed that we shall during the lifetime of the registration provisions publish a report on the impact of the new measures in Clause 36, including an indication of whether, in the light of that, we are minded to move towards a registration scheme. A report will be available as quickly as possible on whether we think the measure is working and whether we think that we should move to a registration scheme.
We are searching not for different ends but for different means to that end. We want to encourage private foster carers to contact their local authorities. We are worried that moving directly to a registration scheme could make them more reluctant to do so. They may be worried about being considered suitable or fearful of being subjected to regular inspections.
Private foster carers would need to be checked. The measures that we are introducing through this Bill mean that under the existing notification scheme a local authority would need to check a private fostering arrangement before a child was placed in it. We are not entirely convinced that a registration scheme has great benefits over enhanced notification.

1075
Our ambition is to take the measure one step further with national minimum standards, enhanced notification, review and inspection and a careful consideration of categories of children. We need to be clear that we have one system but that we recognise different categories of children within that. In the course of reviewing the measure—as I say we have deliberately put in place a sunset clause—we would come forward with a registration scheme if we considered that that was necessary.
I hope that I have made a more compelling argument than I did previously as I consider that I owe it to my colleagues who have worked long and hard on the matter. As I say, we seek to take the measure a stage further with a view to introducing a registration scheme if that is considered necessary. We recognise that many of the arrangements we are discussing are made between families. The Government should become involved in that only if it is appropriate. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly asked a question about Amendment No. 98. We believe it is important, even in the circumstances that the noble Earl indicated; namely, that local authorities should be able to determine whether a person is appropriate in the context that we are discussing. For example, if a person has a conviction for an assault on a partner and the court gives an absolute discharge, we believe that the local authority should be able to take its own view on whether that person should foster privately. My understanding is that this is in line with existing provisions on persons being disqualified under Section 68 of the Children Act and provides a degree of flexibility.
The noble Earl raised a point about human rights and so on. If he will allow me, I am inclined to take it away again. Although I have the answers, we need to put in writing specifically how the matter is covered, as I can see that noble Lords are concerned and think that it is not addressed effectively. The Bill is in line with existing provisions, which will have taken into account issues such as human rights. I would like to come back with better examples on that. On that basis, I hope that he will not press the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, do I understand the Minister to say that "may" in Clause 37(4)—it states that,
"a person may be disqualified"—
actually means "may", and that the intention is that the regulations should allow a local authority discretion in the circumstances that she outlined?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that is my interpretation—that the provision would be about discretion, taking into account all the factors.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful. Even so, I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is a question to be resolved in that respect.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty. I understand the sincerity with which the noble Baroness puts her case, but the slow way in which the Government have approached the issue does not give anyone who cares about it great comfort.
The context for the debate is that the bus has been well and truly missed once already. The provision should have been in the Adoption and Children Act, but it was not. Some of us drive around central London and see buses with exhortations on their backs for people to become foster parents, because there is an acute crisis in foster care about which we have talked before. The issue has been pushed further and further back. In that context, one has to doubt the sincerity of the Government to move forward on the issue.
Now is not the time to talk again about the Government's provisions on some sectors; we did that in Committee. However, there is no compelling argument in that either. Those in the field who care passionately about the subject and have argued for it—the ADSS, BAAF, the NSPCC—are yet again battered back and forth between arguments about whether such provisions should involve all kids or only children up to the age of 11.
It is entirely possible for there to be a registration scheme that is widely known about and promoted, into which people who may be engaged in informal care of the types explained by the noble Baroness understand that they fit. Anyone looking after a child by accident—in an emergency, for a minimal period—will see that it is to the benefit of that child and all children that that arrangement is known about and known to be safe. We spend so much time trying to make other children safe, in all other circumstances, and there really is discordance here on the part of the Government. It does not add up.
I take the argument that the matter is not about resources. I shall go away and look at what the noble Baroness said but, when more resources are going into the development of adoption and fostering services, the issue stands out a mile as a gaping hole.
The track record of another place on the matter is not one from which we should take any comfort. We in this House should determine the matter. For the moment, but with great reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill
6.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Gould of Potternewton) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Constituencies and regions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I oppose—for a moment, at least—the inclusion of Clause 1 in the Bill, so that the Committee in particular, and Scotland in general, can find out the Government's plans for the devolution of control of the Scottish parliamentary election process to the Scottish Parliament, and hence to the people of Scotland.
Now that the decision has been taken and implemented to restart Scotland as a political entity at a national level, it is important for all observers and participants to understand how the process will develop. We were told in 1999 that devolution was a process, not an event. That implies that 1999 and the first Scottish parliamentary elections were the first stage of a process of more than one stage. So why is the Bill silent about the next stage? Why does the Scottish parliamentary election process continue to be reserved to Westminster? Why are the people of Scotland not being trusted to make their own decisions on the matter?
I congratulate the Government on producing such a tightly drawn Bill. Like many others, I was unable to develop any amendments to achieve the devolution of powers over constituencies and regions. Admirable as that is for the Ministers involved, it might be viewed as an undemocratic act to produce unamendable legislation—or perhaps I am not very good at drafting amendments. I tried to develop amendments that removed Scottish Parliament elections from Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act in May 2011. However, that was too difficult for the Public Bill Office to accept, as was my second attempt, which was merely to devolve at constituency and regional boundaries on the same date. Why May 2011? The answer is that it would be immediately after the fourth Scottish general election, after considerable election experience had been gained. There would have been no rushing things in such a mild amendment.
I hope that the Minister will now lay before the Committee the Government's plans for constitutional development in Scotland, so that everyone may know where we are going with Scottish autonomy.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not think that the noble Earl really believes in devolution. He seems to want a completely independent Scotland. If the United Kingdom were to remain together and Scotland were not to become independent, it would of course be very important that the constitutional arrangements for Scotland remained at Westminster. It is also very important that there be fairness between constituencies across the United Kingdom, as well as between constituencies in Scotland. It is Westminster's job to seek that. The noble Earl disregards the fact that there are 72
1078
Scottish MPs at Westminster who represent the people of Scotland. He seems to think that representative government in Scotland can happen only in the Scottish Parliament. I do not agree with him—it happens at Westminster. I do not think that the noble Earl has a valid argument. We certainly cannot take the clause out of the Bill, as it would be wrecked and we would not wish for that. I hope that the noble Earl will not pursue that line.
7 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I am pleased to respond to the noble Earl's question. In doing so, I acknowledge the support that he indicated at Second Reading for the broad thrust of the Bill. I appreciate that, although I do not believe that he will be as appreciative of, or surprised at, what I shall say.
The Government have no plans to devolve powers to the Scottish Parliament in relation to its constituencies and regions and elections to them—and there are no plans for any other substantial amendments to the Scotland Act in primary legislation. The Government are confident that the balance of powers contained in the Act is about right. Overall, there is no prospect or desire for a Bill to revisit the Scottish devolution settlement. This is settled business. We believe that the current position serves both Scotland and the United Kingdom well.
The basic structure of, and electoral system to, the Scottish Parliament is a central part of the constitutional settlement, whereby Westminster devolved some of its responsibilities. These matters have to remain the responsibility of Westminster. However, the noble Earl will be aware of the new independent commission on boundary differences and voting systems, to be chaired by Sir John Arbuthnott, which we discussed at Second Reading, which will make recommendations to the First Minister as well as to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Ultimately, given that the issue of elections to the Scottish Parliament is reserved, it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to decide on the Government's response to the commission's recommendations. The Secretary of State has, however, made it clear that in doing so he will take into account the Executive's views.
I do not expect that my comments will surprise the noble Earl, although they may disappoint him, but I wished to put them on the record.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour sat down more quickly than I expected and I had hoped to leap to my feet after her. However, there are some points that we need to discuss.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that this matter should have been returned to Scotland for a decision, because that is what has happened. The Scottish Parliament has decided that it wants 129 Members and the Scottish inquiry decided on 129. Westminster has been looking at the matter edgeways, so that might as well have been returned to Scotland, as it would have been able to make its own decision without involving Westminster.

1079
I have some questions relating to the Electoral Commission. I am not clear about paragraph 5 on page 4, which I have been looking at all afternoon, relating to the Boundary Committee. Is the Boundary Commission reinventing itself as the Boundary Committee? If so, is that not a devaluation of the present Boundary Commission, if it is only to become a committee of the Electoral Commission? Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Explanatory Notes refer to the Boundary Commission, while the Bill refers to the Boundary Committee. There must be a misunderstanding somewhere.
In view of the recent decision by the Electoral Commission in England that was not accepted by the Government, there must be concern over whether the electoral commission in Scotland, which will be a different body from that in England, will be over-ruled as well. There is also concern about the voting system, because at Second Reading the Government never came to grips with the intense muddle that has been, or will be, produced in Scotland, given that there will be four voting systems and four constituencies in each area. That is opposite to what, I appreciate, the Government are trying to do—to involve more of the electorate in voting. But the greater the muddle, the fewer people will vote.
We need a much speedier resolution of that problem and, as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said, we cannot allow this to drag on until 2011. Nothing would settle down until four years after that. We will have years of incoherence on issues relating to elections in Scotland. Will there be a continuation of the additional member voting system or a move to STV, as the Liberal Democrats appear to want, or will they continue their pursuit of the present Scottish Executive for a move to proportional representation for local government in Scotland?
Another matter of concern regarding Clause 1 is that when the commission reports, it is up to the Secretary of State and the First Minister to make a decision. That is different from the present position relating to the Boundary Commission. When it lays an Order in Council, that has to be put to Parliament and not altered in any way by the government of the day. So there is some concern about the procedures for the new Electoral Commission.
At Second Reading, I pressed the Minister on timing and I appreciate that he gave a fairly detailed response. However, the Government have been dilatory about introducing this legislation. It received a Second Reading on 9 February in another place. Nothing happened thereafter until 4 May, when the Bill had its Committee stage and remaining stages. Second Reading in this House was on 25 May and there has been some delay before we reached Committee today. I have been concerned about that because I explained at Second Reading that unless the Bill is enacted very soon—and these Benches are not delaying it—there will be no hope of having the new constituencies in place for, say, an election in the autumn. If there were to be an autumn election—no one knows whether that would happen until much nearer the time—there would be almighty chaos, because although Scotland
1080
has moved to the new constituencies, we would have to return to the old constituencies. We would have the problem of appointing candidates. Heaven knows what those in charge of the administration of the elections would do.
I asked the Minister to state the minimum time between the passing of this Bill, the subsequent Order in Council on the Westminster constituencies and when a general election could be held on the new constituencies. That is crucial for Scotland, yet there seems to be no hurry to do that. The Minister said to me that the Boundary Commission in Scotland, which has made its decision on constituencies, would not lay its order until this Bill was enacted, so that it did not have to consider the regions. But the regions have nothing to do with the coming general election. They are not required until we reach the next elections for the Scottish Parliament. I do not know why the Government are unable to say to the Boundary Commission in Scotland, "Lay the orders on what you have done and let's get on with the new constituencies for Westminster", for which everyone has been preparing but which may not be implemented if an election takes place unexpectedly, and which we know could happen for any number of reasons.
Is the Minister able to give me some encouragement as to when all this will be sorted out? A great many people in Scotland are now working on the assumption that they will have the new constituencies in operation very soon, and yet the Government are not making rapid progress on an Order in Council to implement what the present Boundary Commission has decided.
I hope there is some urgency among the Government. I know that they do not really want this because they are going to lose seats but, in the interests of proper democracy, other people want to get these seats in place as soon as possible.
Lord Filkin: I am happy to clarify a number of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Munro, asked about the Electoral Commission. I am even happier to repeat what I said at Second Reading, hopefully in even clearer terms so that there is no doubt on this issue.
First, the Electoral Commission is an electoral commission for the UK. It is not a new body; it was, if memory serves me right, established by the 2000 Act. It has therefore been in place for some time. Because electoral matters go to the heart of our constitution, the Electoral Commission's remit covers all parts of the United Kingdom.
As to the existing boundary commissions, they are replaced by boundary committees which report to the Electoral Commission. Therefore the Boundary Commission for Scotland will be replaced by the Boundary Committee in Scotland, looking at Scottish issues, which will report to the Electoral Commission. This has all, for good reason, been put in statute for several years. The electoral arrangements across the UK constitution need to be looked at as a piece by an organisation which is completely independent of government, which the Electoral Commission is.

1081
Secondly, I turn to voting systems and boundaries and the famous discussion about non-coterminosity that we enjoyed at Second Reading. As I signalled, Professor Sir John Arbuthnott has been appointed as the chairman of the ad hoc commission to look at the boundaries and the four voting systems in Scotland. I signalled that at Second Reading and he and his commission will undertake their work according to the terms of reference that I think were announced by the Secretary of State for Scotland in February in another place.
Turning, thirdly, to the relationship between this Bill and the reduction in the number of Westminster MPs elected from Scotland, the Government's position on this has always been that the case for the existing number of MPs in Scotland was not legitimate or sustainable once a Scottish Parliament had been established. Therefore we designed a process for reducing those numbers. As to why we have not done so before; as I sought to say at Second Reading, the Government have no power to override the statute. The statutory duty is placed on the Boundary Commission for Scotland to complete its review of changes to Members of the Scottish Parliament. The final part of that process is to look at the regional list MSPs.
As soon as this Bill is passed, part of it will sweep that process aside. Therefore as soon as Royal Assent is given to this Bill, the Boundary Commission for Scotland will be able to report to the Secretary of State for Scotland to say that its work is completed. When that then happens, the Secretary of State for Scotland is charged by the legislation, as I recall, to report to Parliament as soon as may be on the recommendations for a reduced number of MPs to be elected from Scotland to Westminster.
Therefore the Government have no power whatever to do what the noble Lord, Lord Munro, said, but he has considerable power to ensure that our processes are efficient and expeditious. As soon as we end this process and Royal Assent is given, the Boundary Commission will be in a position to report and its work will be completed. As to when that will be, if, as human endeavour ought to make possible, we complete the passage of the Bill before the Summer Recess—particularly if there are no amendments which would force it to go back to another place and to come back in the spill-over—then the Boundary Commission will be in a position to report to the Secretary of State and the process will follow exactly as I have sought to indicate.
That is the gist it. In a nutshell, were an election to be, for the sake of argument, held next spring and we completed the passage of this Bill before the Summer Recess, there is no doubt that the elections to Westminster from Scotland would be with a reduced number of MPs. That is what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Monro, wants to see. I hope that that is helpful.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Expenditure]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.15 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: Clause 3 is entitled "Expenditure" and simply states:
"There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any increase attributable to this Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment".
I find the clause vague, to say the least.
Parliament—presumably the Westminster Parliament and not the Scottish Parliament—is to provide money to cover any increase in costs which is a direct result of the Bill becoming an Act. In the Explanatory Notes at paragraph 25, dealing with the financial effects of the Bill, we are told:
"The provisions which introduce a regular review of the boundaries of the Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions will place an additional requirement on the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Committee for Scotland, from time to time. It is estimated that these periodic reviews will cost in the region of up to £300,000 per annum when active".
I see two points at issue here. First, can the Minister give us an idea of how the figure of £300,000 was reached?
The provisions of the Bill place an extra duty on the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Committee compared with their original remits under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I do not have a problem with the principle, but it was in the first instance understood that the cost of devolution would be a charge on the UK taxpayer. However, there must be many who would question why this particular advantage on which the Scottish Parliament seems to insist should be imposed on the rest of the country as a penalty for having the Scottish Westminster seats reduced.
The forthcoming report of the Boundary Commission—the results are more or less known and it brings the Scottish constituency quota into line with the rest of the UK—is welcome. However, it can be argued that the extra charge does not benefit anyone outside Scotland and, furthermore, there are bound to be those who are numerate who will question whether it benefits those inside.
We have no substantial objection to the handover to the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Committee of the responsibilities, as detailed in the Bill. In anticipation of our later amendments to Schedule 1, the earlier amendments probe the detail rather than the substance of the schedule which deals with the handover.
Our second point is of a more general nature. Clause 3 makes provision for expenditure under the Bill. We were more or less agreed that the £300,000 to cover the extension of the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Committee was not the only expense that the passage of the Bill would cause. I seem to remember that at first the Minister appeared fairly dismissive of my comment that to retain 129 MSPs as a consequence of cutting the link with Westminster constituencies had cost implications. Members of the Committee were much reassured when he stated in regard to the financial net effect of the Bill:

1083
"I am not going to waste time on obfuscation now on this point. I shall put before Members of the House the best estimate of what would have been the cost if those changes had been made … One would expect that the cost of reducing the numbers will not affect the fixed costs in any significant way. It will affect variable costs, but the variable costs will be reduced by the cost of change. I therefore ask noble Lords not to get overexcited by expecting that this will transform public expenditure".—[Official Report, 25/5/04; col. 1237.]
Personally, I have waited with eager anticipation for that letter for almost four weeks. In fact, I searched my mail box last night and, again, first thing this morning, but I am still at something of a loss to know what kind of gremlins are at work in the parliamentary postal system when the Minister's letter carrying the date of 17 June appeared there only this afternoon. I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the figures in his fairly brief note.
I tabled my opposition to the clause standing part when the note from the Minister on the costing question was not forthcoming. We on these Benches did not think it unreasonable to ask whether he had any figures available for us. The figures in the note which the Minister sent me accord with the figures which our Scottish office had already produced for us—that is, a saving of more than £2 million if the reduction in the number were to take place.
As I said at Second Reading, we know that the expenditure of the Scottish Parliament has escalated considerably from pre-devolution days. I am not talking only about the sky-high figure of the Scottish Parliament building; figures provided by our Conservative office in Scotland tell us that the cost of administration in Scotland has risen since 1997 by more than 60 per cent and that there are three times as many chauffeur-driven cars, three times as many press officers and five times as many special advisers.
Although consultation has been going on for several years regarding retaining the number of MSPs at 129 rather than reducing it to 108, it was not until the publication of this Bill that it was anywhere near certain to happen, and the Bill has still not achieved Royal Assent. Surely there must have been some forecasting of the relative costs of cutting or retaining the number of 129 MSPs. I ask the Minister whether the figure of £2,468,000, given in his note, is the result of a previous costing exercise or whether any further documents are available. I wonder whether that is still regarded as being a not very serious sum. It seems incredible that we are dealing here with a budget for a country whose inhabitants have built a reputation on the great care that they take with their money.
I know that the Minister is trying to avoid becoming involved with a fixed-cost element, but perhaps, in addition, he could tell us how the 129 MSPs will be accommodated in a building which is reputedly large enough to provide offices for only 108. Perhaps there will be a need to rent a small additional office block.
I wonder whether I am alone, even though I understand part of the logic, in finding cause for concern in the Scottish parliamentary corporate body's response to the consultation on the size of the
1084
Parliament. It lists the three questions that were put, none of which concern finance, and, indeed, its response is concerned solely with the first—the effect on the operation of the Scottish Parliament. There is no mention or consideration of cost. I feel bound to ask whether this will become a habit.
The cost of the change is only one factor which should be considered when we are thinking about retaining the number of MSPs at 129 and cutting the link with Westminster. It is certainly not our sole or principal concern. With Amendment No. 1, we shall come to the substantial debate about the benefits of having coterminous constituencies. However, it is something that should be taken into account when deciding how best the Scottish Parliament can serve the people of Scotland. Money saved in reducing the number of MSPs can be used for other, and possibly better, services. We wish to ensure value for money in the Scottish Parliament.
Lord Filkin: I think that the first question posed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, related to the sum of £300,000. It concerned both how it was derived and why it was necessary. As a consequence of uncoupling, if I may put it in that way, Holyrood MSPs from Westminster MSPs, there is no automaticity to the constituency boundaries of Scottish MSPs.
Therefore, completely in line with what happens with regard to electoral processes elsewhere in the United Kingdom, there needs to be a process whereby the relevant body—the Electoral Commission serviced by the boundary committee for Scotland—looks periodically at all reviews. From memory, those take place at seven to nine-year intervals. There also needs to be a power for it to look at anything that has happened in between, when it considers it necessary to do so. It is a completely standard process for boundary commissions to look at any anomalies which they believe have arisen and which cannot wait until the major periodic reviews of all the boundaries take place.
The figure of £300,000 is officials' best estimate of what it would cost when such an interim, more focused review was switched on. It would not be switched on every year because there would not be a need for that, but that is their best estimate. Obviously, it partly depends on the size and scale of the issues that the boundary commissions are considering, but that is a function that they must undertake periodically. It is part of the funding of electoral arrangements generally across the United Kingdom and it is four-square with those.
I turn to the noble Duke's second question concerning the savings that would have been made if there had been a reduction in the number of MSPs. I am saddened to hear that the letter I wrote on 17 June to the noble Duke did not arrive until today. I recollect specifically asking my officials, if I may be so personal, to check the exact spelling of his first name because I was unsure of it. I believe that they rang his office several weeks ago to check on that, and the letter was

1085
signed within a day. Nevertheless, for whatever reason, I am very sorry that he did not receive the letter.
There will be no great shocks in the letter, and I shall add a little to it for the record. The figure of £2.468 million is made up of 23 MSPs' salaries, making a total of £1.134 million, plus the Members' costs, which enable MSPs to secure staff and accommodation to assist them in the discharge of their duties. That gives an average cost of £58,000 for each MSP, making a total for the other costs of £1.334 million. Those two figures together give a total of £2.468 million.
I was in no sense implying that £2 million is not a significant amount of money. It is all public money and it all matters, particularly to those who fund and provide for such expenditure. However, I was signalling that it was not a central issue to this Bill. By that, I mean that, after a very thorough process of consultation, we took the view that we would not reduce the number of MSPs in Scotland. That was because that was the overwhelming view of virtually all the people in Scotland who responded to the consultation process. They argued for both a period of stability and a continuation of the very active committee system, which involves civil society in Scotland in its legislative process.
Therefore, I do not think that this issue is fundamentally driven by cost. I go further: were the change to the number of MSPs to have been carried out, effectively the cost would have come out of the block vote of the Scottish Executive's budget. Therefore, there will be no direct saving to the Westminster taxpayer; it will simply be the case that the Scottish Executive has chosen to spend its money in a slightly different way. It has fairly explicitly already made the decision to have the same number of MSPs in Scotland and therefore it has fairly explicitly forgone the notional saving that would have come about had it supported a reduction in the number of MSPs. I hope that that is helpful.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There was one point that my noble friend raised which I do not think the Minister addressed—that is, the question of accommodation. Does he know how many MSPs the Parliament building is designed for? If it is designed for fewer than 129, will extra accommodation have to be rented as a result of the Bill until the matter is finally resolved? It would be interesting if the Minister could answer that point.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: No, I would be chancing my arm if I speculated on that. With the greatest courtesy to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I do not believe that that is central to the issue before the Committee. The Scottish Executive has affirmed—and the Government have not dissented as a result of the decisions that they have made—that the current
1086
number of MSPs in Scotland will be retained. They will be accommodated and the Government have no intention of going back on that decision.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Does the expenditure mentioned in Clause 3 in relation to the Boundary Committee come wholly from the Scottish block grant or does some of it come from the UK Treasury?
Lord Filkin: I was checking that my speculation was correct. I believe that it all comes from the Westminster budget rather than from the Scottish budget.
Lord Palmer: Can the Minister remind the Committee how many people responded to the famous consultation document? I am sure that someone mentioned the number at Second Reading, but I do not have the text of that debate in front of me.
Lord Filkin: Perish the thought, but neither do I. No doubt I shall find it when I peruse my files. I apologise to the noble Lord. It is part of my later notes. I shall bore the House with the detail of that, I promise.
The Duke of Montrose: Perhaps I should apologise. I am one of those who completely ignored the consultation period in Scotland. I am sure that the consultation period passed quicker than many anticipated. No doubt at some point the Minister can tell the Committee the figure.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Substitution of Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): Before calling Amendment No. 1, I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 1 is carried I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 inclusive for reasons of pre-emption.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 7, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
"1 For the purposes of this Act, the constituencies are—

(a) the Orkney Islands,

(b) the Shetland Islands, and

(c) the parliamentary constituencies as set out in the Boundary Commission report for Scottish Westminster constituencies."

The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 grouped with it. The problem that we face with the Scottish Parliament is that like so many of the constitutional issues it has been dealt with using a bottom-up form of logic. The Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament set out its principles which appear to embrace accessibility, transparency, the sharing of power and equal opportunities. Those are not defining constitutional principles and do not dictate anything concerning the size of the Scottish Parliament.
When your Lordships finally got around to considering the Commons amendments to your Lordships' amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, admitted that he had once made an effort to look at matters in an overall context. He said:
"I was a member of the backroom group known as the constitutional commission … I had responsibility for examining the electoral arrangements. I came up with a scheme that produced approximately 110".—[Official Report, 17/11/98; col. 1194.]
The Government, faced with how to implement that practically, seem to have founded their policy on the principle of coterminosity—perhaps the one constitutional principle that was voiced at the time. It was certainly good for transparency.
As the Committee knows, at that time the number of Scottish Westminster constituencies was 72. Coming up with the idea that a ratio of 1 to 1.3 additional seats under the de Hondt system would give the whole thing proportionality, they had what was in their view the temporary total of 129. However, allied to that was the reduction contained in the Scotland Bill to mirror the reduction in Westminster constituencies as and when they occurred. The intention of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was that that would run for two terms of the Scottish Parliament and that is what happened.
As the Committee will be aware, many other people, including the honourable Sam Galbraith, have said that the current number need not be permanent. It is perhaps interesting to note that the main time when the issue was discussed in the Scottish Parliament was 27 March 2002. That Parliament was very much younger than it is now and there was a feeling that it did not want to be disturbed. The approach taken by the Scottish Conservative Party was founded on rationalising the committee structure and reducing the number of Ministers. That was outlined by David McLetchie in his speech in March 2002. He said that,
"we should amalgamate the Audit Committee with the Financial Committee and the Standards Committee with the Procedures Committee, we should have a single and larger Justice Committee and we should amalgamate the Social Justice Committee with the Equal Opportunities Committee"
That still appears to be the view of the party in Scotland.
Up until June of this year, the Scottish Parliament had passed 65 Bills and "Seweled" 38 Bills on devolved issues back to Westminster; that is, 103 pieces of primary legislation. It has also passed roughly 1,700 statutory instruments and has issued innumerable consultation papers. I feel that I have received more than my share.
It is perhaps easy to argue that for legislating at that kind of pace they need all the members. It is never easy to argue that there are direct parallels between parliaments, but I wonder whether the Scottish electorate would be happy to know that the Province of Ontario in Canada, with twice the population of Scotland, has 103 members and eight committees. If the Scottish electorate reckons it is not getting value for money, to whom is it supposed to appeal? Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee whether and how we should be concerned about these matters.
Amendment No. 4 is a probing amendment designed to find out why the date of the order is so important to the Bill. Will the Minister explain what happened after 11 April 1995 that would somehow render Clause 1(2) invalid?
Amendment No. 5 is consequential. If the number of directly elected members is reduced, the principle of the ratio requires that the proportional seats will also be reduced. As my noble friend Lord Monro said, the Bill will add a whole new level of confusion for the Scottish voters as well as an infinite variety of overlapping responsibilities for parliamentarians—constituency MPs, Westminster MPs, list MPs, and European MPs. I for one do not like the idea that constitutional issues are to be fiddled with constantly and modified. If transparency and accountability are to be major principles of significance, it is important that legislation is not changed too frequently. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: In speaking to these amendments I shall provide the Committee with the information with which I so woefully failed to provide the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in relation to the previous amendment.
The effect of Amendment No. 1 to paragraphs 1 and 2 to Schedule 1 would practically reduce the size of the Scottish Parliament to that originally intended in the Scotland Act, although it would create 108 MSPs rather than 106. For reasons which I believe are self-evident to the Committee, the Government are opposed to those changes because they would make the whole Bill completely nugatory and would completely defeat the intent of the Bill.
There is a limit to what I can add to what I have said on several previous occasions as to why we believe that there should be no change to the number of MSPs elected to the Scottish Parliament, but essentially there was a thorough and proper consultation process. I would imagine it was the normal 13 weeks of consultation. I am told that that is correct. A summary of the responses to that consultation was placed in the Library on 18 December 2002.
Many of the responses which supported keeping 129 MSPs were from civic bodies and political groups which are representative of a very wide range of interests in Scotland. A particularly significant response, which strongly supported keeping the Parliament at its present size, was submitted by a group called the 129 Reflection Group. That body was convened by the Centre for Scottish Public Policy under the chairmanship of Sir Neil McIntosh, a distinguished former public official in Scotland and included representatives of the Scottish TUC, the Scottish Civic Forum, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Action of Churches Together in Scotland, UNISON, the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry.
Out of over 230 responses, only electoral administrators, a couple of civic organisations, the Scottish Conservatives, six MPs, four councils, a constituency organisation and less than a quarter of individual respondents supported cutting MSP numbers in line with the Scotland Act.

1089
Overall, there was clear support across Scotland for the policy the Bill seeks to implement. This was not a referendum. The Government have to make their own decision after they have consulted with civic society, but there was a fairly strong body of view from Scottish society in all its forms to leave its current 129 MSPs well alone.
On the issue of confusion to Scottish voters, the issue of non-coterminosity was explicitly raised in the consultation paper. Virtually no one raised the issue that retaining 129 MSPs was going to be a significant impediment. Having said that, people tend to change their emphasis a little after they have got what they want. Clearly, there is an issue to be looked at in terms of boundaries, which is why we have asked Sir John Arbuthnott and his independent commission to look at those issues and the potential multiplicity of voting systems in Scotland and to make such recommendations as appropriate.
I agree with the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, that we should not always make change too quickly, which is one of the reasons that we do not intend currently to make changes to the number of MSPs elected from Scotland to the Scottish Parliament.
I hope that is helpful. I feel that I can add little more.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Of course, I absolutely accept that what the Minister has said is factually correct. Does he accept that the figure of 129 is not a magic figure that has to be? It was arrived at by a process and is the figure which the existing MSPs are working to, since they all have seats and they do not want to lose them. We all understand that. I understand the argument for the Bill.
However, 129 is not a magic figure and will not necessarily be the one we end up with. This is a temporary measure. As I said at Second Reading, it was a temporary measure that was brought in by the Government's idea that they would have the Scotland Act as it was and deal with the awkwardness of what would happen when Westminster MPs were reduced when the time came. They decided to do that. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Elder, who described how that came about. I was very interested in that.
So when the committee looks at the numbers the figure of 129 is not necessarily the one that we shall end up with. The fact that people said that the constituencies being coterminous did not matter is really not a good point. It matters very much indeed to anyone who is conducting the operation of democracy in Scotland. As someone who has played a certain part in that, having non-coterminous constituencies will be an absolute nightmare. With luck, the committee's recommendations will find a way of returning to coterminous seats. Then the whole thing may work.
However, I do not think that to say it is all right is a good argument. I would say to the noble Lord that it is only all right for the moment because there is no other way.
Lord Filkin: The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is quite right. While I shall not be drawn on whether the
1090
figure of 129 is temporary, it was certainly not on the tablets when they came down from the mount. There is nothing God-given or ordained in that respect. The argument essentially is that at this point in time there is a clear consensus in Scotland, which the Government support, for not making a change to those numbers.
As to the issue of non-coterminosity, we have initiated a process which will allow anyone with an interest, particularly anyone in Scotland, to put in their views to Sir John Arbuthnott's committee as to where there is difficulty as a consequence of that. The noble Baroness is right, it is more of a problem to electoral administrators and political parties than it is to the general public. Nevertheless, there is a process and an opportunity for putting in views to that commission and we look forward to hearing its deliberations.
The Duke of Montrose: I am interested to hear the Minister's response. Perhaps he can understand our concern that the Scottish Parliament is going down this road. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 10, after "Islands," insert;—
"( ) the Western Isles,"
The noble Earl said: My Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are aimed at granting the same protection to the Western Isles constituency as this Bill grants to the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands Scottish Parliament constituencies. To clarify the matter, the protection sought is protection from incorporation into a mainland constituency. In effect, my amendment applies constituencies Rule 3 now.
The Western Isles is of course the Long Island or the Outer Hebrides—a place which is, rightly, very different from mainland Scotland. The peripheral nature of the Western Isles is recognised by the European Union, which has, correctly, granted the special designation of an islands group to the Western Isles, along with the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands. Had the Faeroese decided to join the European Union, the Faeroe Islands would also have been an islands group for EU purposes.
These islands in the North Atlantic have their own special character and peculiar difficulties. They are of course—and I refer to the Western Isles and not the Faeroes—the Gaelic heartland, home of free Presbyterianism, Sabbatarianism, island Catholicism and of course are the other side of that difficult seaway, the Minch.
The Scottish Parliament needs to hear an undiluted message from the three island groups, which are so remote and unique. The islanders' lives do not match in well with the 5 million that the Scottish Parliament must try to understand.
I have considered whether the Western Isles could be incorporated into a constituency with Skye, Raasay, Cam, Rum, Eigg, Muck, Coll and Tiree. Although these are of course islands, I consider that the distant island group known as the Outer Hebrides, beyond the Minch, is sufficiently different from the other islands, which are usually known as the Inner Hebrides.
So, I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that the United Kingdom Government recognise the particular circumstances of Lewis, Harris, Scalpay, the Uists and Benbecula, Berneray, Barra, Erinskay, Vatersay, Sanday, Mingulay, Pabbay, Barrahead and even the St Kilda group.
Noble Lords will recall that prior to the 1974 reorganisation of Scottish local government, these distant islands were divided between Ross and Cromerty, which administered Lewis, while the rest of the Long Island was part of Invernesshire. The creation in 1974 of the Western Isles Islands Council, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, was the first step in the right direction towards island group recognition.
The Bill should similarly move to secure the constituency of the Western Isles. I beg to move.
Lord Monro of Langholm: The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is asking for too great an insurance policy. No one has every considered, so far as I am aware, reducing the Western Isles constituency by adding on part of the mainland or islands in the Inner Hebrides.
I always thought it was a bit of a miracle—and a Liberal miracle at that—that Orkney and Shetland got two individual constituencies. After all, the population of Orkney is 19,245, and that of the Shetlands is 21,988. The combined population of just over 41,000 is way below the average of around 65,000 that Scotland is aiming for. The Outer Hebrides has much the same population—26,502.
I appreciate only too well the extent of the islands, the difficulty in moving around them, visiting constituents and so on. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, with her great experience of Argyllshire, will say that she probably had a much harder job than the Members for the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland. It is all a matter of relativity. The amendment is unnecessary because Orkney and Shetland are already separate, and it would be wrong to make the Outer Hebrides or the Western Isles another special case. It will become more and more difficult. Nobody seems to intend to make any adjustment to the Western Isles, so the amendment is superfluous.
Baroness Michie of Gallanach: I support Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, in the name of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie. It seems only sensible and fair that the parliamentary constituency of the Western Isles, Eilean Siar, be given the same protection as Orkney and Shetland against incorporation into a mainland constituency. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, says that he has never heard any suggestion of that happening, but we
1092
do not know that it will not happen when Sir John Arbuthnott looks at the boundaries, so we must ensure that it absolutely does not happen.
With a population of some 26,000, the Western Isles is a large and complicated geographical area with a chain of islands stretching from the Butt of Lewis in the north to Barra in the south, approximately 130 miles. It has its own unitary authority, Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar, belatedly created, as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, pointed out, in 1975 following years of mismanagement by various mainland authorities. Next year it will celebrate its 30th anniversary.
The area has its own health board and local enterprise company, it is responsible for tourist promotion, and the islands are rich in history and archaeology. However, it has an above-average rate of unemployment, and population decline is still a problem. But together with Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the University of the Highlands and Islands, Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar and its parliamentary representatives, great efforts are being made to establish a broad-based economy with strategies for renewable energy and limitation of pollution—for example, with the Western Isles Oil Spill Plan and a piers and harbours oil spill contingency plan.
There has been significant investment in jobs and job dispersal, broadband technology, housing action areas and so on. Nevertheless, the area remains economically fragile and is recognised in the EU as requiring economic assistance in the form of transitional status for Objective 1 funding. The need for sustainable development opportunities that combine economic, social, cultural and environmental concerns is widely recognised.
The Outer Hebrides is a powerful bastion of Gaelic life and culture in which the promotion of the Gaelic language through broadcasting and publishing is all-important. As I pointed out during the debate on the Communications Bill, Gaelic broadcasting is not the only matter affecting these islands reserved to Westminster; there are many more. So it is a must that Lewis, Harris, North Uist, South Uist, Eriskay, Barra, Vatersay and others continue to have their own parliamentary representation in Edinburgh and London.
Both representatives are Gaelic speakers and are in a unique position, able to understand and reflect the needs and aspirations of the people and to represent them properly to their colleagues in both Parliaments. That would be lost if the Outer Hebrides were lumped in with a mainland constituency. To do so would deprive them of a distinctive voice which would almost certainly disappear if they were represented by a mainland constituency, MSP or MP. Such a move would rightly be seen as a loss of recognition and a rejection of their unparalleled position in the UK. The islands have been through enough change over the years, and they have suffered, as has the whole highlands and islands area, in the years following the Treaty of Union.

1093
So the commission that looks at boundary changes and voting systems has here the perfect coterminosity, with the same local authority, Scottish Parliament and UK parliamentary boundaries. Therefore, I support the amendments; they will give the same advantages and safeguards as apply to Orkney and Shetland. Although I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendments, Sir John Arbuthnott's ad hoc commission will no doubt read what we have said. I support the amendments.
Lord Gray of Contin: If there were any danger whatever of Sir John's commission suggesting the incorporation of the Western Isles with a mainland constituency, I would be 100 per cent behind the amendment. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Monro that the amendment is unnecessary. I greatly enjoyed the speeches of both our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches; they were a very good advert for the Western Isles. But they achieved no useful purpose, because there is not the remotest possibility of such a suggestion being made. If such a suggestion were made, I have little doubt that in Scotland and in this House we could create such a fuss that it would never get off the ground. I am sorry that, for that reason, I cannot go along with the amendment, although I agree with the sentiments behind it.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: It may come as a surprise to the Minister that such concerns should be expressed in this debate, but in the history of the highlands there have been strange electoral linkages. At one time, Caithness was linked with the Isle of Bute, which was neither contiguous nor highland. It is not out of an excess of caution that the necessity of regarding the Western Isles as a distinctive unit for electoral purposes is advanced by my noble friend. The highlands and islands have been victim of very unwise reorganisations for electoral purposes in the past. In my judgment, the highlands suffer at present from the extraordinary phenomenon of being linked in one so-called local authority, notwithstanding the fact that the area constitutes almost half the land mass of Scotland. So if those of us who have some knowledge of these parts appear to be concerned that Sir John Arbuthnott's committee should not entertain any suggestion of this kind, I hope that with the knowledge of the history the Minister may be sympathetic.
8 p.m.
Lord Filkin: One of the hardships of being a Minister is that one's hard heart is so well known that those who are proposing amendments are pessimistic about any prospect of the Government's agreeing to them. However, they are right. On this issue I am with the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and I will explain why.
These two amendments seek to give the Western Isles a guaranteed Scottish Parliament constituency. This issue was considered in some detail during the passage of the Scotland Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Sewel pointed out at that time, there was a simple reason for putting in the Scotland Bill the provision for separate constituencies for Orkney and Shetland for the Scottish Parliament. This was because at that moment Orkney and Shetland
1094
formed a single Westminster constituency, and the Westminster constituencies were used as the basis for forming Scottish MSPs.
To provide for separate Holyrood constituencies for Orkney and Shetland, it was necessary to make that explicit in the Bill because of the way the building blocks of the Westminster constituencies constructed the electoral arrangements for Holyrood. There was no need to do that for the Western Isles because it was already a separate parliamentary constituency, and therefore there was no need to make that distinction. As was explained at that time, if we go down the road of defining this or that constituency as off-limits, one completely frustrates any attempt by the Boundary Commission to look at more rational ways of addressing it.
While it is no doubt theoretically possible that at some future date the Western Isles might be associated with another part of Scotland, that does not look likely. The Boundary Commission takes into account in its reviews special geographical considerations such as the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency. It also has regard to local ties when formulating its proposals. These are for good reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Monro, signalled, I do not think that there is anything to fear with regard to the situation involving the Western Isles. The Boundary Commission for Scotland, as part of its fifth periodical review, published its final recommendations for the Western Isles county constituency on 21 August 2003. It recommended no alteration to the existing boundaries, although it did recommended that the name of the constituency should be changed to Na h-Eileanan an Iar county constituency. I shall go and take Gaelic lessons forthwith.
I think that I understand what was going on here. This was an attempt to both advocate the importance of the Western Isles to Scottish life and to UK life; and also a pre-emptive strike, in case anyone was mischievously thinking about anything worse. I understand that, but I do not think that noble Lords have much to fear in that respect.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this short debate. I admit that I am beginning to wonder what the purpose is of having an insurance policy. Should I pretend to myself that I was a good driver, would that prevent me from needing to buy an insurance policy? I do not think so. The Road Traffic Act would have some stern things to say to me about that. I certainly am happy to be accused of seeking too much of an insurance policy. The Western Isles are sufficiently unique to merit this protection. We know that in the 1880s these islands were so unknown that Lord Napier was dispatched with a commission to go and find out about them. I have read my way through the Napier commission report. Today, Scottish islands are in a numerical crisis, in that their populations as a whole have dropped below a total of 100,000 people. That may be mathematically significant, but it is not desirable. The islands should

1095
be given this protection. I thank my noble friend Lady Michie of Gallanach for her support. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) The Electoral Commission must submit to the Secretary of State the report under sub-paragraph (3) within three calendar months of the receipt of the report from the Boundary Committee under paragraph 5(3) or (4)."
The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 13 and 14. I will start with Amendments Nos. 6 and 14, which is consequential. In many cases, I have no doubt that the report of the Boundary Committee's review will be in line with the expectations of the Electoral Commission. In such circumstances, I would expect that the latter's report would be on the desk of the Secretary of State very smartly indeed. There may however be occasions on which unexpected factors arise, or previously unappreciated circumstances are uncovered. The Electoral Commission should not be placed in the position of causing a delay because it is in some way unhappy with the review.
We are considering here one of the linchpins of Scottish democracy, as we have heard. Whatever rules are finally agreed in terms of numbers of constituencies, numbers of voters per constituency, and whether Westminster and Scottish Parliament boundaries coincide, the application of these rules should be prompt. I hasten to add that they should be just as prompt for any part of the United Kingdom, but we are talking here about Scotland.
It has been a noticeable facet of recent government legislation that private citizens, companies, and small businesses are frequently given fairly tight timetables within which to respond to government demands. The application of such timetables to government departments has been absent from a number of recent Bills. I should not like to think that a similar oversight could happen here. The setting of the date 30 June 2010 should not be used to hold up necessary changes, the work for which has been completed many months in advance. It would not be fair either to MSPs, some of whom might be overloaded, nor to constituents, some of whom might be inadequately represented. Amendment No. 9 would clarify the chain of command and make clear that the Boundary Committee has no right to initiate investigations. The position, if I have understood it correctly, is similar to that of school organisation committees, which must reach a unanimous view on all matters of school reorganisation in their area, but which are not allowed to start the process by themselves. In the case of school organisation committees, their recommendations must have the unanimous agreement of all the groups that make up the panel. In the event that such an agreement is not forthcoming, the matter has to be referred to a government inspector who makes the final decision on what should happen.
Will the Minister tell the House whether there is any such get-out clause governing the operation of the Boundary Committee to prevent a situation where it fails to agree, or agrees with only a very small majority, after the Electoral Commission has referred a decision back to it under paragraph 5(4)(a) or 5(4)(b) of Schedule 1? I fear that without a get-out clause, unless there is a very clear chain of command, the Boundary Committee could hold matters up for a long time.
Finally, Amendment No. 13 probes the drafting. Either an Order in Council is made under this schedule or it is not. The idea that some sort of counterfeit could find its way into the system and be treated as genuine is enough to engender nightmares. That is particularly true when I read that such an order shall not be called into question—in other words, challenged—for any reason at all.
Logic says that it would not be possible for any one person or a number of people to produce a counterfeit and get it through the system. But there are those however who have either never heard of logic or who take a delight in confounding it. Until I heard it being broadcast, I should not have believed that the American civil aviation authority and the American military commanders could get in such a muddle over the shooting down of a hijacked aeroplane before it crashed into the Pentagon. Even in the past day we have heard about an investigation by Radio 5 Live, which suggests that there is a group of Zimbabweans who have been issuing permits on ministerial notepaper for people to stay in this country.
I truly believe that if a counterfeit order were to ever get through the system it must be possible to challenge it and to countermand it. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: This group of amendments relates to the process for reviewing the Scottish Parliament's boundaries. The Schedule largely replicates provisions for the review of Westminster constituencies set out in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 and existing provisions regarding the regions in the Scotland Act.
I should pause at that point because on subsequent amendments we shall come to similar proposals that seek, in effect, to change in Scotland the fundamental principles of electoral review arrangements as set out in the Parliamentary Constituency Act 1986. For reasons that I hope the House will find self-evident and obvious, we do not believe, as a matter of principle, that we should do that. The electoral arrangements and the ways in which the boundaries of constituencies are reviewed separate from government—dealt with in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act—should not be changed for one part of the United Kingdom on the back of a specific piece of legislation, even when it is about such an important part of the United Kingdom—namely, Scotland.
The process for reviewing the Scottish Parliament constituencies set out in this Bill is therefore not significantly different from well-established practice. We can see no justifiable case for departing unilaterally from

1097
this accepted review mechanism, which will continue to operate in relation to Westminster boundaries. That is for very good reasons.
I do not believe therefore that it would be appropriate to revise through this Bill the current wider structure for reviewing parliamentary constituencies. Those are serious constitutional and democratic matters that should not be altered lightly. If the provisions, processes and rules that are currently in place require to be amended—I am not aware that they do—this should be done only following full consultation with the independent Electoral Commission and other interested bodies as part of a UK-wide review about how the process of reviewing the boundaries for electoral constituencies is developed.
Amendment No. 6 would require the Electoral Commission to submit its report on boundary changes to the Secretary of State within three months of receiving a report from its Boundary Committee. However, imposing such a timetable does not appear to acknowledge the commission's powers at paragraphs 5(3) and 5(4) to seek modifications of or to reject the committee's report, which may involve the carrying out of a fresh review. That clearly could take some time. Those powers are there for a purpose. Amendments Nos. 9, 13 and 14 are drafting amendments, which I am advised do not improve the Bill. Therefore, for those reasons—we shall turn to similar issues on subsequent amendments—we do not believe that in Scotland we should change electoral review arrangements that go to the heart of how electoral review arrangements are considered on a UK-wide basis. Therefore, I regret that I cannot support the amendment proposed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and I invite him to reflect on withdrawing it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not think that the noble Lord is going to tell us what the phrase "purporting to be" means. I am not sure whether it is an expression used in Scots law, because I seem to have seen it before. I do not see why taking it out and replacing it with the rather clearer wording suggested by my noble friend would not improve the Bill. Does "purporting to be" mean "pretending to be"?. Surely not.
Lord Filkin: I will check it, but I assume that the phrase takes its natural meaning from the Bill: "seeming to mean" and "appearing to mean".
The Duke of Montrose: That is the point which worries us; the exact meaning of the phrase "purporting to be", and the fact that there seem to be no method of appealing or reviewing what is "purporting to be". I am afraid I am not as familiar as the Minister with the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, but I shall take this away and think about it. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said in response. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, leave out lines 4 to 11.
The noble Duke said: This is a probing amendment. Will the Minister explain how the Electoral Commission can be expected to recommend changes to two or more constituencies such that it obeys the constituency rules but does not result in a change in the number of constituencies in an area? Scotland, in common with parts of England, has seen both a population exodus and a population explosion over the years. There has been a decline in the number of young people staying in the area after school, while parts of the central belt have registered substantial gains.
These movements are mirrored in England by the critical expansion in the south-east and the decline in the north-west. I read in last Friday's Financial Times that London is expecting an 8 per cent population increase over the next 10 years. That will have an effect on us all so far as concerns the Westminster constituencies, because we have to meet the same criteria governing the average number of electors within a constituency.
That may not have quite the same effect in Scotland if this Bill becomes law, but I understand that in England there are shortly to be a number of boundary changes that will result in the creation of new constituencies in some areas and amalgamations in others. How can the Government be sure that a similar population movement will not require the number of constituencies to be amended between areas in Scotland? I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: The provisions in Schedule 1 to the Bill largely replicate the provisions for the review of Westminster constituencies set out in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, and the existing provisions regarding the regions in Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act.
Removing this provision would take away the power of the Electoral Commission to submit reports with respect to particular areas without waiting until its next general report, looking at the totality. However, it may be appropriate for such a review to be undertaken, which is why Parliament legislated in 1986 to this effect, because of sudden and significant demographic change that needs to be addressed in the short term for electoral purposes.
At times there can be significant reductions in population in some areas as a consequence of a major change made when an employer ceases to operate or, similarly, the construction of a new town or substantial housing development. These factors can have a significant impact on the electoral balance in an area. It is for those reasons that the Electoral Commission has by virtue of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 the power to carry out such reviews as it thinks necessary in between its major,

1099
overall reviews. Therefore these are necessary powers for the commission, and are consistent with the normal electoral review arrangements set out in the 1986 Act.
The Duke of Montrose: I think I pointed out that this was a probing amendment. However, I am still at a loss over how the Electoral Commission defines what is an "area". How does it define an area requiring either more or fewer constituencies owing to changes?
Lord Filkin: I do not pretend to be an expert on the processes of the Electoral Commission, but it would look at a whole range of issues in a particular area. It would consider the size of the local population, what are its affinities, and to what extent there appears within the existing electoral boundaries for the relevant area to have been a significant change, rendering it out of balance. The Electoral Commission would look at the whole range of issues we have touched on previously this evening—local affinities, where the work is and people's perception of what matters to them in terms of their local identity—when it addresses a particular area.
The Duke of Montrose: I think we have a slightly better understanding of this after the Minister's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 30, at beginning insert "Scottish"
The noble Duke said: Amendment No. 8 is grouped with Amendment No. 15. On page 1 of the Bill, there is reference to the payment of costs attributable to this Act "by Parliament". In the debate on Clause 3 stand part, I assumed from the context that this meant Westminster, and the Minister did not disagree. In line 20 of page 1, there is a reference to "Parliament", before which the Secretary of State must lay the Electoral Commission's report. Again, I assume from the context that this means Westminster.
References in a Bill to the European Parliament are, I think, always qualified as such. I feel that for ease of reference and the saving of time by countless numbers of researchers, local government employees and others, the Bill's architects should ensure that throughout the system "Parliament" means Westminster and otherwise, where it does not, it is qualified.
On Amendment No. 15, the English language is rich in its range and the alternative ways it allows one to say the same thing. Equally, it has a large number of words which are capable of different meanings in different contexts. I think that where a Bill makes reference to one month, it should, in fact, refer either to "four weeks" or to "one calendar month". By tabling this amendment, I am presuming that the Bill intends the meaning "calendar month", but I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that I am correct. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: I am pleased to confirm that the noble Duke is correct in his interpretation. While I shall not,
1100
as is my harsh way, concede to the amendment, 1 have some sympathy with him, because what is clear to parliamentary draftsmen and lawyers is not always quite so clear to the rest of us. With that preamble, let me explain why the amendments are unnecessary.
Section 126(1) of the Scotland Act already defines references to "the Parliament" in the Act as meaning the Scottish Parliament. Amendment No. 15 would add "calendar" before "month". That is also unnecessary, as Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 already defines "month" as a "calendar month".
I therefore ask the noble Duke not to press the amendment. I have great sympathy with him, however, given that, at times, legislation needs to be drafted in a way that is hard for non-lawyers to unscramble.
The Duke of Montrose: I am a trifle disappointed by the Minister's response. It should not be necessary for people to bone up on one piece of legislation in order to know what another piece means. However, it is at least useful to have the Minister's explanation on the record for anybody who wishes to consult it on the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 12 as well. These amendments are concerned with the procedure for Orders in Council to be made under the Bill as set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1.
Amendment No. 11 is probing in nature but is designed to explore the wording of sub-paragraph (1). This explains that the draft of the Order in Council which gives effect to the Electoral Commission's recommendations,
"may make provision for any matters which he—
the Secretary of State—
"thinks are incidental to or consequential on the recommendations".
In the context of this schedule, it seems that this may be too broad a power. What sort of incidental or consequential matters are envisaged here? Can the Minister provide some clarity on what this provision is expected to cover, and why it is necessary? I imagine we will be told that it is all in the name of flexibility, but in these circumstances, it is worth while probing the need for such a provision.
Amendment No. 12 is a probing amendment. Is it envisaged that rejection by either House will come with a set of reasons which should guide the resubmission and thereby tie the hands of the Secretary of State in his redrafting? Will the process of withdrawing a draft Order in Council also involve the affirmative procedure in both Houses? If agreement to withdraw the draft is given by both Houses, will the Secretary of State be constrained to amend the draft only in respect of the areas that he has identified as being unsatisfactory?
My doubt arises from the following paragraph 6(4) which is a conditional statement and suggests that the Secretary of State may not be limited in his redrafting to matters already debated and, in a sense, agreed. If there is any latitude in the scope of the redrafting it should be done again by the Electoral Commission. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: Amendment No. 11 would disallow the Secretary of State from making any incidental or consequential arrangements in relation to the Electoral Commission's recommendations on the constituency and regional boundaries for Scottish Parliament elections. However, it is necessary to keep such a power—a narrow and limited one—to ensure that the Electoral Commission's recommendations are implemented fully and effectively. It is necessary to have the capacity available to allow for any problems or inconsistencies arising from the recommendations to be rectified.
It should be noted that the procedures following the submission of a report to the Secretary of State by the Electoral Commission are again, in general, the same as those that apply following the submission of reports under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. However, the 1986 Act does allow the Secretary of State to lay a draft order giving effect "with or without modifications" to the recommendations contained in the report.
The present Bill, however, does not replicate in relation to Scottish Parliament constituencies the wider power to make modifications. Similarly, the power also fails to be removed in Westminster constituencies once the Electoral Commission takes over the functions of the Boundary Commission. The point is that the power in the Bill that allows the Secretary of State to make provision for matters that are incidental to or consequential on the Electoral Commission's recommendations is a much narrower and constrained power than the present one which allows him to make "modifications". This limited power is a sensible safeguard which I believe needs to remain in the Bill.
Turning to Amendment No. 12, paragraph 6(3) of the schedule allows the Secretary of State to redraft and relay an amended Order in Council where the original Motion for approval of the draft is rejected by either House. The amendment would delete this power and require the Secretary of State to,
"return the draft to the Electoral Commission for redrafting".
However, that misunderstands the process. It is the Secretary of State's responsibility from the outset to have the relevant order drafted, which would give effect to the recommendations in the Boundary Commission's report. It is therefore appropriate and necessary for the Secretary of State to have this redrafting power. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, asked what matters would be involved. An example would be changes that electoral administrators may need to put in place to implement the boundary changes. In short, the powers of the Secretary of State are considerably circumscribed through this legislation away from the "with or
1102
without modification" under the 1986 power down to merely issues that are "incidental and consequential". Those are not powers at large, but ones that lawyers would inspect. Therefore, if the Secretary of State went beyond what was incidental or consequential, that would be open to a judicial review challenge that he had exceeded the power that statute gave him. I hope that that is helpful.
The Duke of Montrose: It was extremely important that we got some understanding of what the wording meant. The Minister was very helpful in that regard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I am advised that the score in the football game is one all.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 39, leave out "100" and insert "400"
The noble Duke said: We seem to moving Along at quite a reasonable pace. It is just possible that the Minister will get the last 15 minutes of the match if we keep at it.
In speaking to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, I should like to apologise for a mistake that cropped up during the tabling of the amendments, which, no doubt, numerous Members of the Committee will have spotted. We had intended that Amendment No. 16 should read,
"leave out '100' and insert '40—,
but somehow an extra zero has crept in where it should not. The figure should read 40, not 400. We are not being inconsistent in our approach here.
I hope the Committee will bear with me while I explain the nature of Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which challenge the numbers involved in the bodies mentioned in paragraph 9, which deals with local inquiries. The phrase,
"a body of not less than 100",
indicates that there must be a cohesion of opinion. It will presumably not be sufficient that 90 residents of a village which is to be removed from one constituency to another and 13 residents of a town to which they are to be joined object. Under the terms as laid down, all 103 objectors would have to be presented as being in a single organisation, however transient. I am not sure what framework the Government see the body creating, but that may become clearer.
Similarly, it would not be adequate to have a total of several hundred objectors all in groups of fewer than 100. If that is so, it discriminates against the rural voter—which it could be seen as always being intended to do. Given the difficulties in this Chamber of getting 40 signatures, even with the organisation, clerical assistance and the proximity that we all enjoy, one can imagine how much harder it must be to obtain 40 signatures in a body when there is no system available to facilitate it.
As regards Amendment No. 17, the difficulty of organising a body of 100 signatories within a constituency is greatly compounded when the requirement is for a group of 500 within a region. The Committee is familiar with the saying that there are "lies, damned lies and statistics", but one could also add that numbers, particularly averages and percentages, can be used to bolster one argument against another, depending simply on how they are presented. For example, the first time that Scotland was given a chance of devolution, it failed because the turnout did not reach the required minimum percentage. The rules for running referendums for regional assemblies now demand only a simple majority of those who turn out to vote.
The requirement for 500 people to form a body making representations against the views of a boundary committee may ensure that there are few if any such protests. It is simply unacceptable that, within a democracy, an opposing point of view cannot be heard because of the difficulty of co-ordinating the presentation of that viewpoint. It is even worse if the subject under discussion affects the expression of choices and preferences of that democracy. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am advised that the score is England 2, Croatia 1.
Lord Filkin: I am extremely grateful for the interventions from the chair on these issues. It helps us to understand what is going on while keeping our minds firmly fixed on Scottish matters. I am grateful, too, for the clarification that the figure in the amendment was meant to be 40 rather than 400. That helped us greatly to understand, because we found it difficult to see why the noble Duke was moving in opposite directions on the same issue at the same time. He is clearly not doing so.
I have two things to say in response. First, we do not think that the well established practice in the UK should be disturbed in that respect. My answer is similar to the one that I have given previously. The requirement in Section 9(4)(b) for a local inquiry to be held if 100 or more electors object to the Boundary Commission's recommendation is based on a requirement in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.
Reducing the numbers in the well established requirement would have an effect across the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to Westminster boundary reviews. We do not believe that would be appropriate—certainly not without full consideration by the Electoral Commission. It would seriously disadvantage constituents. It would create a lack of synchronicity and common standards in this respect.
The second reason why the Government resist the amendment is that we are not aware that there has in practice been a problem with these population thresholds. Although 100 is the number, the people do not all have to be of the same organisation. It requires 100 people to feel that the recommendation is wrong. That is all that is necessary. They do not all have to
1104
come from the same body or group. In our experience, electors and organisations are vigorous and vocal in making objections when they feel that there is an issue. So, for those two reasons, I fear that I cannot accede to the amendment tabled by the noble Duke.
The Duke of Montrose: The Minister is obviously very averse to anything that varies at all from the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. In fact, he is saying that it should say that there should be 100 people. Introducing the question of whether they are a body creates quite a bit of confusion. I take his point but I think one could look at the numbers that we have used and see if there is a reason to come up with anything different. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9, line 11, leave out "71" and insert "the number of constituencies less 2 in existence at the date the quota is calculated"
The noble Duke said: It is a notable point that since the Scotland Act the total number of Westminster Scottish MPs is no longer fixed. If the fifth report of the Boundary Commission recommends that there should now be 59 MPs, there is nothing to say that it will always be so. Similarly, there may in future be some cause for the number of rejigged Scottish constituencies to be changed.
The Boundary Commission has not yet officially reported, although it appears that the report has been ready for some time. If Schedule 3 is approved, the Secretary of State will be empowered to ignore the recommendations of that report, in so far as they relate to the Scottish regions and their boundaries. The report has not, so far, been officially received. Its recommendations have not been set in stone. It is still possible that one or more of them may touch on regions. If the Bill comes unstuck, it is possible that the commission may recommend that the Scottish Parliament and Westminster have the same mainland boundaries for each constituency and therefore retain the same number of mainland MSPs to each place. It is likely that such a recommendation would not find favour in Scotland, nor possibly with the Secretary of State.
However, it is surely incorrect to anticipate the final outcome of the ensuing discussions and debates to the point of placing on the face of the Bill a specific number of constituencies. There may even be findings and arguments advanced in the Boundary Commission's report that result in a change to the existing constituency boundaries in Scotland, without the total number equating to that for Westminster. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: In the Government's view, Amendment No. 18 is a consequential amendment, following from Amendment No. 1. Rule 2(3) in the Bill is required for the redistribution of seats in relation to Scottish Parliament consistencies. The electoral quota that is to

1105
be applied is obtained by dividing by 71 the total electorate on the enumeration date of all the Parliament's constituencies, other than Orkney and Shetland. As Amendment No. 1 has been withdrawn, it seems to the Government that this amendment, being consequential, should not be pursued and I invite the noble Duke not to press it.
The Duke of Montrose: I note the point that the Minister is making and, as a result, I shall withdraw my amendment and consider what the correct procedure should be.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 9, line 41, leave out from "be)" to end of line 44 and insert "shall have regard to special geographic considerations in the strict application of Rules 1 and 2 (including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency)"
The noble Duke said: This House and the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform have been consistently critical of Bills that give Secretaries of State huge regulatory freedom or very wide, almost indefinable powers. Here we have an agency that has been given carte blanche to follow the rules, or not to follow the rules, as it thinks fit.
I have been trying to envisage the Boundary Committee—and, beyond it, the Electoral Commission—at work. My impression is that the chairmen of such bodies wield enormous power. If the chairman ventures to opine that, "Such a matter is not relevant", many a committee will fall into line behind him. Even in this House and in another place I can think of chairmen—and not always men at that—with whom most Members will fail to disagree.
In order for either body to do its job with consistent openness and fairness it should have a duty to,
"have regard to special geographic considerations"
in all cases. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There is a quite interesting point about this, which doubtless the Government have considered. The smaller a Parliament is, the more it matters whether, to ensure fairness, there is an equality of votes behind an elected member. I understand very well why this provision is in the Bill, and I understand my noble friend's point. It is interesting, however, that one has sometimes to depart from fairness in order to accommodate different communities.
I think we have to bear that in mind when we are considering constituencies in any part of the United Kingdom. I was thinking about that when the Liberal Democrats were talking about the Western Isles. They who are so keen on proportionality were advocating a departure from proportionality even for St Kilda—which I do not think has anyone on it at the moment although it may have had one or two at one time and
1106
they may have been voters. 1 t is an interesting point. The smaller the Parliament is, the greater is the importance of equality of electorate.
Lord Filkin: I think that the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, to the earlier mention of the Western Isles is entirely relevant to this discussion. It makes the point.
The foundation of this power in the Bill is again round in our old friend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which provides that a boundary commission may depart from the strict application of Rules 4 and 5. Those rules provide that regard should be had to local authority areas and that the electorate of any constituency shall be as near to the electoral quota as is practicable—the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about trying to ensure an equality of votes behind elected members—if,
"special geographical considerations (including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency)",
appear to render a departure desirable.
So the noble Baroness is exactly right. The reason why Parliament gave the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Commission those powers in the 1986 Act was that a strict and absolutely slavish adherence to electoral equality would lead to what I might best summarise as a Western Isles type problem. That would fly in the face of what the public would think sane and sensible.
Amendment No. 19, which is connected with Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, would replace that currently permissive provision which allows the Electoral Commission or the Boundary Committee to depart from the strict application of Rules 1 and 2 if they think that special geographical considerations and so on render it desirable to do so. The amendment would replace that with a stronger provision requiring the body to have regard to special geographic considerations. However, if I have interpreted the effect of the amendment properly, it would place conflicting obligations on the commission or committee which it would not be able satisfactorily to resolve. That would not be a desirable outcome.
Further, as I signalled before, Rule 3 very closely follows a provision in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. I do not think that it is appropriate in this Bill radically to revise the well established and tested structure for reviewing parliamentary constituencies. If the rules that are currently in place require to be amended, and we are not persuaded as yet that there is reason to do so, this would need to involve the Electoral Commission rather than be done on the back of this more specific piece of legislation. I hope that that is helpful in terms of explaining why we think these powers are necessary and why this is not the place to make adjustments to them.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does the noble Lord nevertheless take the point that the smaller the Parliament, the more important it is to try to get that equality of electorates? Supposing there are only six members in a Parliament, and one represents 5,000

1107
and the rest 50,000, that one person's vote could affect affairs very much. One can extend that to 129. So the smaller the Parliament, the more important it is to get near to equality in votes. We have a problem in that regard in Scotland. I accept all that was said about the Western Isles, but it is an interesting point and something that one should bear in mind.
Lord Filkin: I well understand the point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, refers. I am certain that the Boundary Committee for Scotland and the commission will be seized of those difficulties as they go about their task.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that the island group of St Kilda has a military garrison of about 30 permanently running the radar station serviced from Benbecula. Certainly in terms of nature conservation, St Kilda needs to be represented, albeit that there may not be any permanent human residents.
The Duke of Montrose: It would be nice to think that my amendment could be carried. However, the Minister still sticks resolutely to the terms of the 1986 Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 20 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 21 or 22.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 10, leave out lines 1 to 10.
The noble Duke said: I have looked forward to moving this amendment as I understand that this is an area in which the Bill departs from the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.
Rule 4 appears to be an attempt to produce a slightly racier version of paragraph 7 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. This speaks of the Boundary Commission having "no duty" to give full effect. I should have thought that not aiming to give full effect is less instructive and produces something immensely confusing and nebulous. If the Government feel that they can justify a paragraph in this general area, I should then wish to move Amendment No. 21 which, if anything, strengthens the direction while still allowing a little discretion.
I speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22. The comments that were made to Amendment No. 19 also apply here. It is helpful for the smooth running of a committee that the decisions it has to take be clear-cut and, in so far as is possible, follow an established pattern. It would be normal to follow Rules 1 to 3 unless they are incorrect or in some other way inadequate. I am sure the Minister will tell me that they are neither incorrect nor inadequate so the committee must normally follow them. There may be cases, however, when an exception is indicated so the committee must have freedom to incorporate that eventuality.
Amendment No. 22 is simply a drafting amendment and in itself is probably not fully correct as it stands, for which I apologise. We think that it would read better with the insertion of "Rule" after the second "to" on page 10, line 4. For the sake of clarity, if we completely changed the wording, at the next stage the line would read,
"Rule 1 to Rule 3".
I beg to move.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I rise to support Amendment No. 20, at least in so far as it is a probing amendment although in a sense it seems to me that it creates an extremely anomalous set of guidelines. As it is novel, it is worthy of slightly more protracted discussion.
The first duty imposed on the Electoral Commission or Boundary Committee under Rule 4 appears to be that they need not take any account or give full effect to the earlier rules, which were spelt out in such detail. It would be quite impossible for them to give full effect to all the rules, as some of them displace each other.
The second suggestion, in the first sentence of Rule 4, is that the Electoral Commission or Boundary Committee must take account,
"(so far as they reasonably can) … of the inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituencies other than alterations made for the purposes of Rule I. and … of any local ties which would be broken by such alterations".
That appears to elevate the discretion of the commission and the Boundary Committee in a way almost inconsistent with Rules 1 to 3.
It is hard to understand precisely what that is intended to achieve. Very few alterations on constituencies are unaccompanied by inconveniences. That is such a wide concept that it can scarcely be suitable to enunciate it as a rule. It is also very rare for alterations of boundaries not to affect local ties. Equally, that seems to raise the possibility of a discretionary use of a rule simply to follow whim. Rules ought to be rules in the sense that they give much clearer guidance than Rule 4 purports to do.
Lord Filkin: The effect of Amendment No. 20 would be to take away the duty on the Electoral Commission, when carrying out any review of constituencies of the Scottish Parliament, to take account of inconveniences following alterations to constituencies and local ties which would be broken. The noble Duke wondered whether the wording was of significance. I am advised that that is a mere drafting point. Nevertheless, I shall take it away, double check and confirm it to him. I believe that there would be the same effect; it is merely parliamentary draftsmen using slightly different language. Let me inspect what he said in Hansard, and I shall be pleased to write to him. I shall try to ensure that the letter gets there with more expedition than the previous letter that I sent to him.
The duty on the Boundary Committee had to be considered by the Boundary Commission for Scotland in its recent review of the Scottish Westminster constituencies. The provision exists to ensure that

1109
local community interests and other connections are given proper consideration—I underline the word—in boundary reviews, and that what might be somewhat artificial boundaries are not created as a matter of course. Rule 4 provides an important flexibility in the commission's deliberations and its deletion would be unwelcome to many constituents and electors. Issues relating to local ties are common ground for objecting to the commission's recommendations, for reasons that we can all understand, and we would not wish the House to add to those concerns. I am sure that there is no intention of doing so.
Let me have a go at unpicking the dilemma posited by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, on the qualification set out in Rule 4 saying that the Boundary Committee or Electoral Commission must take account of the inconveniences attendant and of any local ties that would be broken. He felt that that seemed to put the subordinates in a dominant position over the overall objective under earlier rules. I do not believe that the words mean that. I interpret "must take account of ' as meaning that they have to "give consideration to"—it does not mean that they have to "seek to resolve" automatically. It means that they have to reflect on and consider "the inconveniences attendant" or "local ties which would be broken", before coming to a final determination. Therefore, the subordinate clauses do not become dominant; the Bill merely says that the Electoral Commission or the Boundary Committee must have reflected on those matters before coming to a final conclusion.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are related to Amendment No. 19 and the same issues also apply. I hope that that has been helpful, but I have promised to send a letter to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, come what may, after further reflection.
The Duke of Montrose: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, for his support and the Minister for offering to take this matter away to consider the change of wording. This is one of those occasions when we all have to go away and consider what has been said. In that light, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Transitional modifications of Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998]:
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 11, line 2, leave out "must be ignored" and insert "is deleted"
The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 23, I shall also speak to consequential Amendments Nos. 24 and 25. These are probing amendments that are designed to ascertain the special significance of ignoring, as opposed to the more normal deleting that one sees in schedules devoted to consequential amendments. Will the Minister explain the use of that phraseology in the Bill and why it would be incorrect to delete the offending sub-paragraphs?
The Boundary Commission for Scotland is about to disappear, so why must reference be kept to the Boundary Committee for Scotland, being construed as referring to the Boundary Commission for Scotland? Similarly, why does a reference to the Boundary Commission have to remain? I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: Schedule 2 makes transitional provisions to deal, if necessary, with the position before the Electoral Commission takes over the functions of the Boundary Commission for Scotland. That commission will cease to exist when the Secretary of State for Scotland directs by order that he is satisfied that the commission has no further functions to perform. The Government have indicated that the functions of the present boundary commissions will not transfer until after they have completed their current reviews.
The form of wording used was chosen because parliamentary counsel advised that these are modifications to the way that the schedule has effect—see Clause 1(2)—and that the approach taken is the appropriate one. I am sure that the noble Duke is aware that parliamentary counsel are extremely clever people who draft legislation for us. At times they are clear about the appropriate drafting. I should be happy, on reflection, to add anything further to that, but we are happy with the advice of parliamentary counsel who believe that the drafting is appropriate. The noble Duke's proposals are simply drafting amendments that would not affect the substantial thrust of the schedule.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That is not an answer. My noble friend asked a clear question regarding why the schedule is worded in such a way. To argue that parliamentary counsel said that that was correct is not an answer, is it?
Lord Filkin: It sometimes feels so, but I take the point. If I can add to my explanation, I will do better subsequently.
The Duke of Montrose: It appears that one of our difficulties is that we are in an interim period whereby either one law or another is in operation, depending on not necessarily the time of day, but the stage that the legislation has reached. I look forward to hearing whether there will be a further explanation from the Minister. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
9 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Current Boundary Commission reviews]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 3 shall be agreed to?
The Duke of Montrose: It is widely believed that the report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland on the size of the parliamentary constituencies in Scotland has

1111
been ready for some time. The delay is, as I think the Minister was trying to explain, reportedly all down to the commission. I should be grateful if the Minister would further confirm that this is so, and tell us what action the Government propose to take to obtain the report and publish it.
The wording of this Schedule, if carefully read, hints that a very precise piece of timing is in the process of arrangement. The critical phrase seems to concern any report,
"which is submitted to the Secretary of State at any time before the passing of this Act."
This would seem to exclude any report which has been so submitted, without actually saying so. Perhaps that is one of the clever reasons why the Boundary Commission has not come up with anything. The part of the report which apparently gives offence is anything relating to regions and regional members, but the report has not yet been produced. If there is a reference to regions or regional members, then if the Secretary of State has laid a draft Order in Council before Parliament, that order must be withdrawn. But the report has not yet been produced.
I am sure there are people who understand what this is all about, but I should be grateful for a clear explanation from the Minister. Will he also explain the significance of paragraph 4 of the Schedule which seems merely to repeat paragraphs 2 and 3?
Lord Filkin: The central thrust of the question of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, related to a previous clause when the noble Lord, Lord Monro, asked why the Boundary Commission was slow at reporting on the conclusions of its review on the number of Westminster MPs to be elected from Scotland. It is, I say once more with feeling, because the commission is operating under statute. The statute, for good reason, said that after the Boundary Commission for Scotland had completed its review of the boundaries and the numbers of MPs to be elected to Westminster from Scotland, and as there was a direct linkage between Westminster MPs and Scottish MSPs in the Scotland Act as originally constructed, it was necessary for that commission to look at the consequential adjustments that needed to be made to
1112
the regional list MSPs after they had made changes to the MP constituencies in Scotland for election to Westminster. The commission is sitting ready to conduct that review.
Of course, when—rather than if, I hope—we pass this Bill, there will be no need for the Boundary Commission for Scotland to review the regional list MSPs, because the Bill settles the number of Scottish MSPs at 129. Therefore, as soon as the Bill is passed, the Boundary Commission for Scotland, knowing that its statutory duty to review the regional list MSPs has been removed, will be able to report as soon as may be to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the reduced number of MPs to be elected from Scotland to Westminster.
As I have signalled on a number of occasions, there is a clear if complex link between this Bill and the earnest wish on all sides of the House to reduce the number of MPs elected from Scotland to Westminster as a consequence of the Scotland Act. That will be accelerated by this Bill, which will remove from the Boundary Commission for Scotland the burden of its statutory duty to review the regional list MSPs. That is the long and the short of it—perhaps more the long than the short—and it is why those of us who believe that it is right and fair to reduce the number of MPs elected to Westminster from Scotland—not a universal view in the other place—believe that this process needs to move forward as soon as may be.
I could address the more specific points, but that was the central issue behind the noble Duke's question. I fear that I have again gone to considerable length, but I hope that I have been clear.
The Duke of Montrose: I think that this brings out the rather interesting point that boundary commissions will never have to worry about list MSPs again, judging from the way in which the Bill has been phrased. They might have to worry about constituency boundaries, but the number of list MSPs will remain exactly as stated. I shall not press my opposition to the schedule.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at six minutes past nine o'clock.

  Rwanda Survivors Fund
  Rwanda Survivors Fund
  Cyprus: Sovereign Bases
  Cyprus: Sovereign Bases
  Cyprus: European Parliament Representation
  Cyprus: European Parliament Representation
  Cyprus: EU Office in North
  Cyprus: EU Office in North
  Cyprus: UK Relations with North
  Cyprus: UK Relations with North
  Cyprus: EU Funding for North
  Cyprus: EU Funding for North
  Cyprus: Ercan Airport
  Cyprus: Ercan Airport
  Vietnam: Human Rights
  Vietnam: Human Rights
  United States: Detainees
  United States: Detainees
  China: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights
  Cuba: Human Rights
  Cuba: Human Rights
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Partnership for Peace
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Partnership for Peace
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Research Paper Recommendations
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Research Paper Recommendations
  Immigration: Hunger Strikes
  Immigration: Hunger Strikes
  Immigration: Sector-based Scheme
  Immigration: Sector-based Scheme
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Staff
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Staff
  Criminal Records Bureau: Capita Contract
  Criminal Records Bureau: Capita Contract
  Asylum Applicants: Withdrawal of Support
  Asylum Applicants: Withdrawal of Support
  Sport: Financial Assistance by Local Authorities
  Sport: Financial Assistance by Local Authorities
  Department of Health: Compliance with Code of Practice on Access to Government Information
  Department of Health: Compliance with Code of Practice on Access to Government Information
  Misleading Food Labelling
  Misleading Food Labelling
  NHS Professionals Special Health Authority
  NHS Professionals Special Health Authority
  Severe Personality Disorder
  Severe Personality Disorder
  Sports Nutrition
  Sports Nutrition
  Skin Cancer
  Skin Cancer
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Physical Education in Primary Schools
  Physical Education in Primary Schools
  BBC: European Union Support
  BBC: European Union Support
  Draft European Constitutional Treaty
  Draft European Constitutional Treaty
  Sport: Governance in the UK
  Sport: Governance in the UK
  Winter Olympic Sport Group
  Winter Olympic Sport Group
  Sport Sponsorship
  Sport Sponsorship
  Sports Clubs
  Sports Clubs
  Code of Practice on Access to Government Information
  Code of Practice on Access to Government Information
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid

  Hydebank Wood Prison
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I wish to announce that, with effect from 18 June 2004, in accordance with the powers conferred on me by Rule 5(1) of the Prisons and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, that part of the site of HM Young Offenders Centre Hydebank Wood known as Ash House and the adjoining land—as indicated on the attached site map—be designated as Hydebank Wood Prison. The parts to be designated as Hydebank Wood Prison are indicated by the words "Hydebank Wood" on the map that I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  European Union Staff Regulations
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  The General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) adopted the proposal to revise the staff regulations for EU officials on 22 March. While we noted that European Scrutiny Committee had withheld clearance from the proposal when it met on 17 March and had recommended the document (15185/03) for debate, we supported the adoption of the proposal at the 22 March GAERC. We considered that the proposal met agreed UK priorities in the reform of the careers structure, pensions and pay of EU officials and would promote merit, efficiency and staff development and deliver significant long-term savings in the EU budget.

  I regret, however, that we were unable to arrange the debate prior to agreement. This was due to the tight timeframe involved. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Bill Rammell) explained in his letter to the Chairman of the Committee on 19 March, the GAERC needed to agree to the proposal in March to ensure that the new regulations would be in place in time for enlargement on 1 May. The debate with European Standing Committee B has now been scheduled for 23 June. My honourable friend the Minister for Europe (Dr Denis MacShane) will be leading the debate.

  Millennium Dome and Greenwich Peninsula
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  WS 42
  On 29 May 2002, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton advised the House of Lords that English Partnerships (EP) had entered into legally binding conditional contracts with Meridian Delta Ltd (MDL), a consortium consisting of Lend Lease and Quintain Estates and Development plc, and Anschutz Entertainment Group (Anschutz), for the future use of the Dome and development of approximately 190 acres of land on the Greenwich peninsula. Since then, planning permission and other consents have had to be secured under the terms of the May 2002 contracts, but I am pleased to be able to advise the House today that the conditions attached to those contracts have been satisfied and the overall transaction has gone unconditional. That is a major milestone in the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula and the growth of the Thames Gateway.

  The long-term benefits that we have secured for future generations of Londoners are a fitting legacy for the Dome project and for the public investment that has gone into the Greenwich peninsula. £4 billion worth of private sector investment, including a £550 million cash return over the next 20 years, will bring new jobs, new homes, new services and infrastructure to London. That is a fantastic result, and it reflects the commitment and vision of all our private and public sector partners. Every £1 of public money on the peninsula has attracted over £6 from the private sector.

  The timetable going forward is now as follows: during the summer, Anschutz will appoint a contractor for the construction of the new arena inside the Dome, for work to start in spring 2005; and at the same time MDL will submit to Greenwich Council a planning application for Millennium Square, the major new public space proposed next to the Dome. MDL expects contractors to start delivering early infrastructure works to facilitate the wider development late in 2004 and, once detailed planning permission has been secured for the first phases, start of work on the housing and other facilities is expected in late 2005 or early 2006. Construction of the arena is expected to be completed in spring 2007, together with other leisure uses under the Dome roof, the plans for which Anschutz will he working up in the coming months. Millennium Square will be completed within the same timetable, and the residential development will be well under way by the time the new arena opens for business in 2007. This stage has been reached only through considerable effort and close co-operation among a number of private and public sector partners.

  English Partnerships has secured contracts that are set to deliver an exemplar sustainable community and a fabulous addition to London's entertainment facilities. EP will continue to work in partnership with the developers as work progresses and land belonging to EP, Quintain and other third parties is drawn down for development. The London Borough of Greenwich granted planning permission on 23 February 2004 for the development and was robust in securing a highly valuable package of measures of public benefit through the Section 106 agreement negotiations and related matters. The Mayor of London, through several of his functions and organisations—primarily Transport for London—has been instrumental in

  WS 43
  facilitating the planning permission and in completing elements of the contractual negotiations. MDL and Anschutz have both invested substantial time and considerable money already in preparing the physical plans and developing other matters in preparation for a long period of activity in developing the site and creating the sustainable community and a magnificent new entertainment hub for London.

  The development will see the creation of an estimated 24,000 new jobs; the building of over 10,000 new homes, 3,800 of which will be social rented, low-cost and family units; significant infrastructural improvements; 48 acres of open spaces and parkland; and the building of new community and healthcare facilities, including new schools. All of that will lead to the wider regeneration of the local area and beyond. Some £4 billion of private sector investment is expected from this transaction alone, and, throughout the peninsula, every £1 of public sector investment will lever in over £6 of private sector money.

  The development will continue the innovation and high quality established at the Millennium Village and elsewhere on the peninsula. The village is already paving the way on high-density living, achieving new levels of energy efficiency, creating the high-quality environment that is needed, and providing integrated services through the new school and health centre that are at the heart of the development. It is setting standards from which important lessons can be learnt and establishing best practice that will influence wider development on the peninsula and elsewhere. The development enabled by the completion of the transaction being announced today will deliver a community several times the size of the Millenniurn Village, while incorporating the type and variety of public facilities and infrastructure that are required of a 21st-century sustainable community. The number of new homes will also make a substantial contribution to delivering the step change announced in the Sustainable Communities Plan, particularly for the Thames Gateway growth area.

  Anschutz will transform the inner part of the Dome into a world-class, 26,000-capacity entertainment and sports arena. Anschutz is committed to investing at least £120 million in the arena, with EP receiving, after a priority return to Anschutz, 15 per cent of the profits. We cannot reveal the details of the priority return, as it impacts on Anschutz's ongoing business and is commercially confidential.

  The arena is only part of the story. In the outer rim of the Dome, Anschutz will construct a mixture of retail, entertainment and leisure facilities. That part of the development is currently known as the Dome waterfront. EP will receive at least a one-third share of the profits, after the developer's priority return. At least a further £65 million will be invested in the area by the private sector. EP will also receive payment for the hotel site next to the Dome.

  On the rest of the land, EP and MDL have agreed that they will develop the site jointly over the next 20 or so years, with an end date of 2025. The detailed terms provide for EP to retain ownership of its land until
  WS 44
  individual plots are required for development. The payout will work as follows: first, EP will receive an agreed, indexed minimum land value on the sale of any parcel of land, which will protect against any downturn in the market; secondly, a share of MDL's profits after deduction of development costs to reflect the enhanced planning consent and the market value at the time of sale to the developer. The share to be received by EP increases over time throughout the development phases from 40 per cent to 75 per cent. Where MDL develops land itself, English Partnerships will receive the agreed, indexed minimum land value plus a share of sale proceeds or the value of the development—both after costs—once the development is complete. That share ranges from 15 per cent to 20 per cent, depending on timing.

  Over the period of the deal, EP expects to receive a financial return of the order of £550 million in cash terms. That is based on a validated assessment of expectation from the sale of the land and includes neither any additional return that may flow from the profit shares in respect of the Dome nor any redevelopment proceeds in the event that the Dome is demolished after 2018. Up to that date, Anschutz and MDL are contractually required to maintain the Dome. Should the Dome structure ever be removed and the land redeveloped, EP will be entitled to a 50 per cent share of redevelopment proceeds. This protects English Partnerships' position on the redevelopment value of the land.

  With the completion of the contracts, English Partnerships' costs incurred in respect of the sale process and decommissioning of the Dome site have now ceased. The total costs incurred by English Partnerships in those areas that have now concluded are as follows:

  First Dome sale competition

  £6.7 million

  Latest sale process

  £9.0 million

  Decommissioning

  £6.7 million

  Total

  £22.4 million

  In addition, EP has already incurred costs of £8.2 million on the management, maintenance, security and insurance of the Dome site up to 31 May, offset by income from events and lettings of £1.4 million. Those figures have been regularly reported to Parliament. As reported to Parliament, EP will continue to meet the Dome's necessary management, maintenance, security and insurance costs until Anschutz completes the construction of the arena. However, those costs will gradually reduce as preliminary works start before the main contract commences. EP estimates that its average monthly cost will fall from the recent £190,000 to around £60,000 when the main arena contract starts in spring 2005.

  All of EP's costs from when it took ownership of the Dome in July 2001 to the completion of the arena's construction, including the costs of the entire sale process, will be recovered from sale proceeds. Based on the above figures to date and an estimate of the likely

  WS 45
  future management, maintenance, security and insurance costs, the total cost that EP expects to incur in relation to the Dome project, over six years and after taking account of offsetting income from events and lettings, is around £33 million.

  The Government, in recognition of the leading role played by the lottery through the Millennium Commission in helping to regenerate the Greenwich peninsula, have consistently stated that it will receive a fair share of proceeds from the sale and development of the Dome. The division of proceeds with the lottery has now been agreed. EP will retain all of the first £30 million of development receipts, to cover most of the Dome-related costs described above, as a first call on proceeds. Thereafter, EP will retain 87 per cent of receipts, and the remaining 13 per cent will be passed to the lottery in recognition of the contribution of the Dome. That share will be reflected in a new legal agreement between EP and the New Millennium Experience Company, which will bind the parties to the respective shares of proceeds over the period covered by EP's contracts with MDL and Anschutz.

  Under the terms of the original acquisition of the land, EP paid British Gas £20 million for the original transfer of the land, plus £4.3 million as a share of EP's sale receipts to date on the southern part of the Greenwich peninsula, as required in the original purchase transaction, which entitled British Gas to 7.5 per cent of all open market value land sales. British Gas has also received a further £10 million in respect of the enhanced value of Greenwich peninsula due to MDL's proposals and the retention of the Dome. That represents good value for money and reduces EP's liability under the original purchase agreement.

  In agreeing the deal, the Government focused on four main aspects: value for money; regeneration benefits for the area; deliverability; and an innovative use for the Dome. With regard to value for money, we made it clear throughout that we would proceed with the deal only if it provided value for money for the Government. That included comparison with the value for money that could be delivered by demolishing the Dome or in alternative development scenarios retaining the Dome. The currently estimated value of the development to EP—assuming that the full scheme is developed—of around £550 million will depend on market fluctuations over 20 years for the eventual out-turn, but we are confident that the structure of the deal will deliver excellent financial returns for the taxpayer as well as enormous public benefits.

  The deal enables the Government to benefit from the increasing value of the land on the peninsula both now and over time. That is sensible and in the public interest. As the development proceeds, land values will increase. That will be reflected in the land value element in the payment to EP when the land is sold for development. In turn, it will enable EP to reinvest more money in creating sustainable communities; in new housing, including for key workers; in environmental improvements; and in supporting the delivery of regeneration and best practice throughout England.
  WS 46
  The regeneration benefits are described briefly above. There is much more, which will become apparent only once the development has begun, environmental improvements are being made, jobs are being filled and homes are being built. It is a programme of fitting scale and quality for a site that was the centrepiece of the millennium celebrations and is now a flagship project for London and the Thames Gateway.

  As regards deliverability and sustainability, the participants in the development include players with established records in delivering developments of the size and quality this project requires. That is their core business. Anschutz Entertainment Group is part of the Anschutz Corporation, one of the largest private corporations in the United States of America. It has worldwide sporting and entertainment interests, including the Staples Centre arena in Los Angeles and the new arena it is building in Berlin. Lend Lease is a major development company, quoted on the Australian stock exchange and operating in 40 countries. It owns Bovis in the UK and has successfully developed the Sydney Olympic village and Bluewater shopping centre. Quintain is a significant player and is quoted on the London Stock Exchange. It is also involved in Wembley and several other large mixed-use developments and regeneration schemes. These players have the resources, the experience and the ability to deliver.

  The arena and associated entertainment and leisure facilities will be a highly appropriate use for what is widely acknowledged to be a world-class landmark building. Public access is assured. Keeping the Dome as the linchpin of the development has been welcomed by the London Borough of Greenwich and the Mayor. The Government believe that the regeneration programme now secured for the Greenwich peninsula amply satisfies all four of the criteria that were set out for it. We look forward to work starting on site in the near future, leading to the delivery of the continued regeneration of a key site in the evolution of Greenwich, London and the Thames Gateway.

  Elections: All-Postal Ballots
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
  Elections were held on Thursday June 10 2004 for local authorities in England and Wales, for the London Assembly, for the Mayor of London and for the European Parliament. Following the passage of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Act 2004, voting in four regions of England—the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber and the east Midlands—was carried out by postal ballot. The elections were successfully completed. A total of 6,044 councillors were elected in England and Wales; 25 members of the London Assembly were elected; a Mayor of London was elected; and 78 United Kingdom members of the European Parliament were elected.
  WS 47
  In summary, the picture is as follows. In the four all-postal pilot regions, overall turnout in the European parliamentary election has more than doubled, compared to that in 1999, going up from about 20 per cent to 42 per cent. In the other regions, turnout is also up, but by around half on the 1999 figures. Nearly three million more people voted in the four pilot regions in these European elections than in 1999. In places with all-postal local elections last week, turnout was substantially higher than elsewhere, with cities such as Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool showing increases in turnout of around half as much again since the last local elections. We believe therefore that the all-postal pilots have shown, on a significantly larger scale than ever before, that a system in which a postal vote is automatically given to every elector positively encourages participation.

  The Electoral Commission will evaluate the pilots, and its report is due to be published in mid-September. The commission will examine the extent to which the manner in which the elections were conducted affected the incidence of electoral offences or malpractice. During the elections, a number of allegations of malpractice were made. Allegations of malpractice and fraud will be investigated, but, with a small number of exceptions, such allegations are not reflected in either the experiences of the electoral administrators or reports to the Crown Prosecution Service. Regional returning officers are not reporting a higher volume of problems than in previous elections. For example, the regional returning officer for the north-west, Sir Howard Bernstein, and the Greater Manchester Police issued a joint statement saying:
  "While the nature of allegations has changed this year, the scale has not increased—if anything, it has lessened".

  There were also some concerns expressed about the witness signature requirement on the declaration of identity form. The Government and the Electoral Commission had reservations about that requirement, and it was almost certainly a factor in limiting turnout. In pilots in local elections in 2003, there was a significantly higher turnout where no witness statement was used. We believe that there are better alternative security arrangements which avoid complexity and avoid the need for electors to disclose their intention to cast a ballot.

  There were, in addition, a number of technical difficulties during the pilots. Returning officers, the Royal Mail and other suppliers worked very effectively together to overcome those difficulties where they occurred. Of the 14.1 million ballot packs, over 99 per cent were issued by returning officers by the deadline of midnight on 1 June. The few remaining packs were issued by 5.10 the following morning. Royal Mail provided an outstanding service in supporting the administrators and suppliers and ensuring that their role in the process was delivered effectively.

  Our judgement is therefore that the pilots confirm conclusions from previous pilots in 2002 and 2003. These have already been evaluated by the Electoral Commission, which concluded that, with some further
  WS 48
  development, there should in future be a statutory presumption in favour of all-postal voting in local elections. The Government are therefore also confirming their intention for the proposed autumn regional referendums in the three northern regions to be on an all-postal basis.

  The success of the all-postal pilots will provide a strong base from which we can develop a multichannel approach to elections in the future, giving further choice and opportunity to electors to have their say. Lessons from the pilots will be incorporated into the Government's wider plans for electoral modernisation, which include traditional methods of voting and alternatives such as postal balloting and electronic voting.

  Although testing all-postal voting on this scale was bound to present challenges, the challenges were met, and the Government believe that this is a positive result for engagement and participation in the democratic process.

  1999 & 2004 European election comparison

  Region

  1999

  2004

  East Midlands

  22.6%

  44.6%

  North East

  19.6%

  41.5%

  North West

  19.4%

  41.5%

  Yorkshire & Humber

  19.6%

  42.9%

  East of England

  24.5%

  36.6%

  London

  23.0%

  37.7%

  South East

  24.7%

  36.5%

  South West

  27.6%

  37.8%

  West Midlands

  21.0%

  36.6%

  Scotland

  24.7%,

  30.9%

  Northern Ireland

  57.8%

  51.7%

  Wales

  29.0%

  41.9%

  Total pilot regions

  20.2%,

  42.6%

  Total non-pilot regions

  25.9%

  37.2%

  Total

  24.0%

  38.9%

  2004 European and Local Comparison

  Non-Pilot

  Pilot

  Percentage Point Difference

  European

  37.2%

  42.6%

  5.4

  Local

  37.9%

  43.6%

  5.7

  The table below compares turnouts for a sample of local authorities that did not pilot at the May 2003 elections with the results in the June 2004 elections, when all-postal voting was available.

  Local Authority

  2003

  2004

  Percentage Point Change

  Liverpool

  21.70%

  33.50%

  11.8

  Leeds

  29.80%

  43.00%

  13.2

  Derby

  30.60%

  46.48%

  15.88

  The table below compares turnouts for local authorities that piloted in 2003 (when witness statements were not required) and again in 2004 (this time with witness statements required).

  Local Authority

  2003

  2004

  Percentage Point change

  Newcastle

  49.90%

  46.80%

  -3.1

  Sunderland

  47.70%

  40.50%

  -7.2

  Gateshead

  54.70%

  47.71%

  -6.99

  Trafford

  52.39%

  45%

  -7.39

  Mental Capacity Bill
  Lord Filkin
  The Mental Capacity Bill was published on Friday in the other place. The Bill is the culmination of extensive consultation and careful consideration over many years of the needs of people who lack mental capacity. It also benefits considerably from pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee. The Committee made 99 recommendations for improvements to the Bill, 88 of which the Government accepted and used to improve the Bill introduced today.

  The overriding aim of the Bill is to improve the lives of vulnerable adults, their carers, families and professionals. It provides a statutory framework for decision making for people who may lack capacity, making it clear who can take decisions, in which situations and how they should go about it.

  The Bill is based on clearly defined principles. Its starting point is that everyone has the right to make their own decisions and must be assumed to have the capacity to do so, unless it is proved otherwise. No one should be labelled as "incapable". Each decision should be considered individually, and everyone should be helped to make or contribute to making decisions about their life. The Bill sets out clear guidelines for and limits on other people's role in decision making.

  The Bill has the potential to improve the lives of millions of people. At some point in their life, everyone is likely to be affected by mental incapacity, either personally or because of caring responsibilities. Up to two million people currently lack capacity, including, for example, over 700,000 people in the UK who suffer from dementia and 145,000 adults in England who have severe and profound learning disabilities.

  People affected by a lack of capacity are not well served by the current law, which has grown up in a piecemeal way. It is difficult to plan ahead for a time when you might lose capacity, and there is no reliable framework to support carers in their decision making. The absence of a clear legal framework means that it is not always clear who can do what, or how anyone can determine where another person's best interests lie. Some people may think that they can do whatever suits them, perhaps because of a family relationship. Others may err on the side of doing too little, worrying about criticism or even prosecution for the actions that they might take.

  We know that there is much good practice in making decisions on behalf of adults who lack capacity. The Bill will, over time, bring about a quiet revolution in public attitudes and practice, building on current good practice and existing statutory and common law rules. The Bill will provide greater empowerment and better protection for vulnerable people and for those who face the difficult and sensitive task of handling decisions on their behalf.

  The Bill offers better protection for people who lack capacity and for carers and professionals. For the first time, it offers statutory guidance to help assess what constitutes someone's best interests. All decisions must be made in the best interests of the incapacitated
  WS 50
  person, with adequate weight given to what they would have wanted—their wishes, feelings, values and beliefs—and ensure the least restrictive effect possible on their basic rights and freedoms.

  Guided by those principles, the Bill provides a legal basis for a person to undertake "acts in connection with care and treatment" on behalf of an adult who lacks capacity. That provision was drafted as a "general authority" in the draft Bill, but we have renamed and recast it to ensure that it is not misinterpreted or misunderstood. The provision is not about granting a new authority to intervene in the life of someone lacking capacity but simply confirms that carers are protected from liability when they demonstrably act in the best interests of a person who lacks capacity to consent to what is done.

  The Bill provides formal mechanisms to support the decision-making process and offer protection to those involved. It establishes lasting powers of attorney (LPAs), allowing people to appoint an attorney to act on their behalf if they should lose capacity in the future. Unlike a current enduring power of attorney (EPA), an LPA can extend to welfare and health matters, as well as financial matters, if the donor wishes. The Bill also creates a system of court-appointed deputies to replace and extend the current system of receivership in the Court of Protection.

  The Bill clarifies, with additional safeguards, the current common law rules about advance decisions to refuse treatment. This confirms that people may plan ahead, if they wish, to refuse specific treatments. A properly made, valid and applicable advance decision has the same weight as a refusal of treatment made by a person with capacity, but doctors will need to consider whether the advance decision is valid and applicable, and any doubt must always be resolved in favour of the preservation of life.

  There are other provisions to protect the needs of the person lacking capacity. The Bill introduces a new criminal offence of neglect or ill treatment that can he used against a carer, attorney or deputy who has ill treated or wilfully neglected a person who lacks capacity. A person found guilty of such an offence may be liable to a term of up to five years' imprisonment.

  The Bill sets up a new Court of Protection and a new statutory figure, the Public Guardian. Both will be built around the needs of those who lack capacity. The new court will have jurisdiction to consider applications for both financial and health and welfare decisions. The Public Guardian will be the registering authority for LPAs and court-appointed deputies and will work with other agencies, such as the police and social services, to respond to any concerns about possible abuse.

  Following the recommendations of the Joint Committee, the Bill provides for properly controlled research that respects the requirements in the Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC) implemented in the UK on 1 May 2004. This will allow for research into

  WS 51
  conditions related to mental incapacity and how people with capacity problems can be helped. Research studies will be endorsed by a research ethics committee to ensure that the project is necessary, safe and cannot be done using people who have mental capacity. There will be stringent safeguards around an individual's participation in a study.

  The Bill will also now provide for an independent consultee to speak up for people who do not have a relative or carer when decisions are taken about serious medical treatment or long-term residential care. The intention is that such consultees will also be involved in annual care reviews for those people, where they have previously been involved in the original decision. There will be a regulation-making power to extend the provision to other serious decisions and vulnerable groups on which we intend to consult stakeholders.

  The Government agree with the Joint Committee that codes of practice will be essential for the proper
  WS 52
  and effective implementation of the new legislation and that drafts should be available to assist parliamentary consideration of the Bill. Therefore, codes of practice will be available at Commons Committee stage. There will be extensive consultation on full codes of practice to accompany the Bill when it becomes law, and they will be laid before Parliament in draft. Copies of the draft codes will be available in the Libraries, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office, when they are published at Committee stage.

  The Government very much welcomed the Joint Committee's finding that,
  "many of the fears that have been raised about possible connections between the draft Bill and euthanasia appear to be misplaced".

  The Bill has nothing at all to do with euthanasia. Its aim is to empower and increase protection for thousands of vulnerable adults. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Bill now expressly states that nothing in it affects the law on murder, manslaughter or assisted suicide.